Los Angeles Criminal Lawyers Blog

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure. What areas can a person expect to have their privacy protected? Where does their privacy end, and public space is open.

Each person is protected by the Fourth Amendment in an area where they have a "legitimate expectation of privacy. " The difficult part is ascertaining what is considered to have a legitimate expectation of privacy. Case law has established a two part test to determine what is protected by a person's Constitutional rights. Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy, and was that privacy objectively reasonable?

For example, if a person is in a dressing room changing and officers have placed a video camera in the stall to catch shoplifters, it is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The person who is in the dressing room, expects that it is a private place, no one is watching, and therefore they have a legitimate expectation of privacy in a room where they changes, even if it is technically a public place.

In comparison, a person does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their back seat. For example, a driver has a box of heroin in his back seat. Officer's stop him for running a red light, and see the box in the back seat, in plain view. There is no legitimate expectation of privacy, because a backseat is visible to anyone who walks by a parked car or otherwise.

Another, trickier, example is a garage. A person often leaves their garage open for the neighborhood to say. So one can argue that similar to a back seat, it is in public view and can be seen and therefore there is no legitimate expectation of privacy. However, it is a part of a person's home, where they expect to have privacy. A garage can be argued either way, a presentation and strong argument presented by a Southern California Criminal Lawyer will determine whether the person had a legitimate
expectation of privacy or not. If the person leaves their garage open often, and has neighbors and others in and out of it, there may not be an expectation of privacy, and may not be protected by the Fourth Amendment. However, if the person stores lots of personal belongings and keeps the door closed, then there is an argument that it is private and is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Determining whether the area searched had a legitimate expectation of privacy is the first and foremost concern with a claim for Fourth Amendment violation. Constitutional rights are taken very seriously, and if there is a claim for a violation, the Court will deal with it very seriously. Consult an experienced San Diego Criminal Attorney so that you know if your Fourth Amendment rights were violated. If they were, it could leave to the evidence being thrown out and your case being reduced or dismissed.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a person is protected against illegal search and seizure. No one's personal space with which they have a legitimate right to privacy may be violated by unreasonable search. Any authority searching personal spaces must have a search warrant, or probable cause, or the search will be unreasonable.

If the evidence was seized unreasonably, and it is proven in Court that officer's violated the person's Fourth Amendment rights, the exclusionary rule will apply.

The exclusionary rule states that any evidence that has been obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure, will be excluded as direct evidence in a criminal case. Many feel that it is extreme to now allow evidence that could convict a guilty person due to a officer's misconduct. However, the exclusionary rule deters officers from straying from rules that protect a citizen's privacy.

For example, officers have been watching David grow and sell marijuana in large quantities for about two weeks. They have gathered surveillance and photographs that could convict David. One day, while David is putting away kilos of marijuana in his garage, officers who are watching storm into his home and confiscate all evidence they find. The officer's search was unreasonable. They had time to get a search warrant, and did not need to immediately search the premises. There was no exigent circumstances that warranted immediate action. Immediate action will comprise reasonable searches in situations where there is an immediate threat of the suspect getting away, or evidence being destroyed. In this situation, David did not know that the officers were watching, and officers did not need to act immediately.

When David's case goes to Court, the evidence confiscated in the house will fall under the exclusionary rule and will not be used as direct evidence against him at the trial for Drug Possession and Sales. This ensures in the future that officers take the time to obtain a valid search warrant and demonstrate to the Judge that there is enough evidence to justify an intrusion of Defendant's property.

An experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense lawyer has dealt with thousands of criminal defense cases. Many of which involve evidence that was obtained illegally and in violation of a person's Constitutional rights. These pieces of evidence should not be considered at trial. In many situations, when the evidence is not admitted, it leads to a dismissal of the charge for lack of evidence. This is why it is very important to determine whether all evidence was obtained properly, otherwise it could result in your charges being dropped or dismissed. Consult a Los Angeles Criminal Defense attorney to discuss your case and assess the facts so that you are sure you properly present all defenses that are available to you and proper arguments that strengthen your case.

When an officer feels that they need to search your home, personal space or belongings, they will have to obtain a search warrant. Your personal space is protected from unreasonable searches by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. If officers feel that they have to search any area that is under your immediate control and personal, they must obtain a search warrant, unless there is probable cause for an immediate search.

In situations where there are no exigent circumstances, officers will have to first obtain a search warrant. Exigent circumstances are those in which if the officer's don't act immediately, the evidence may be destroyed, or they may lose the suspect.

For example, officer's respond to call made by neighbors regarding loud noise and yelling coming from the house next door. When officers arrive at the house, a distressed woman answers and looks as if she has been harmed. Officers ask if she is ok, and hear voices in the background saying that it is the police and officer's see drug paraphernalia and drugs on the table behind the woman. Immediately, officers ask the woman to step aside, enter the premises and confiscate all drugs and related paraphernalia.

In that situation, there was no time to obtain a search warrant. If officers had gone to get a search warrant from a Judge, the evidence would have been destroyed and cleaned out. Officers had probable cause to search the home without a warrant. Probable cause is based on the specific facts of the situation. In this case, the officers saw drugs and paraphernalia that indicated drug usage. They had reason to believe that drugs were being illegally used and sold based on what they saw. They also had reason to believe that if they did not act quickly, the drugs and evidence would be destroyed, causing it to be difficult to bring a Los Angeles Drug Sale charge later.

In comparison, lets assume officers have been watching a guy for a few weeks. He has been selling drugs and smuggling drugs into the country. They have lots of evidence to indicate that he is involved in serious drug sales, but need some more before they move in on him. On a stake out officers observe the suspect, without his knowledge, take unmarked packages and move them into his garage. The packages are undeniably cocaine. Officers come up to the suspect and search his garage and home. In this situation, officers did not act in accordance with the suspect's fourth amendment rights. There were no exigent circumstances. Officers had been watching the suspect for some time and had evidence against him already. The suspect did not know he was being watched so he would not have destroyed evidence, or run from the officers. Officers had the time to obtain a search warrant and then present it to the suspect and proceed with searching the home.

If you feel that officers acted without a search warrant when one was required, your case could be dismissed. Consult a Los Angeles Criminal Defense lawyer to assess whether your Constitutional rights were violated.

Under the United States Constitution, you are provided many protections and right. One of the most heavily protected rights is the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Fourth Amendment right reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The right protects your privacy, and promises that your personal space and belongings will not be unreasonably searched. However, officers and government agents have the right to search your personal space and belongings under circumstances that make it reasonable.

Reasonable searches will be valid where officers can obtain a search warrant from judge, or where they feel that there is probable cause. Probable cause searches, without a search warrant, will be justified when there are exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances are situations in which if the officers waited to obtain a search warrant, the evidence could be destroyed, someone is about to commit a crime, or where they feel the suspect would get away.

For example, let's say officer's stop a driver for running a red light during the day. When officers step up to the vehicle the driver fully cooperates, provides officers with license and registration and explains that he is late for an important meeting and was not paying attention. The driver is wearing a suit, is apologetic and has a clean car. Officer's ask the driver to step out of the car and search the entire care, including the glove compartment and the person's briefcase in the backseat for drugs.

This would be a violation of the driver's fourth amendment rights. It is daytime, the man is well dressed and all facts point to the fact that he is heading to work and is late for a meeting. There is no smell or signs that indicate the man is intoxicated and under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. The search is unreasonable and unwarranted and the officers have violated the driver's rights to privacy.

In comparison, let's consider the same scenario. However, this time it is nighttime, the driver is dressed in shorts and a t-shirt. He tells officers he is late to go somewhere, but pauses a lot between words, and forgets his train of thought. Additionally, when officers approach the vehicle the driver opens a window and fans out some smoke, and the car smells of strong marijuana. In this situation, the visible smoke, and the smell justify the suspicion that there may be drugs in the car. Officers search the car and the person's contents. This is not an unreasonable search, like the previous example, because there is probable cause to believe that the driver had drugs in his possession which could be a criminal violation.

If your personal space or belongings have been searched, it may be unreasonable. A violation of your Fourth Amendment rights could lead to a dismissal of your case. Consult a knowledgeable San Diego Criminal Defense specialist to determine whether your case should be dismissed.