Illegal Seizures in Drug Cases: A Closer Look

One of the most important protections in the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of random searches and seizures. Unless police officers had a valid warrant prior to the search and seizure, and unless a narrow search warrant exception applied, drugs or other physical evidence is inadmissible in court. The same thing is true for secondary evidence (e.g. ballistics tests on an illegally-seized gun).

Procedural issues, like Fourth Amendment violations, are often pivotal for a Leesburg criminal defense lawyer. If prosecutors need additional evidence, they may be able to find additional witnesses. If a legal defense applies, they could find a loophole. But no one can turn back the clock and correct a procedural error. So, a possible procedural error typically causes a drug possession or other criminal case to collapse like a house of cards.

Warrant Issues

Very few drug possession cases involve search warrants. Everything happens so fast that officers don’t have time, or we should say don’t take the time, to obtain warrants. However, search warrants are very common in other drug seizure cases, such as drug trafficking matters.

To a Leesburg criminal defense lawyer, a valid warrant must be based on a probable cause affidavit and narrowly tailored to fit the facts in that affidavit.

An affidavit is a written document that a person with knowledge of the facts signed in front of a notary and submitted to a judge. An affidavit is not an oral statement or a document signed with a rubber stamp.

Probable cause basically means that the defendant is probably guilty. The uncorroborated testimony of a paid informant is not probable cause. Most people will say practically anything for love or money.

Accuracy doesn’t cure unreliability. Prosecutors cannot work backwards. The affidavit stands or falls based on the reliable information available at the time.

Consent Searches

If they don’t have warrants, police officers usually ask owners, or apparent owners, for consent to search. An apparent owner is a person like a roommate who isn’t on the lease.

Usually, consent is voluntary and affirmative. If officers threaten to get a warrant if the owner doesn’t consent, that consent is involuntary.

Incidentally, the “we’ll get a warrant” threat is usually an empty threat. If officers had probable cause to obtain a warrant, they wouldn’t ask for consent.

Furthermore, consent is affirmative. Opening the door for an officer is not affirmative consent. “I guess so” isn’t affirmative either. Officers need a firm “yes,” preferably in writing or otherwise recorded.

Plain View Searches

If officers are legally in a certain place at a certain time, they may seize contraband they see in plain view.

This exception usually hinges on the legality of the stop. If officers illegally pull over Ralph because he “doesn’t look right” or they have “a hunch” he’s up to no good, the stop was illegal, and so is the plain view search and seizure.

Contact a Dedicated Loudoun County Lawyer

There’s a big difference between an arrest and a conviction in criminal law. For a confidential consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Leesburg, contact Simms Showers, LLP, Attorneys at Law. The sooner you reach out to us, the sooner we start working for you.

Source:

constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/