Unreasonable Searches

Showing the courts that an unreasonable search has been made is a large part of defending drug offenses. The rules of what is considered ‘unreasonable’ are not always clear, and it is up to the defending attorney to interpret these rules. To do so they must show three things: a search has occurred, privacy should be expected and the search was unreasonable.

Searches

It is very important to show that what has happened is considered a ‘search’ in the legal sense. Many of the methods a police officer may use to gather evidence are not considered searches unless they intrude on the individual’s privacy. For example, if a police officer stopped a vehicle on the highway for speeding, then noticed a large amount of narcotics in the backseat, that would not be considered a search because the evidence is in ‘plain view’. On the other hand, if the police were to open the door of the car, without having first witnessed evidence of a crime, and search through the vehicle, it would be considered an illegal search.

Rules of Privacy

Everyone should expect a certain amount of privacy on their own property. But we’ve all heard about police making ‘stakeouts’ and using expensive technology to peer into people’s homes. So where does the law draw the line and say what acts are intruding on a person’s privacy?

Generally, if the police remain outside the property and look in, it is not considered a violation of privacy. Anything that can be seen from the outside can be seen by the public, so privacy should not be expected. The police may remain outside the property, and if they witness evidence of a crime, they will be able to enter without a warrant and gather evidence in the vicinity of the arrest.

Even though the police can’t enter, they still find ways to gather evidence without making a rights violation. Aerial photography and listening to conversations are two common ways the police will try and get enough evidence to get a warrant.

Unreasonable Searches

If the courts decide that the police did not have the rights to make a search, any evidence gained as a result will be inadmissable. This means that the prosecution cannot bring it up during the trial and the jury will never know of its existence. This rule is called the ‘exclusionary rule’ and the its purpose is to dissuade the police from making illegal searches.

The courts have another rule which is include with the exclusionary rule. Any evidence that is found as the result of excluded evidence also becomes inadmissable. For example, if the police made an illegal search on a person and found a note that indicated a stash of drugs hidden on their property, they would then get a search warrant from the District Attorney to search the property. After the criminal attorney suppressed the evidence of the note, they can also suppress the narcotics that were found as a result of the note. Prosecution and law enforcement will always fight this rule, and try to argue that the evidence should remain because they would have discovered it without that pieced of evidence. A great criminal attorney can make these rules stick, and successfully defend your rights in court.