Also known as: search warrants
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A judicial order by which a neutral magistrate authorizes law enforcement officers to enter and search a specified location and to seize particular items of evidence or contraband. The order requires a showing of probable cause that seizable items will be found at the place described and must identify the place and items with particularity on its face.
Solomon Silver's neighbor reports seeing him load boxes of suspected stolen electronics into his garage late at night. Officers corroborate the report with recent theft complaints matching the items described. A magistrate issues a warrant to search the garage after finding a fair probability that the electronics are inside. Officers execute the warrant and seize the boxes.
Steven Silva is suspected of possessing illegal firearms. Officers obtain a warrant that describes his apartment building but lists only "evidence of firearms violations" without naming specific guns or documents. They seize rifles and ledgers during the search. The court later suppresses the items because the warrant failed to identify the objects to be seized on its face.
Stephen Shaw is stopped outside his home after officers smell marijuana coming from inside. One detective leaves to seek a warrant while the others keep Shaw on the porch for nearly two hours and prevent him from entering alone. The warrant arrives and officers search the residence. The restraint is upheld as a reasonable measure to protect evidence.
Selena Singh's home is searched under a warrant later found to lack probable cause because the supporting affidavit was too conclusory. Officers had presented the affidavit to a neutral magistrate who signed the warrant without apparent bias. The seized documents are admitted at trial because the officers relied on the warrant in objective good faith.
Sean Steele is arrested for drunk driving after a crash. Officers draw his blood at the hospital without a warrant because alcohol dissipates quickly. The court upholds the draw under the exigent circumstances exception rather than requiring prior judicial approval for the bodily intrusion.
Petitioner Schmerber and a companion had been drinking at a tavern and bowling alley on November 12, 1964. Petitioner was driving from the bowling alley about midnight when the car skidded, crossed the road, and struck a tree. Both petitioner and his companion were injured and taken to a hospital for treatment. A police officer who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident smelled liquor on petitioner's breath and testified that petitioner's eyes were bloodshot, watery, and sort of a glassy appearance. The officer saw petitioner again at the hospital within two hours of the accident and noticed similar symptoms of drunkenness. He thereupon informed petitioner that he was under arrest and that he was entitled to the services of an attorney, that he could remain silent, and that anything he told the officer would be used against him in evidence. At the direction of a police officer, a blood sample was then withdrawn from petitioner's body by a physician at the hospital. The chemical analysis of this sample revealed a percent by weight of alcohol in his blood at the time of the offense which indicated intoxication. The report of this analysis was admitted in evidence at the trial. Petitioner objected to receipt of this evidence of the analysis on the ground that the blood had been withdrawn despite his refusal, on the advice of his counsel, to consent to the test. Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles Municipal Court of the criminal offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Appellate Department of the California Superior Court rejected petitioner's contentions and affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSylvia Santos is the target of an investigation by an independent counsel. The counsel applies to a federal judge for a search warrant to obtain financial records. The judge reviews the application ex parte and issues the warrant after determining probable cause exists. The process illustrates the neutral magistrate function in authorizing the search.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseProbable cause exists when the facts show a fair probability that evidence or contraband will be found in the place to be searched. The magistrate must make an independent determination based on the affidavit or sworn testimony.
Yes. The warrant itself must particularly describe the place and the items. A supporting affidavit cannot cure a warrant that fails to list the objects with sufficient specificity on its face.
Officers who have probable cause and are diligently seeking a warrant may prevent the homeowner from entering unaccompanied for a reasonable time to avoid destruction of evidence.
Evidence is admissible when officers reasonably rely on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate even if the warrant later proves defective, unless the affidavit was knowingly false, the magistrate abandoned neutrality, or the warrant was facially deficient.
No. An arrest warrant alone does not permit entry into a third party's residence. Officers must obtain a separate search warrant for that home absent exigent circumstances.
…is entirely unsurprising that evidence of enforcement would be hard to come by. (Imagine the circumstances that would enable a search warrant to be obtained for a residence on the ground that there was probable cause to believe that consensual sodomy was then and there occurring.) Surely that lack of evidence would not sustain…