Also known as: search warrant
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A judicial authorization issued by a neutral magistrate that permits law enforcement officers to enter and search a specified place or person for particular items of evidence or contraband. The authorization rests on a showing of probable cause that seizable items will be found at the location described. The warrant must describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized with particularity.
Federal agents received a tip that Serena Soto stored counterfeit goods in a warehouse she controlled. They corroborated the tip with surveillance showing frequent deliveries matching the description. A magistrate issued a search warrant for the warehouse after finding a fair probability that the contraband would be located there. Officers executed the warrant and seized the goods.
Investigators applied for a warrant to search Simon Stern's law office for client files linked to a fraud scheme. The warrant form listed only the office address and left the items to be seized blank. Officers seized every file cabinet during the search. The court later suppressed the evidence because the warrant failed to describe the items on its face.
Officers developed probable cause that Scott Summers kept narcotics inside his apartment. One detective left to obtain a search warrant while the others remained outside and prevented Summers from entering alone. The restraint lasted under two hours until the warrant arrived. Officers then entered and seized the drugs without incident.
Detectives submitted an affidavit with sparse facts to a magistrate and received a signed search warrant for Sebastian Santos's residence. Officers executed the warrant in objective reliance on the magistrate's approval and seized evidence. A reviewing court later found the affidavit insufficient for probable cause. The evidence remained admissible because the officers acted in good faith.
Police arrested Sophia Singh for driving under the influence after a collision. An officer directed a hospital technician to draw her blood without first obtaining a warrant. The sample revealed a high blood-alcohol level. The court suppressed the results because no emergency justified bypassing the warrant process 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 caseAn independent counsel sought judicial approval for a search warrant targeting records in a government office. The assigned judge reviewed the application ex parte and issued the warrant after confirming probable cause. The process illustrated the neutral judicial function in authorizing the search. The records obtained under the warrant were later used in the investigation.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseOfficers must demonstrate probable cause that seizable evidence or contraband will be found in the place to be searched. The magistrate reviews the affidavit to determine whether a fair probability exists under the totality of the circumstances.
Supporting sources
The warrant expires once the period ends. Any search conducted after that date lacks authorization and the evidence is subject to suppression when the defendant shows prejudice from the untimely execution.
Supporting sources
Yes. Officers may rely on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate unless the warrant is facially deficient, the magistrate abandoned neutrality, or the officers misled the magistrate with false information. Suppression is not required when reliance was objectively reasonable.
Supporting sources
Yes. When officers have probable cause to believe contraband is inside and are diligently seeking a warrant, they may briefly detain the occupant outside the home for a reasonable time to prevent evidence destruction.
Supporting sources
…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…