If a ada acknowledges that their wasnt no arrest or search n seizure warrant and now the defense put a motion in for the defendant and it was granted by the judge for a suppressing hearing what can be the outcome can anyone tell me from past experience
Not enough information provided. An arrest warrant is not necessary to arrest someone. A search warrant is not necessarily required to discover evidence and have it admissible for trial. Speak with your criminal defense lawyer.
If this answer is helpful, then please mark the helpful button. If this is the best answer, then please indicate it. Thanks. For further information you should see an attorney and discuss the matter completely. If you are in the New York City area, then you can reach me during normal business hours at 718 329 9500 or www.mynewyorkcitylawyer.com.
Education Law Attorney
I agree with the first attorney's answer, and note the following in follow-up to his response that may clarify things for you. Specifically, please note the six major exceptions to the warrant to conduct a search discussed below.
A search incident to lawful arrest does not require issuance of a warrant. In other words, if someone is lawfully arrested, the police may search her person and any area surrounding the person that is within reach (within his or her “wingspan”). See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The rationale is that the search is permissible as a protective measure.
No warrant is required to seize evidence in plain view if the police are legitimately in the location from which the evidence can be viewed. For example, an officer cannot illegally enter a suspect’s back yard and then use the plain view exception to seize drugs. But, if on the premises to serve a warrant duly issued to search for marijuana plants, these additional drugs can rightly be seized if in plain view.
If consent is given by a person reasonably believed by an officer to have authority to give such consent, no warrant is required for a search or seizure. So, if a suspect’s "significant other" provides police with a key to the suspect’s apartment, and police reasonably believe that she lives there, the search will not violate suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights even if she did not live there and even if she, in fact, lacked authority to consent, . See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).
Police may stop a suspect so long as there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. The evidence necessary for “reasonable suspicion” here is something beyond mere suspicion, but is less than the level required for probable cause. If there is reason to believe that the person may be armed and dangerous, the police can also frisk the suspect. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Because vehicles are obviously highly mobile, a warrant is not required to search vehicles if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. Although commonly referred to as the “automobile exception,” this rule applies to any vehicle, including boats. While in some ways, it is quite a broad exception, this rule limits the ability to search those areas which might contain evidence of the type suspected to be present. In other words, if police suspect that the occupant of a boat is smuggling people across the border, searching a small tackle box on board would not be permissible. However, if they were looking for drugs, they could search the tackle box. The rationale is that, if an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle might be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed. See Carroll v. United States, 267 US. 132 (1925).
Emergencies/hot pursuit is the sixth exception to the warrant requirement. The rationale here is similar to the automobile exception. Evidence that can be easily moved, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued may be seized without a warrant. Furthermore, if a suspect enters private property while being pursued by officers, no warrant is required to enter that property in order to continue pursuit, even if the suspect is in no way connected with the property owner.
This is not legal advice and the within response does not create an attorney client relationship between this office/me and any other person or entity. Hans Gillinger Of Counsel Law Offices of Bonnie Z. Yates 13323 Washington Blvd., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90066 tel: (310) 204-6624 fax: (310) 204-6624 Direct: (310) 279-5048 Email: email@example.com web: bonniezyates.com