ASKED FOR SEARCH WARRANT BUT THEY SAID THEY DIDNT NEED ONE. THE PERSON WAS IN FACT IN MY HOUSE BUT I HAD ONLY FOUND OUT THEY WERE WANTED 20 MINUTES PRIOR TO THEM SHOWING UP AT MY HOUSE. AFTER THEY SHOWED UP I TOLD THEM I DIDNT WANT THEM TO COME IN AND THEY PUSHED THE DOOR OPEN AND TOLD ME TO SIT DOWN AND THEY STARTED SEARCHING FOR THE PERSON. THEY ALSO PICKED UP MY PERSONAL CELL PHONE AND WENT THROUGH MY PERSONAL PICTURES AND PASSED AROUND A INAPPROPRIATE PICTURE OF ME, AND TOOK PICTURES WITH THEIR CELL PHONE TO KEEP THE PICTURES THEY WANTED TO HAVE. FROM BEGINNING TO END I WAS BEGGING FOR THE WARRANT AND NEVER GOT IT. THEY TOOK ME FROM MY HOME AND LOCKED ME OUT OF MY HOUSE WITH NO KEY AND NO PHONE. ADVICE PLEASE?
You do not tell us whether you were arrested or charged with any criminal offense. If you were you should retain counsel and should not discuss this matter with anybody except your attorney and should not post about it on the internet, which is not confidential and which anybody, including the police, can read. That includes Avvo. This is not a confidential forum.
If you were not arrested or charged I assume you are asking whether you might have a civil action against the police. Again, you would do best to consult an attorney with whom you can review the situation in all its detail, which you obviously cannot do here.
Just in general, there are two separate questions here. First is whether the initial warrantless entry was unlawful. Perhaps, but it may well not have been. There are many exceptions to the warrant requirement and from the little you have told us I would expect the state to assert "hot pursuit," "exigent circumstances," and perhaps other exceptions as well. Whether any such exception would apply is a very fact-specific question far beyond the scope of what we can, or should, address here. Based only on what you have told us so far it is by no means clear that the initial entry, despite your objection and the absence of a warrant, was improper, although it might have been.
The second issue has to do with the scope of the search. In other words, even if the officers entered properly to begin with, did they exceed the scope of their authority by the extent and nature of the search? Again, a very fact-specific inquiry and all one can say based on the information you have given us is, maybe and maybe not.
And, of course, if you are asking about a civil remedy there is the question of damages. How were you really injured? This is particularly important if the overall search was proper but some parts of it were excessive.
These are only a few of the general questions that a lawyer would have to think about in order to begin analyzing your situation.
If the police believe person A is in the home of person B and they have grounds to arrest person A, they generally need an arrest warrant for person A and a search warrant to search the home of person B. Unless an exception the warrant requirement exists, such as hot pursuit or other emergency situation that prevented them from getting a warrant, the search of your house was illegal. So you could sue the police for violating your civil rights--a very expensive procedure with limited benefit since your damages were minimal.
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline