The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable or frivolous searches and seizures upon private property. If a government agency enters private property with a warrant, legally a search has already begun. If property is taken during this search, a seizure has occurred. This can include detaining or arresting a person.
The burden of proof is on the government to show that the evidence was obtained legally. Moving to suppress illegally obtained evidence is much easier in state courts than in federal.
In federal cases, it is extremely difficult to have evidence thrown out on these grounds, so it is crucial to have representation that is equipped to fight illegal evidence in your trial.
Was Evidence Collected in Violation of Your Rights?
Stop Searching. Start Calling.
24-Hour Criminal Law Hotline
Searches conducted without a warrant are a necessary corollary discussion to my analysis of searches of persons, their homes, and their vehicles with a warrant. The Fourth Amendment provides for warrantless searches and seizures based upon probable cause before police can arrest someone (subject to certain exceptions).
Probable cause to arrest requires more than mere suspicion. Many arguments focus on the rule that reasonable suspicion required under the rules is specific to the person who is detained.
The totality of the circumstances must raise a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing. The Supreme Court has stated case law does not establish a general license to detain everyone within arm's reach of the individual whose conduct gives rise to reasonable suspicion.
Rather, the Court has stressed that "this demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."
When the focus of the inquiry centers upon flight only, with no other indications of criminal activity, the courts have been actually very clear. The inquiry focuses on the degree of suspicion that attaches to a person's flight — or, more precisely, what common-sense conclusions can be drawn from it. The stereotypical conclusion of guilty without objective factual corroborative facts renders flight in and of itself, no indicia of criminal conduct. Consequently, suppression of evidence should be granted.
The case decisions establish a frame work within which Motion to Suppress should be filed in every case. Where there is search and seizure without a warrant, the totality of the circumstances dictating innocence will prevail and compel a court to proactively suppress evidence illegally seized and preclude criminal trials on illegally secured evidence. My experience handling these cases, litigating these motions, insures competent, proactive legal representation.
Experienced Federal Criminal Defense Lawyers
At Hark and Hark, we deeply understand the minute nuances and considerations of illegal search and seizure matters. We will fight to protect your constitutional rights and provide you the most fair trial possible.
Our attorneys will thoroughly investigate the details of the search to determine if it was based on the consent of the accused, the arrest of the accused, probable cause or an emergency circumstance. If there are not legal grounds for the search, we will fight it, protecting your rights.
Questions About Search And Seizure? Ask Hark and Hark.
To arrange a free initial consultation to discuss the charges against you and a strategy for getting you justice, contact Hark and Hark online or call us toll free at 877-4-HARK-LAW (877-442-7552).
Free initial consultation. Reasonable rates and payment plans. Major credit cards accepted.