does airplane security have a warrant to search your stuff?
80493
I don't think they need a warrant for the simple fact you are not at home or in your car. You are wanting to board a commercial airliner to travel somewhere, sometimes with a whole lot of other people. See I don't know if you know this, but commercial airliners have this problem of blowing up or in some cases crashing into buildings if the wrong people or things get on board. \n\nCarry on and checked bags are subject to being searched, especially when airline security cannot determine by X-ray the contents of a package. Leave your gifts unwrapped until after you get to where you are going. Airline security will open it if X-rays can't identify whats inside. \n\nIf you want to fly be prepared for yourself and your bags to be searched ... what are you trying to hide anyway? I don't have a problem having my bags searched, I'm paying for the ride, I look at it this way, they have the right. If it keeps someone (or a group) from boarding the flight that has intentions of ending my life and those of everyone else prematurely so be it.
413845
I don't think they have the right if they don't have a warrant you should check into it.
1182476
all warrants have extradition limits. warrants can be issued for anything. you need to research the topic. i am not going to broaden your question with a decent answer.
915639
The USA PATRIOT Act warrants aside, which are readily granted ex parte -- law enforcement agency can only enter a home without a warrant under special circumstances (hot pursuit, danger of fire, etc.). There is a principle of "exigent circumstances" discussed in this article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n9_v65/ai_18826919/pg_1  And US Customs may have greater rights than other police agencies, although a quick search just now has not clarified that point for me. The cases below might help on that:\n\nHere's a recent case concerning Customs entry of a ship, U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez http://supreme.justia.com/us/462/579/case.html and one of a car, U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html (Border Patrol; discusses warrantless arrests by ordinary police -- for example on the front porch of a house)\n\nPROBATION OFFICERS are a special case. Here's a memo (in MS Word *.doc format) on that: http://www.dps.state.ak.us/apsc/bulletins/legalmanual/NPROBATIONOFFICERSANDPRIVATEPERSONSEARCHES.doc\n\nADDENDUM: I would not take too seriously unsupported statements by others regarding legislation supposedly signed by President Clinton in derogation of Constitutional rights. In fact, the validity of parts of the USA PATRIOT that purport to do away with Constitutional rights (habeas corpus, etc.) in certain cases have yet to be tested in the US Supreme Court.
1105291
yes, but you will need a warrant from the FBI or  a local law office.  This is considered private info. and there has to be a  legal reason for wanting it.
916359
Well, I'm impressed that you know what a wing-span search is. But, for those who don't, I'll give a bit of explanation before answering your question.\n\nThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can conduct what is called a "wing-span" search of a vehicle to protect their own safety. If a part of the vehicle can be reached by someone sitting inside the vehicle, the police are allowed to search it to ensure there are no weapons. This search is a search for strictly for weapons. However, if any evidence of a crime is found while the officer is searching for weapons, the evidence is admissable in court, as a by-product of a legal search.\n\nThe scope of a wing-span search is determined by several factors: 1. Size of vehicle. 2. Number of occupants in vehicle. 3. Size of occupants. 4. Position of occupants in vehicle. 5. Layout of vehicle interior.\n\nIn a small compact car, pretty much the entire inside of the car can be searched, even if there is only the driver in the car. But in a large SUV, that's not the case. If the only people in the SUV are in the front seats, then the police can search the front seats, under them, behind them, and to a point in the back where a person sitting in the front could reach. The back seats might be searchable, but behind them would not be. If there is someone sitting in the back, though, this area can be searched. Similarly, in a normal car, the trunk will not be searchable in a wing-span. But, if the back seat is folded down, or unlatched, allowing access to the trunk from the back seat, it could be a searchable area. Also on that note, an unlocked glove box is searchable, a locked on is generally not.\n\nIf a police officer finds any evidence of illegal activity, or something that gives him/her probable cause to believe a crime has been, or is about to be committed, then the officer can widen the scope of the search to include the entire vehicle. Many things can contribute to probable cause, and it can vary widely based on the circumstances.\n\nIf an officer searches a part of the vehicle that is not covered by the wing-span, and cannot articulate probable cause to have done so, then the part of the search that went beyond the bounds of the wing-span could be declared as illegal, and anything gained in those parts of the search would not be admissable in court. A judge is the only one who can officially determine whether the search was a legal or illegal one. If you feel like the officer did not have probable cause to extend the search, file a complaint with his/her supervisors and contact a respected civil rights attorney in your area.\n\nThe basis for a wing-span search was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, so it is true in every part of the United States.\n\nP.S. - On a related note, and many police officers are not even aware of this, but the Supreme Court recently widened the scope of a wing-span search under a particular set of circumstances. If a police officer has legal contact with a person, the officer can conduct a pat-down search of the person. That has long been the case. But the Court has said that if the person is standing next to an unlocked vehicle, the police can conduct a wing-span search of that vehicle for officer safety, as it is reachable by the person within a few seconds. Seldom used, but good to know.
557056
NO, The State of Illinois cannot search your home without a warrant or probale cause. If they do you can probaly sue.
250723
Question is a little too vague for much of an answer.  \n\nIf you are asking what you, as a private citizen, needs to be able to legally search someone's house for your stolen property, there's only one answer; permission.\n\nIf you want to know what law enforcement needs to search someone's home for your stolen property, there are two answers; permission, or a search warrant.\n\nEdit to address details 3.15.06:\n\nWell, it's not the answer you're looking for, I'm sure, but I'd have to agree with what the authorities have said.  There is no proof Ms Evil took the things that are missing, and with a time lag of a month, Ms Evil could easily say she knows nothing of any thefts that have taken place over the last month.  Even if she admitted to knowing things were missing, she could claim she thought you had found a way into the house and were claiming your own property.  \n\nIs this ridiculous?  Of course it is.  Do we all know, after reading your question, that Ms Evil has stolen Ms Gullible's property?  *I* certainly think so.  But the justice system relies more on what can be proven versus what we all "know" in our hearts.  From what I've read here, there's no way to prove...or even begin to prove...that Ms Evil is the thief.  \n\nCould the police obtain a search warrant for Ms Evil's new residence, based on what you've said here?  I doubt it very much.  A search warrant can be obtained with less proof than what's required to convict someone, but I don't see where even the amount of probable cause required to obtain a search warrant is here...there's been too much time between the theft(s), and the report.  Even if we could all agree that Ms Evil is the thief, a search warrant can only issue if there is reason to believe the property being sought is actually at the location to be searched.  Since it's just as reasonable to believe Ms Evil has the property as it would be to believe she's sold or given it away, you'd have a hard time convincing a judge the property is more than likely where you claim it is...especially a month later.  \n\nNow...is there another way?  Yup.  As someone else here said, if there is a witness who can say they've seen any of your property at Ms Evil's house in the last five to ten days, you've probably got yourself a search warrant.  That witness can even be someone you pay to enter Ms Evil's residence...like a private investigator.  \n\nWithout reliable, recent information that at least some part of your property is in Ms. Evil's possession, law enforcement is going to have a hard time helping you out with this situation.  This is one of those times that causes people to ask why criminals have more rights than victims...in truth, they don't; but they do have the same privacy rights the rest of us do.\n\nGood luck with this.  I'll give it some more thought and come back if I can think of anything better.
863988
you post is not clear, but if they have a warrant, and the warrant is valid and signed by the judge they can search for anything named on the warrant
594547
police will catch in airport.they will trace where ever u r
518267
yes you have the right, and he has the right to secure a warrant if he has probable cause ( assuming he make a good arguemetive case or a superior does in front of a judge ) andthen only the with a warrant in hand search your car, he can also detain you ( you are not under arrest ) until the warrant arrives. And if after the search he finds nohing but has the warrant you can sue him, ( or the police department ) for illegl search if you can prove that the search, was suspect due to a lack of probable cause ( even if the officer thinks he has it ). the trouble is judges tend to err on the side o the police at times especially if he pulls you over in a high crime / narco trafficing area, he can pretty much argue probable cause basedon those factors alone.
493841
Without a search warrant, police officers are NEVER allowed to enter your house aside from a few specific exceptions (exigent circumstances, consent, etc.).  If you believe the police are harassing you, you can file a civil action.  Be sure to get the officer's ID numbers next time they come and remember they can only enter if you let them, and without a warrant they cannot.
190562
if the cop has suspision of you doing something or carrying something in your purse then yes but he Must ask you for permission b4 doing so. it is your right to refuse & tell him to get a warrant to search your purse.
140838
When you go in tommorrow ask for a copy of the warrant. You should have a lawyer waiting there for you, just ask him or her. You have the right to see the warrany.
797785
Any time the officer has a reason to have you step out of the car, the officer can perform a limited search of you and your vehicle. That reason can be something as simple as you acting nervous, moving around a lot, suspicious hand movements, aggressive attitude, or even if the officer makes it a standard procedure on every traffic stop he/she makes.\n\nThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the officer has a right to ensure his/her own safety when dealing with any member of the public for any legal reason. That means any time that an officer comes into contact with a person on any type of police call: suspicous person, domestic disturbance, disorderly conduct, traffic violation, etc.\n\nAccording to the Court, the officer can conduct a "pat down" search of the person, checking for weapons. This means the officer can pat down the outside of person's clothing feeling for weapons. If an officer feels anything that, based on his/her training and experience, could possibly be a weapon, drugs, or other illegal item, the officer can then go inside the pocket to determine the true nature of that item. They are looking for weapons, but if they find anything else, it'll stick in court.\n\nThe officer is also allowed to conduct what is referred to as a "wing-span" search of the vehicle to check for weapons. This search covers any area of the vehicle that could be reached by any occupant of the vehicle. If there is more than one person in the car, this will pretty much cover the entire passenger compartment of the car. It does not, however, include a locked glove box or the trunk, unless the inside of the trunk was accessible to a person inside the car (such as if the back seat was laid forward, leading into the trunk). The officer is checking for weapons, but if they find anything else illegal, it will stick in court.\n\nSo to answer your question more simply, yes, a police officer can search your car.
1131083
warrants are not public.....
973148
It would have been nice if you'd explained whether you were talking about a search warrant or not.  I'll assume you're talking about a search warrant because of the way your question is phrased.\n\nSearch warrants are not normally issued in someone's name.  In other words, if the police were going to come search my house, the warrant would be issued to search my specific address...123 Easy Street, for example.  It would NOT say to go search mikeysco's house, because that's not particularly describing a location to be searched, and that's what required for a search warrant.\n\nEven if the search warrant was authorized because I am a dope dealer, and my name was all through the warrant, it wouldn't make any difference if my name was correct or not as long as the police showed the judge that a person was in a particular house selling dope.  It's entirely possible there would be no name whatsoever on a search warrant as in the case of searching an open field belonging to an unknown person, a warehouse containing stolen property, a vehicle held as evidence (though often those are lawfully searched without a warrant) or other circumstances. \n\nSearch warrants are not normally issued in someone's name unless the police want to search that particular person (i.e., physically search them or obtain DNA or blood samples, for instance).  They are issued to search a location, and that location must be described with some particularity...but there is no requirement that a person's name be associated with the location to be searched or, even if there is a name, that it be a correct name.\n\nPerhaps you are asking about news reports where the police have mistakenly entered the wrong location pursuant to a search warrant.  In some cases, the addresses are incorrect.  In other cases, Joe Dealer, who is thought to live at 123 East Street, actually ends up living at 125 Easy Street but the cops don't know it and go to 123 instead.  And in other cases, the cops just plain screw up and don't pay attention to which door they're crashing through.