"Is this considered Illegal Search and Seizure"?
437679
First your son opened the door. That's an invite. Second your husband assaulted an officer. Third you had drugs and a large amount of cash in view. \n\nYou had a capias in your name cause for arrest. Yes I believe it is legal (check your state laws.) \n\nGet rid of the drugs, don't fight with the police and you should be good in the future.\n\nThe item about not allowing clothes is really up to the police putting you into custody. As a courtesy they could have given you something to put on if you where completely naked.
167422
i don't want gps being used on me in any way. too many ways the technology could be abused and this would be setting a dangerous precedent. the fourth amendment would protect against this as an unlawful search, because there is no probable cause to believe that everyone would be breaking the law.
312063
WHAT?\n\nIf you are asked for permission to search your car, and you decline to give permission to have your car searched, that does NOT provide probable cause.  What a ridiculous notion.  It is your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and merely exercising that right does not give the government probable cause to conduct it.  What kind of sense would that make?\n\nThe answer to your question, quite simply, is yes.  There are many reasons why the police might be able to legally search your vehicle without your permission, and if you've got a specific circumstances you're wondering about, post it and we'll see.\n\nProbable cause is one of the ways the police can search your car, and yes - the police get to decide that right there on the spot.  It's always subject to litigation later in court, but the police are allowed to search a vehicle under almost all conditions where probable cause is present.\n\nThere's a comment here about "Nope, but, it's your right to stop them if they do" and if that person is suggesting that you physically try to stop a police officer from searching your car, you're going to learn real quick that that isn't acceptable.  You always have the right to say no...always...even with a warrant, but that doesn't mean your wishes will be honored.  And if you try to physically enforce your wishes, I can just about guarantee you a really quick trip to the pokey.\n\nPolice cannot just impound your vehicle until you consent.  Equally ridiculous notion.  Given probable cause, police do not need to impound your vehicle and can just search it right there.\n\nMy answers are based on the Constitution and California law.  Iowa cannot make it any easier for the police than the Constitution does, but they can make it more restrictive.  I'd be willing to bet the rules are the same in Iowa, though.\n\nEDIT 4.26.06:\n\nDo we sometimes search "just because"?  Well, "just because" isn't a legal theory that allows a search, so we'd be wrong to search without your permission just because we chose to.  With your permission, however, we certainly could search "just because," and I suppose I have when I've had the hairs on the back of my neck stand up and I've received consent.
984028
It may not be illegal, but it would be stupid. Your family would most likely call out the police to find you, and they'd be wasting money and man-hours to do so, which you'd most likely be liable for. Please tell me you've at least met this guy and know him well enough to be making this decision...
224738
Not entirely sure I'm following your question.  \n\nIs it lawful for me to apply for and receive a search warrant for the premises of a dead person?  You betcha'...it would make murder investigations pretty difficult if not.  \n\nDoes there have to be PC to believe a prosecutable crime will be discovered?  Apples and oranges.  Search warrants are issued (at least in California), under the following conditions:\n\n(1) When the property was stolen or embezzled.\n(2) When the property or things were used as the means of\ncommitting a felony.\n(3) When the property or things are in the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a means of committing a public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their being discovered.\n(4) When the property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony.\n(5) When the property or things to be seized consist of evidence that tends to show that sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of Section 311.3, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under the age of 18 years, in violation of Section 311.11, has occurred or is occurring.\n(6) When there is a warrant to arrest a person.\n(7) When a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service has records or evidence, as specified in Section 1524.3, showing that property was stolen or embezzled constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are in the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their discovery.\n(8) When the property or things to be seized include an item or any evidence that tends to show a violation of Section 3700.5 of the Labor Code, or tends to show that a particular person has violated Section 3700.5 of the Labor Code.\n\nSo if any of these conditions apply, a search warrant can be issued.  I'm not sure what you mean by a "prosecutable crime," so it's a little tough to know how to answer you on this point.  All crimes are prosecutable unless there is some legal bar to prosecution (statute of limitations, etc).  \n\nIf I develop probable cause to indicate a stolen TV is in your house, I can seek a search warrant to seize it.  Even though you may not know anything about the TV, and may not even know it's in your house and therefore aren't going to be prosecuted for it, a search warrant can still be issued because the property is stolen.\n\nYou're also asking about PC for an unchargeable crime...and again, I'm not really certain what that means.  Let's take the TV example above, and throw in there that the statute of limitations for that crime has passed.  The TV is still stolen (and other sections would apply as well), so I can still get a search warrant.  \n\nIf you have a specific set of facts, they might be helpful in developing a better answer for you instead of the fairly generic question you've posted.  You're welcome to contact me if you think I can help more with this.
839176
You have the right to refuse.  But they can also find reasons to do the search anyway, example:  If they arrest you, they do not need permission.\n\nBut it all comes down to, if you have nothing to hide let them search.  Also, if you do not have frequent contact with the police and don't hang out with the wrong people, chances are they will never ask to search your car.
1081241
If you can't find it on the internet, it is best not to think about it.  What you are asking about is actually illegal in some jurisdictions.
197117
If there is probable cause.  They have to see something in the vehicle, in plain sight to do so.  Same goes for a vehicle search, without permission from the person driving. Again, this hinges on if they see something in plain sight.  Otherwise, it falls into illegal search and seizure.. which is against the constitution.
1156984
An unfortunate fact of the " Zero Tolerance" policy that allowed seizure of property obtained by illegal means, is that MUCH of the property winds up MISSING!!\n\nWhether it is the POLICE who are 'spiriting it away', or simply terrible bureaucratic recordkeeping is unclear, but the fact still remains that the missing property does not end up fattening the public coffers through public auction as it should.
851390
it is illegal indeed\n\n:> peace\n.
721014
Not illegal, just childish. Unless they ask you to stop, then it becomes illegal.
1017584
This is state law, so it depends on your state.\nHowever, if the property is illegal it will never be returned.  If there is an ongoing investigation, they can keep the property until the case is resolved, in the event of a cold case, this could be indefinate depending on the property in question, or until the statute of limitations runs out on the crime.\n\nFor a more specific answer, the property, the reason for seizure, and the state would be required.
846874
If you believe it is illegal then report it to the police and they can investigate the matter for you.\n\n///
1181459
You've written an awful lot of stuff here just to ask if the cops can pull someone over for "no reason."\n\nDoubtful.  \n\nIf the state you're writing about has a law that allows police to stop vehicles to check for current insurance (and for no other reason), then I would have to say the police can do that.  \n\nIf there's no such law in your state that allows that, it's going to be every bit as impossible to give you a good answer as Van Winkle says (and his was generally a very good answer).  You don't have anywhere near all the facts, so there's no way you can present them to anyone to get a decent answer.  \n\nAs for all the other stuff you wrote, did you have a question about it?  I see plenty of answers, but you never asked any questions.\n\nDon't get overly excited when you read people's answers here talking about search and seizure issues because based on what you wrote here, I doubt there are any.  \n\nPost more if you want to know more.\n\nEDIT 6.11.06:\n\nWow!\n\nOkay, let's see what we can do here.\n\nNeed to know what state you're in.  Sorry I didn't mention that before, I should have.  States have different laws, and the very best answer will come to you from someone who knows that State's law on these issues.  However, these are mostly constitutional questions, so I can probably give you some decent answers (because the Constitution applies in all states).\n\n1.  Generally, yes.  If it's stolen, it's contraband, and nobody has the right to possess contraband.  It would be like trying to argue that the police couldn't take your heroin without a warrant or consent...they can, because it's contraband.  NOTE: this is only as to the seizure of the item, not the search.  \n\n2.  Almost impossible to answer.  Really, none of these questions are all that "answerable," without knowing exactly what the facts were.  There are times when the police can enter uninvited and without a warrant, and there are times they cannot.  I wish I could go into this more with you, but you're talking about hours and hours of search and seizure law here, to be able to cover all the possibilities.\n\n3.  Your family can always file a complaint with the officer's employer.  I have no idea what the outcome of that could be, of course.\n\n4.  I don't know how you know "for sure" some of the property wasn't stolen, so it's difficult to address this.  Assuming you really do know the status of the property you're referring to, you should contact the law enforcement agency that seized the property and give them a statement as to the status of the property.  Do not waste your time by telling them things like, "it's my brother's, and my brother would never steal anything" or, "the neighbor gave it to my brother last year and my neighbor wouldn't have stolen it" because you just don't know those things to be 100% factual.  Perfectly innocent people can sometimes trade or give away stolen property without knowing it, but it doesn't mean the property isn't every bit as stolen.\n\nYou've repeatedly said that you stay out of the drama (wise decision, by the way), so I'm guessing that you really don't have all the facts.  If you weren't there at the time all this happened, you really aren't in a good position to know all the intimate details for certain, and it's the details that can really make a difference.  \n\nI don't know for sure that it's working, but if you'd like you're welcome to click on my avatar-thingy up there and contact me for some more discussion on this issue.  It's probably about to be beaten to death here, and I admire the reasonable tone of your questions.
923306
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'\nprobably not. it all depends on the skill of the prosecutor, and the strength of their evidence. if it's a constitutional issue (which 4th amendment is) you'll need to hire a separate constitutional lawyer (believe it or not, hillary clinton is one of the best!) to address the constitutionality of the point in case. any more ?'s, just ask. "i ain't passed the bar but i know a little bit.....enough that you won't illegally search my shit."  - jay z
600777
That depends on where you fight it. If you bring this issue up while the police are at your front door, they wait (probably right outside your front door) for a new warrant to be issued and search anyway.\n\nIf you let them search and they find anything incriminating, you have a good chance of getting it deemed inadmissable against you, as long as you get an okay lawyer. \n\nThat does not mean that you get to walk away and go home. Unless of course, there isn't a major stack of other evidence against you to have supported the request for a  search in the first place.\n\nBut be warned, while the search may have been questionable, the law still has the right to claim 'eventual discovery' and have evidence previously declared inadmissable, deemed admissable again. All they have to do is prove that they could have found the evidence against you without having to search your home.
396651
There has to be probably cause to raid the house.  If an officer observes and illegal act through a window he can enter without a warrant.  If he only suspects illegal activity but has no patent proof he cannot enter the residence.\n\nOhio recently had a case that changed our law.  Under old rules if there were multiple leasees and one agreed to a search it was okay to search.  Now everyone must agree to the search, if one says no then the search is illegal.