Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Cops right to enter home to search for third party
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:52:51 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <vsjthi$2d2h4$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vsjlcq$266cv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 19:52:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6b6aa9f1adb8c479b101b1c715e55831";
	logging-data="2525732"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/o4W94J61a9Wi/b6r60pM"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:srXohpdjaKXyGRxs78xfl6NRcEU=
Bytes: 3473

On Apr 2, 2025 at 8:33:46 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> I really like this guy's videos, Jeff Hampton, a defense attorney in
> Fort Worth.
> 
> In this video, he clearly explains an arrest warrant versus search
> warrant. These address two separate issues, the right of a suspect to be
> seized (detained) and the right of one's home not to be seized. There
> are limited circumstances in which police may enter to make an arrest
> with an arrest warrant but not a search warrant, but the rights not to
> have one's home searched without a warrant continue to apply per
> Steagald vs United States (1981)... 
> 
> ... except where they don't due to exigent circumstances. Exigent
> circumstances has multiple parts.
> 
> Another difference between an arrest warrant and search warrant is lack
> of expectation of privacy by arrestee if it's not his home. A casual
> visitor being arrested has no right against warrantless search. He has
> to be staying there, at least an overnight stay, to have a right against
> warrantless search. Minnesota v. Olson (1991)
> 
> However, some state constitutions offer additional rights. In Texas,
> cops need a reasonal belief that the person named on the arrest warrant
> is in a third party's home before nonconsensual entry. In Washington
> state, cops must advice the resident of the consequences of allowing
> entry and therefore search. In fact, in Washington state, the resident
> cannot give police consent to search a guest's belongings (whether the
> guest is casual or an overnight guest).
> 
> At around 22 minutes, he says if police show up with a warrant to ask if
> it's a search warrant for the home, because if it's just an arrest
> warrant, the resident may refuse entry. But what if police have a
> reasonable belief that the person to be arrested is there? I'm confused.
> 
> Now, the next time I'm subject to search and seizure with or without a
> warrant, will I remember this?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTWbEQZjuvc

My personal policy was to just get both warrants ahead of time. I just argued
to the judge that the suspect was a bad guy who was counterfeiting all sorts
of money and that I had probable cause to suspect that not only was he present
in the other person's home, but so were the fruits of his crime-- the fake
money-- so I needed to be able to not only arrest him but to search where he
might have stashed the cash before we arrived.

Worked pretty much every time.