Cops get search warrant for party

Appellee pleaded not guilty and the court scheduled a jury trial for August 27, On the day scheduled for jury trial, the parties advised the court of their agreement to submit a pre-trial defense motion to the court for immediate determination. The court proceeded to hear the motion. Although appellee called the motion a motion to dismiss, the court treated the motion as a motion to suppress evidence.

The parties submitted the following stipulated facts:. Now, have the parties agreed upon a statement of facts for the Court to consider, then, with respect to this motion? Then on or about February 19, , the Pike County Sheriff's Department received a tip that the defendant, Steve Hamilton, was located at the residence of defendant located within Pike County. The Officers went to that residence based upon that tip and observed the felon for which they had a warrant of Steve Hamilton inside the trailer of the defendant, Mr.

They then approached the door, called upon Mr. Howard to allow them to enter to execute their warrant upon the defendant, Steve Hamilton. They do not have an arrest warrant in hand. This defendant, Mr. Howard, made a demand upon them to see a warrant, whether that is an arrest warrant or a search warrant or both.


  • search car video pakage deals.
  • Today's Cartoon: November 7, 12222.
  • Navigation menu.

The Officers again indicated that the. Steve Hamilton then made his escape from the trailer of Mr. I think that's basically our stipulated facts. Is that accurate? The trial court judge accepted the stipulated facts. After considering the stipulated facts and the arguments of counsel, the court below granted appellee's motion to suppress evidence.

The court made the following comments in the record:. Well, the indictment in this case charges the offense of obstructing justice which is. Ohio Revised Code. It's the. There was no consent given to search and I have not heard anything that would amount to. So that's the first finding I'll make. Number two: It's the Court's opinion that the fact that the defendant demanded to see a warrant.

Well, let's stay with the stipulation then. It's this Court's opinion that the fact that this defendant demanded a warrant or to see a warrant, cannot be used as evidence of his purpose to hinder the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for crime, cause I think he does have a. So, I don't believe that that. Now, it is my understanding that since that is the case, the State feels that it would be. Is that right. I'm gonna be certain how this matter's handled, the Court would conclude that the indictment then, or the facts as stated, would not constitute the offense without more, and the appropriate order should be issued accordingly.

I don't. It may be a motion to suppress or a limitation on evidence. Whatever it is, it is. I don't want to call it something it isn't. But my understanding from the Prosecutor was that if that's the Court's ruling about that particular issue, that the State would not be prepared to go forward with its case. Is that correct, Mr.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases | When is a Search Warrant Not Necessary?

We intended to ask the Court for an instruction at the end of the State's case in regards to the necessity of a warrant under these circumstances, and the Court's ruled. By ruling on this, I think it's making that ruling. But the. On August 31, , the court below filed an entry granting appellee's motion to suppress evidence.

The court wrote in pertinent part:. To summarize, Pike County Sheriff's deputies went to the home of defendant to arrest Steven Hamilton pursuant to an arrest warrant for B E. The deputies did not take the arrest warrant with them. Upon arrival, the deputies observed Hamilton inside defendants [ sic ] home.

The Global South Is Redefining Tech Innovation

There was no consent or exigent circumstances obviating the search warrant requirement. Steagald v. Pembaur , 9 Ohio St.

If the State does not appeal, this case should be dismissed. It is from the judgment of the trial court granting appellee's motion to suppress evidence that appellant has filed this appeal. Because both assignments of error involve similar issues, the assignments of error will be considered together. In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts the court's finding that the police were required to obtain a search warrant prior to entering appellee's residence to execute the arrest warrant for the nonresident, James Hamilton, was erroneous.

Appellant maintains when police could see through a window inside a third party's residence and, based upon the visual observation, detect the presence of the person named in the arrest warrant, a search warrant is not required in order to enter the residence. In his second assignment of error, appellant asserts, in the alternative, that exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless, nonconsensual entry into appellee's residence to arrest the nonresident named in the arrest warrant.

Police Could Get Your Location Data Without a Warrant. That Has to End

Appellee argues the officers needed a search warrant to enter his residence and no exigent circumstances were present justifying the warrantless entry into the residence. In the case sub judice, we must decide whether the police were required to obtain a search warrant prior to entering appellee's residence to arrest the nonresident named in the arrest warrant.

If we decide this question in the affirmative, we must then determine whether any exception to the warrant requirement applies permitting the warrantless entry into appellee's residence. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable government intrusions into areas where legitimate expectations of privacy exist. United States v. Chadwick , U. The Fourth Amendment proscribes all unreasonable searches and seizures, and it is a cardinal principle that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.

Arizona , U.

Search Warrants

United States , U. Opperman , U. New Hampshire , U. The touchstone of a Fourth Amendment analysis of lawfulness of a search is whether a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz v. Ciraolo , U. When one's home is to be searched, the warrant requirement embodied in the Fourth Amendment constitutes the most compelling protection against unreasonable governmental intrusions.

Welsh v. Wisconsin , U.

Violence in Forced-Entry Police Raids - The New York Times

Warrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless "the exigencies of the situation" make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. McDonald v. California , U. Hayden , U. Thus, for a warrantless search to be valid, it must fall within one of the narrow and specifically delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. Thompson v. Louisiana , U.

cocktanlelico.gq In the case sub judice, appellant contends that because the officers observed the person named in the arrest warrant through a window, the officers did not need a search warrant in order to enter the residence to execute the arrest warrant. Appellant claims the officers "merely wanted entrance to the residence in order to execute the arrest warrant" and did not intend to search the premises. We disagree with appellant's view of the law.

In Steagald v.

Unique Insights on Privacy and Data Protection Worldwide

Based upon information that Lyons could be located at a certain address, the agents made a nonconsensual entry into a third-party's residence to search for Lyons. Lyons was not found at the residence, although the agents seized contraband found during the search of the premises. The court held that police need a search warrant to conduct a search of the third-party's residence for the person named in the arrest warrant. The arrest warrant could not be used as authority to enter the third-party's residence to arrest the nonresident.