Page 1 of 3 123 Last

Thread: Arrest Warrant

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    4

    Arrest Warrant

    First off, im located in Hillsborough County in Florida, now, if someone has an arrest warrant and a person is "hiding" them by allowing them to stay at their place, could they get in trouble for that?

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    4
    Thats true, now if the persons car is sitting outside in plain view, would that give them the same right to search as if you got pulled over and the officer smelled weed in your car?

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    4
    lol, well that cleared up an questions of smells, but what I ment was, if they know someone has a warrent, and they see their car at another persons residence, is that PC to believe they might be inside hiding, and allow them to search or is a SW still needed?

  4. #4
    Resident Misanthrope
    Monkeybomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    MCLMM
    Posts
    8,403
    .............................
    Last edited by Monkeybomb; 09-12-2008 at 07:50 PM.
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  5. #5
    Banned

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,873
    Monkeybomb, we try that out here, and I've just violated someone's constitutional right to be a crook.

    And yes, I could hook up the homeowner for aiding and abetting a fugitive.

    I thought the constitution applied everywhere???

  6. #6
    Resident Misanthrope
    Monkeybomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    MCLMM
    Posts
    8,403
    .................
    Last edited by Monkeybomb; 09-12-2008 at 07:51 PM.
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    kyle bermingham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    157
    LEOs can only enter a house without permission to execute an arrest warrant if they reasonably believe the wanted person lives there, and they have a reasonable belief they are home. This is true in all fifty states, as states cannot give LEOs more authority than what the SC decides.

    In Florida, if the homeowner won't let you enter to get the wanted person, and after you convey to them they are harboring a wanted person, they can be charged with Accessory after the fact. (This only applies if they aren't husband wife; parent child; or related by “consanguinity.”)

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    kyle bermingham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    157
    Steagald v. United States 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642 (1981).

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    luckydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by kyle bermingham View Post
    In Florida, if the homeowner won't let you enter to get the wanted person, and after you convey to them they are harboring a wanted person, they can be charged with Accessory after the fact. (This only applies if they aren't husband wife; parent child; or related by “consanguinity.”)
    huh?

  10. #10
    "Livin' the dream..."
    FireCop604's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    314
    As a matter of fact even a bondsman can kick in a door to get a person with an FTA if they know they are there. That one did go to the Supreme court and was upheld as good.
    The constitution only protects citizens from their government and not other citizens. A Bondsman is not an agent of the government, therefore there are no constitutional issues associated with their activities.
    "I think it takes a particular coward to criticize procedures that you don't understand; particularly when they apply to places that you don't have the bravery to go" - Battalion Chief John Sullivan, FDNY

    "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch!" - Rev1

    "If you reload like old people f@ck, then you need to be behind something that stops bullets." - Blackdog F4i


    IGNORE = since9, justme001, opencarry, bsd13, asullivan, okjoe, Patrick Sander, CJ616

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    luckydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by FireCop604 View Post
    The constitution only protects citizens from their government and not other citizens. A Bondsman is not an agent of the government, therefore there are no constitutional issues associated with their activities.
    yes, but different states have different criminal on that. in one state it may be ok for the bondsman to do it, but in another it could be burglary and false imprisonment.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    kyle bermingham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by luckydog View Post
    huh?
    I guess I could/should have been more specific. I am referring to a situation where the person with the arrest warrant doesn't live in the house, but happen to be there.

  13. #13
    Resident Misanthrope
    Monkeybomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    MCLMM
    Posts
    8,403
    Quote Originally Posted by FireCop604 View Post
    The constitution only protects citizens from their government and not other citizens. A Bondsman is not an agent of the government, therefore there are no constitutional issues associated with their activities.
    You are correct but criminal mischief and burglary charges could apply in some cases. If a bondsmen broke into a house claiming a person they were looking was there but in fact was not. And a wife, child ect was there Burglary charges may apply.
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  14. #14
    Resident Misanthrope
    Monkeybomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    MCLMM
    Posts
    8,403
    Quote Originally Posted by kyle bermingham View Post
    I guess I could/should have been more specific. I am referring to a situation where the person with the arrest warrant doesn't live in the house, but happen to be there.
    And you are correct about a wanted person being in a house as opposed to living there for a warrantless entry.

    There is some gray area as to the definition of where a person lives. Such as a fugitve staying in a hotel etc. Thats why I stated I usually err on the side of caution and get a warrant.
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    On the road to Shambala.......
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by kyle bermingham View Post
    LEOs can only enter a house without permission to execute an arrest warrant if they reasonably believe the wanted person lives there, and they have a reasonable belief they are home.
    What he said. The only thing I'll add is that regardless of where the person lives, the address on the warrant has to be the address you are entering. In other words, if the warrant address is 123 Main St. and you reasonably believe that the wanted crook lives at 177 Center St. and you reasonably believe he is inside the residence, you will need a search warrant to enter the 177 Center St. without consent or exigent circumstances to serve the arrest warrant. As has been posted, see Steagald.
    Vir rationem suorum gestorum libenter reddit,
    sive iustorum sive iniustorum.
    Eventus horum non detrectat,
    sed cum his cotidie vivit.

  16. #16
    Resident Misanthrope
    Monkeybomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    MCLMM
    Posts
    8,403
    Actually steagald does not cover an address on a warrant. Steagald is used as a guideline. In steagald they were using what an informant had told them. They knew he did not live there. There was a signifigant amount of time between when the in formant told them the suspect was there and when they contacted them they aslo never saw the suspect there. I would be willling to bet if the suspect was seen by the officers and they made entry and no contraband was found this would have been a much different ruling. This is comparing apples to oranges. There are many ways to verify where someone lives. For instance this would automatically cover a transient person if your opinion was case law. We all know most criminals are transient and often give either bogus addresses or Moms address because they don't want to be easily captured again. As always a warrant is your safest bet but not always required.
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    301
    Here is a scenario for you that we have encountered. I see John Smith, who I know from past arrests, in a residence that I respond to for a (insert radio call). I know John Smith is wanted and I know John Smith is inside because I saw him looking out the window when I approached the house. I do not need a warrant to go into that house to get John Smith if he lives there or not. If you prevent me from arresting him on the valid arrest warrant, you will join him for a ride to jail.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    On the road to Shambala.......
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeybomb View Post
    Actually steagald does not cover an address on a warrant. Steagald is used as a guideline. In steagald they were using what an informant had told them. They knew he did not live there. There was a signifigant amount of time between when the in formant told them the suspect was there and when they contacted them they aslo never saw the suspect there. I would be willling to bet if the suspect was seen by the officers and they made entry and no contraband was found this would have been a much different ruling. This is comparing apples to oranges. There are many ways to verify where someone lives. For instance this would automatically cover a transient person if your opinion was case law. We all know most criminals are transient and often give either bogus addresses or Moms address because they don't want to be easily captured again. As always a warrant is your safest bet but not always required.
    I'm not sure what version of Steagald you are reading, but here is the decision:

    U.S. Supreme Court
    Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)

    Steagald v. United States

    No. 79-6777

    Argued January 14, 1981

    Decided April 21, 1981

    451 U.S. 204

    Syllabus

    Pursuant to an arrest warrant for one Lyons, Drug Enforcement Administration agents entered petitioner's home to search for Lyons without first obtaining a search warrant. In the course of searching the home, the agents found cocaine and other incriminating evidence, but did not find Lyons. Petitioner was then arrested and indicted on federal drug charges. His pretrial motion to suppress all evidence uncovered during the search of his home on the ground that it was illegally obtained because the agents had failed to obtain a search warrant was denied by the District Court, and petitioner was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

    Held:

    1. The Government is precluded from contending in this Court that petitioner lacked an expectation of privacy in his searched home sufficient to prevail on his Fourth Amendment claim where this argument was never raised in the courts below, but, rather, the Government had made contrary assertions in those courts, and acquiesced in their contrary findings. Pp. 451 U. S. 208-211.

    2. The search in question violated the Fourth Amendment where it took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. Pp. 451 U. S. 211-222.

    (a) Absent exigent circumstances or consent, a home may not be searched without a warrant. Two distinct interests were implicated by the search in this case -- Lyons' interest in being free from an unreasonable seizure and petitioner's interest in being free from an unreasonable search of his home. Because the arrest warrant for Lyons addressed only the former interest, the search of petitioner's home was no more reasonable from petitioner's perspective than it would have been if conducted in the absence of any warrant. The search therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 451 U. S. 211-216.

    The complete text can be read here:

    Steagald

    This is the key issue from that decision(important points in bold):

    “The question before us is a narrow one. [Footnote 6] The search at issue here took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. Except in such special situations, we have consistently held that the entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless done pursuant to a warrant. @See 445 U. S. 13-15 (1948). Thus, as we recently observed:

    "[I]n terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant."

    Payton v. New York, supra, at 445 U. S. 590. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 403 U. S. 474 475, 403 U. S. 477-478 (1971); Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 357 U. S. 497-498 (1958); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 269 U. S. 32-33 (1925). Here, of course, the agents had a warrant -- one authorizing the arrest of Ricky Lyons. However, the Fourth Amendment claim here is not being raised by Ricky Lyons. Instead the challenge to the search is asserted by a person, not named in the warrant, who was convicted on the basis of evidence uncovered during a search of his residence for Ricky Lyons. Thus, the narrow issue before us is whether an arrest warrant -- as opposed to a search warrant -- is adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant when their homes are searched without their consent and in the absence of exigent circumstances.

    The purpose of a warrant is to allow a neutral judicial officer to assess whether the police have probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search. As we have often explained, the placement of this checkpoint between the Government and the citizen implicitly acknowledges that an "officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime," Johnson v. United States, supra, at 333 U. S. 14, may lack sufficient objectivity to weigh correctly the strength of the evidence supporting the contemplated action against the individual's interests in protecting his own liberty and the privacy of his home. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 403 U. S. 449-451; McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 335 U. S. 455-456 (1948). However, while an arrest warrant and a search warrant both serve to subject the probable cause determination
    of the police to judicial review, the interests protected by the two warrants differ. An arrest warrant is issued by a magistrate upon a showing that probable cause exists to believe that the subject of the warrant has committed an offense, and thus the warrant primarily serves to protect an individual from an unreasonable seizure. A search warrant, in contrast, is issued upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the legitimate object of a search is located in a particular place, and therefore safeguards an individual's interest in the privacy of his home and possessions against the unjustified intrusion of the police.

    Thus, whether the arrest warrant issued in this case adequately safeguarded the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment depends upon what the warrant authorized the agents to do. To be sure, the warrant embodied a judicial finding that there was probable cause to believe that Ricky Lyons had committed a felony, and the warrant therefore authorized the officers to seize Lyons. However, the agents sought to do more than use the warrant to arrest Lyons in public place or in his home; instead, they relied on the warrant as legal authority to enter the home of a third person based on their belief that Ricky Lyons might be a guest there. Regardless of how reasonable this belief might have been, it was never subjected to the detached scrutiny of a judicial officer. Thus, while the warrant in this case may have protected Lyons from an unreasonable seizure, it did absolutely nothing to protect petitioner's privacy interest in being free from an unreasonable invasion and search of his home. Instead, petitioner's only protection from an illegal entry and search was the agent's personal determination of probable cause. In the absence of exigent circumstances, we have consistently held that such judicially untested determinations are not reliable enough to justify an entry into a person's home to arrest him without a warrant, or a search of a home for objects in the absence of a search warrant.”

    And for the topping on the cake, the Fourth Amendment:

    “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.”

    Bottom line, if the address, or at the very least a description of the address, on the warrant doesn’t match, I don’t know how you can make the assertion that an entry can be made without consent, exigent circumstances or a warrant that meets 4th Amendment requirements.
    Vir rationem suorum gestorum libenter reddit,
    sive iustorum sive iniustorum.
    Eventus horum non detrectat,
    sed cum his cotidie vivit.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    kyle bermingham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by K9Tom View Post
    Here is a scenario for you that we have encountered. I see John Smith, who I know from past arrests, in a residence that I respond to for a (insert radio call). I know John Smith is wanted and I know John Smith is inside because I saw him looking out the window when I approached the house. I do not need a warrant to go into that house to get John Smith if he lives there or not. If you prevent me from arresting him on the valid arrest warrant, you will join him for a ride to jail.
    If "John Smith" doesn't live there you need a search warrant. Many officers/detectives have done this without a warrant, and nothing was said; this doesn't mean it is legal. If the wanted person had anything in their pockets (evidence, drugs, etc.) it would be suppressed and the people that live at the residence could sue for unlawful government intrusion.

  20. #20
    Resident Misanthrope
    Monkeybomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    MCLMM
    Posts
    8,403
    seagald doesn't address any of the issues I brought up. The only address issue it covers is that on a search warrant not an arrest warrant. It specifically states they knew he didn't live there. It also states they did not see him, they entered anyway, They didn't find him, they found contraband, contraband was suppressed. It was a bad search.

    Your confusing a situation where you Know, can identify a wanted suspect and are at his residence (not neccesarily the address on an arrest warrant).

    You may also be confusing your States laws or Department policy with what is legally allowed. The 4th amendmanet covers you from UNREASONABLE searches ans seizure. Steagald was a good ruling by the SC. But it allows not prevents the situation I have discussed. This was an issue of steagalds rights being violated as his home was searched. He did not have a warrant and the suspect did not live there.

    How does steagald state that the address on the arrest warrant is the only one where it applies? The portion that you highlighted is for a search warrant.
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    On the road to Shambala.......
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by kyle bermingham View Post
    If "John Smith" doesn't live there you need a search warrant. Many officers/detectives have done this without a warrant, and nothing was said; this doesn't mean it is legal. If the wanted person had anything in their pockets (evidence, drugs, etc.) it would be suppressed and the people that live at the residence could sue for unlawful government intrusion.
    Yes sir, what you said. The reality is, this kind of thing happens every day HOWEVER if it is challenged in court and the crook has a half-decent attorney, the evidence will be suppressed. Also, the officer/detective/department can be sued and will lose.

    Steagald addressed the issue that while the ARREST may be lawful based on the warrant, the ENTRY into the area in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy was not. The very difference between an arrest warrant and search warrant.
    Vir rationem suorum gestorum libenter reddit,
    sive iustorum sive iniustorum.
    Eventus horum non detrectat,
    sed cum his cotidie vivit.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    On the road to Shambala.......
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeybomb View Post
    How does steagald state that the address on the arrest warrant is the only one where it applies? The portion that you highlighted is for a search warrant.
    “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.”

    Remember, that Steagald is an interpretation of the 4th Amendment. What part of the 4th Amendment are you not reading?

    As an aside, I will reread your situation to confirm that I didn't miss something.
    Vir rationem suorum gestorum libenter reddit,
    sive iustorum sive iniustorum.
    Eventus horum non detrectat,
    sed cum his cotidie vivit.

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    On the road to Shambala.......
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeybomb View Post
    Can't speak for Florida. But here if i know for a fact that the person with the warrant is in the house I can get them. If I know they are in the house and you lie to me You are also going to get charged with Obstruction and Harboring a fugitive. I will usually err on the side of caution and get a warrant anyway. Then the person harboring them will get a free ride to jail as well.
    I assume you are talking about this, correct?

    According to Steagald and the 4th Amendment, you can't enter the residence to effect the arrest unless you have consent, exigent circumstances or the address you are entering is listed(or at least described) on the arrest warrant. If you don't have any of those, you will need a search warrant(Steagald warrant) to enter the residence.

    Am I missing something here? If so, point it out specifically.

    As an aside, I'm sure you've written search warrants. Ever notice that you have to describe, specifically, the place to be searched. You can't just say, 111 Main St., Anytown. You describe the actual residence in detail and it's location, single story dwelling house, white in color, numbers 111 adjacent to the front door, faces Main St. in Anytown, etc. That is a 4th Amendment requirement, as I'm sure you are aware. Why would that apply to search warrants and not arrest warrants? Also, in reading the 4th, it says:

    "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    If they(the founding Fathers) meant that you could enter ANY house to serve an arrest warrant, regardless of the circumstances, the operative word would have been "OR" not "AND." The SCOTUS recognized this in Steagald.
    Last edited by Kilrain; 08-19-2008 at 12:49 AM.
    Vir rationem suorum gestorum libenter reddit,
    sive iustorum sive iniustorum.
    Eventus horum non detrectat,
    sed cum his cotidie vivit.

  24. #24
    Resident Misanthrope
    Monkeybomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    MCLMM
    Posts
    8,403
    Again that is for a search warrant not an arrest warrant. If you see a suspect in his home (for instance he has a felony Murder warrant from Florida) You know him and can see him sitting in his living room in Chicago.(his new home) You do not need a search warrant to get him. The fact that the Florida arrest warrant has a florida address does not nullify the ability to arrest him in Chicago, As long as you know it's him you are covered.

    Unless I am really misunderstanding you, you believe that an arrest warrant is no good unless you have the current address on it. If so i want to be a fugitive where you work........
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  25. #25
    Resident Misanthrope
    Monkeybomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    MCLMM
    Posts
    8,403
    Have you ever gotten a arrest warrant with a description of a residence on it? That is for a search warrant. Seagald is for a 3rd party not the susbject of the arrest warrant. Read the whole thing.
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Click here to log in or register