Q: I need some legal athorities for illegal search and siezure
A: This is a very vague question. More facts are needed. It sounds like you have an academic question rather than a legal question. Without giving too much info online, be more specific. Otherwise, call a local criminal defense attorney for more specific response to your particular matter.
A: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU DISCUSS ONLINE..........
An unreasonable search and seizure is a search and seizure by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present.
An unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional as it violates the Fourth Amendment. Further, evidence obtained from the unlawful search may not be introduced in court. This evidence is referred to as the fruit of the poisonous tree. In Mapp v. Ohio, 347 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court held that exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search and seizure.
A defendant who has been subject to unreasonable search and seizure typically will have no remedy against the police officer who performed the search. This is due to qualified immunity, which is a doctrine that protects government employees when they perform certain actions pertinent to their occupations. A police officer who qualifies for qualified immunity is protected from being personally sued by the defendant.
Because of qualified immunity, the exclusionary rule is often a defendant's only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate the defendant's Miranda Rights. Qualified immunity usually will extend to officers who violate a defendant's constitutional or statutory rights.
Under qualified immunity, an officer may be sued only when no reasonable officer would believe that the officers' conduct was legal. This exception comes from both Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (stating an objective standard for reasonableness which "must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene") and Justice Ginsburg's concurrence in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (stating that "an officer whose conduct is objectively unreasonable under Graham should find no shelter under a sequential qualified immunity test).
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.