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).

A: Mr. Gribow practices in Palm Springs not too far from you, it might behoove you to retain his services to discuss what you want.

Justia disclaimers below, incorporated herein.