Do the Police Have a Right to Enter and Search a House Without Your Consent?

June 5, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

They usually need a warrant to search a house.

As a rule of thumb, the more private an area is to an individual, the more difficult it is for the police to search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A home obviously has the greatest expectation of privacy and is clearly more private than an office or a car or any other place the police may search for drugs, weapons, or even computers.  Police can only search without a warrant in very limited circumstances.

If the police search a home improperly, then the evidence will not be admissible during a trial.  This can mean cases ranging from possession of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine or possession of drugs with intent to distribute, all the way up to murder cases, can be severely crippled or even thrown out because of an invalid entry by police into a home.

Police can use an exception called “exigent circumstances” to do warrant-less entries into the home.  Where police have probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and there are “exigent circumstances” they can enter a house without a warrant.

Examples include if they are in “hot pursuit” of a suspect, there is clearly danger to someone inside, or if the officer is in danger.  Another exigent circumstance is if the officer believes evidence is being destroyed inside.  For an officer to claim he fears that there is destruction of evidence, he needs to have strong probable cause of a serious offense.

The main way police search houses without warrants, however, is because the homeowner (or another resident) consents to the search.  The consent must be voluntary and cannot be coerced.  Displays of force or threats to get search warrants can call the search into question.  A person does not have to consent to a voluntary search of a home.

Police use a technique called a “knock and talk” which courts have consistently upheld as being valid.  This is where an officer suspecting drugs or drug trafficking (for example) merely knocks on the door and asks to search.  Where police attempt to manipulate or coerce consent is where there have been legal problems with the searches.

The police won’t tell you it is perfectly legal to tell them to go away the same as if they were trying to sell you cookies at your doorstep… and if you allow them to search voluntarily, you’ve punted a ton of rights away.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For specific legal advice, you should consult an attorney directly.


The Legal Definition of Drug Possession

May 12, 2010

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Drug crimes in Texas operate very similarly to one another regardless of the substance alleged to be possessed.  While the specific substance and the quantity dictate the level of offense, the law of “possession” in Texas is consistent.

Many people feel as though because they were in a situation where drugs were present that they are guilty of an offense.  Not so in Texas.

“Possession” is defined by Texas Penal Code 1.07(a)(39) as “actual care, custody, control or management.”

The operative word (in my opinion) is “actual.”  This means the prosecution must prove the drugs were in your possession — i.e. that the defendant ACTUALLY exercised some degree of of care, custody, control or management — of whatever contraband they have alleged the accused possessed.

If you think about how the police tend to encounter drugs — then you begin to get an idea of the struggles at trial of how the prosecutor attempts to persuade a jury that the accused actually possessed drugs (and the task of the defense lawyer to defend against the allegations).  Some arrests are done when the drugs are found somewhere in a car.  Some arrests are the result of drugs found under a search warrant, and some arrests come from pat-downs of someone’s person.  In many instances, it’s not clear who possessed or controlled the drugs.

Generally, the prosecution must show some affirmative link between the accused and the contraband.  This means they present circumstantial evidence of possession — for example if drugs are found in a car — who is the car’s owner?  Who was driving?  Who could have put the drugs where they were found?

Case law is very particular about “affirmative links” and where no legal affirmative links exist — a defendant may legally be entitled to acquittal as the State’s evidence of “possession” may be insufficient.

Defending drug possession cases is a very technical and detail oriented task for experienced criminal defense attorneys.

Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For legal advice, you should consult an attorney.