is it true, if a police officer search some where illegally, even if he finds a whole stash of illegal drugs?

Question

the suspect cant be charged for it? thats a stupid rule if thats true

Answer 1

1. someone can always be charged. the evidence may be suppressed

2. Some states follow the 'inevitable discovery' rule. For instance, if a police officer doesn't get a warrant to search a house, but the police were going to search every house on the street legally, then the evidence would not be suppressed because they would have found it anyway

3. The rule for suppressing evidence is to protect suspects. and I emphasize SUSPECTS. If there is no slap on the wrist to police, then they would never have to follow the rules... ie, they would never get warrants

Answer 2

The doctrine is called "Fruit of the poisoned tree"- If a police officer does something illegal, the prosecution should not be able to profit from his breaking the law. This is an important protection, because without it the guarantee of the 4th amendment (no warrantless search and seizure) would be without meaning. If a police officer could break the law and still introduces the products of the search into evidence, then what's to stop them from simply strip searching every person they pass on the street?

While matters of procedure of this may not seem "fair" to people outside the legal system, they're necessary to make sure that rights and protections are extended to everyone equally.

Answer 3

Yes, it's a real rule. The foundation of this rule is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment protects your (and my) right to privacy from abusive government intrusion. It interplays with other amendments that also guarantee we all get "due process of law" to help ensure our rights are not abused.

Not only does the rule as you say prevent an officer from making a good case and getting a successful conviction, if the officer conducted an illegal search intentionally he can be charged with a crime himself and sued by the person he wronged.

Answer 4

Couple good solutions here, yet many are lacking some substantial data. You reported he asked to seek the motor vehicle, then claimed he observed drugs. If he observed drugs he does no longer ask, nor could he could, because of the fact contraband in undeniable view is in all probability reason for the seek. on account that he discovered no longer something this helps the reality no longer something exchange into in undeniable view Is it criminal? No on account that we've commonplace no in all probability reason. This exchange into an unlawful seek, and a contravention of the Fourth modification. a pair solutions stated that a foul seek isn't any reason of recourse. i'm guessing they mean a criminal seek that turns up no longer something, because of the fact the officer concept he observed some thing, yet exchange into flawed. which would be criminal yet in effect a foul seek. An officer ought to stand criminal expenses for accomplishing an unlawful seek; even with the undeniable fact that that's uncommon because of the clown experience protection. The violation of your rights to be look after from government intrusion via accomplishing an unlawful (no longer a foul seek) seek could be reason for criminal recourse against the officer, for violating your rights. listed under are 2 expenses from the link. "An unlawful seek and seizure may well be criminally actionable and officers undertaking one for this reason subject to prosecution" "persons who've been illegally arrested or who've had their privateness invaded will in many cases have a tort action accessible decrease than state statutory or person-friendly regulation."

Answer 5

its a real rule. Its called illegal search and seaziure. Any court in the country would throw the case out.

Answer 6

you can be arrested for it, but since it was an illegal search it will be thrown out in court unless the officer had a probable cause for the search such as saying he smelled something or the suspect looked nervous

Answer 7

hes gotta have probable cause or a search warrant....if you break another law not related to drugs...lets say youre speeding and he searches your car.... in the process of any search performed if he finds drugs you will be charged ...if the search is illegal the charge can and most probably will be dropped

Answer 8

you can be charged, that's for sure. Whether or not a search is legal or illegal and the evidence admissible is generally up to the judge.

Answer 9

He can be charged, but if the search was truly illegal none of what was found can be used as evidence.

Answer 10

You are describing the "Exclusionary Rule". In United States constitutional law, the exclusionary rule is a legal principle holding that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.