Defective Search Warrant Case Study: Fourth Amendment Rights

Introduction

What constitutes the nature of a legal search and seizure? Throughout the years, people have exercised their rights under the Fourth Amendment to protect themselves against illegal searches and seizures. In many cases, the constitutionality of police action has been questioned, including in the context of the current case under review. Both Mr. Wrong and Mr. Right are now challenging the actions of University Police officers regarding the nature of the searches that led to their arrest on drug charges. The following content reviews the facts and provides recommendations — primarily that the case against Mr. Right be dropped, based on the fact that his residence was not included in the initial search warrant.

There has recently been an incident involving the execution of a warrant procured by the University Police Department regarding a suspected drug stash within a convenience store. A brand-new informant, who was himself facing criminal charges, led police to believe that marijuana and cocaine would be found within a particular convenience store. The credibility of this witness had not been validated, and he had been promised a favorable recommendation to the prosecutor handling his case. This was the sole evidence used to generate a request for a warrant to search the property in question.

Summary of Facts

The supervisor of the unit then took the warrant to court but was forced to settle for a clerk's signature on the warrant because the judge was out to lunch at the time. With this warrant, the University Police Department executed their search of the property, finding a trapdoor filled with marijuana and cocaine. This led to the arrest of store owner Mr. Wrong.

During the execution of the warrant, a K-9 team was used to help locate the exact position of the hidden drug stash. After finding the stash beneath the floor, one K-9 alerted its handler to a possible drug presence in a private residence located 10 feet away from the convenience store. Based on this alert, the police believed they had sufficient probable cause to search the residence of Mr. Right. This search yielded cocaine in small plastic bags, suggesting intent to sell. Mr. Right was subsequently charged by the supervisor with possession with intent to distribute.

One week later, both Mr. Wrong and Mr. Right are challenging the credibility of the warrant. Mr. Wrong claims that the warrant was defective, while Mr. Right is threatening to sue the police department for violating his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect citizens from illegal search and seizure. Specifically, Mr. Right is threatening to file a Section 1983 lawsuit for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights.

Within the context of this case, a number of legal issues arise. The issue of the defective search warrant is raised by Mr. Wrong, who contends that a warrant signed by a clerk cannot be considered a valid warrant. Moreover, the informant's testimony was the sole evidence used to generate the warrant, which could be considered circumstantial.

Issues Presented

There are also issues regarding a potential illegal search and seizure of Mr. Right and his property. In this case, the K-9 alerted the officers serving the warrant to drugs on Mr. Right's property — a location not clearly defined within the search warrant the officers had procured. Under the Fourth Amendment, this could be considered an illegal search and seizure.

The case also tests the evidentiary weight of a K-9 signal in defining the degree of probable cause sufficient to justify an on-scene arrest and search. Both individuals were discovered to have illegal narcotics because of signals provided by a police K-9, yet either defendant may seek to question the validity of a K-9 signal as constituting adequate probable cause.