|
Hi All,
This one has kept me wondering. If a presumably suspicious landlord and
landlord-sanctioned repair personnel illegally enters one of his/her units
(a non-emergency entry without advance notice), discovers something illegal
and contacts the police, can a search and/or arrest warrant be issued to law
enforcement based on this landlord's illegal eyewitness entry?
In the state of California a landlord is not allowed to consent to a
voluntary search so long as the unit in question is not abandoned. Renting a
home means that the tenant has bought, for a time, the exclusive right to
possess that home. The landlord has legal title and the tenant has a form of
possessor title to the property. That means the tenant has the exclusive
right of possession of the home. Thus, people can not enter without special
permission or statutory authority to do so.
|
| |
| |
Bill Brasky wrote:
Hi All,
This one has kept me wondering. If a presumably suspicious landlord and
landlord-sanctioned repair personnel illegally enters one of his/her
units (a non-emergency entry without advance notice), discovers something
illegal and contacts the police, can a search and/or arrest warrant be
issued to law enforcement based on this landlord's illegal eyewitness
entry?
In the state of California a landlord is not allowed to consent to a
voluntary search so long as the unit in question is not abandoned.
Renting a home means that the tenant has bought, for a time, the
exclusive right to possess that home. The landlord has legal title and
the tenant has a form of possessor title to the property. That means the
tenant has the exclusive right of possession of the home. Thus, people
can not enter without special permission or statutory authority to do so.
Probably not. In this case the landlord is a 3rd party so to say. A judge
would be reluctant to sign such a warrant without having first have some
better idea as to what is illegal or not. The well intentioned landlord
could be totally wrong on his perception of the scene.
The landlord should simply contact the police, show them what he found, then
let the police handle it entirely.
However, the search warrant could be invalidated on the premise that the
warrant was obtained by the fact that the landlord, and police were
trespassing when there was no emergency.
Legal advice means to hire the services of an attorney.
I do not give legal advice.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:38:58 -0600, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
Bill Brasky wrote:
Probably not. In this case the landlord is a 3rd party so to say. A judge
would be reluctant to sign such a warrant without having first have some
better idea as to what is illegal or not. The well intentioned landlord
could be totally wrong on his perception of the scene.
The landlord should simply contact the police, show them what he found, then
let the police handle it entirely.
The landlord is not the police and doesn't represent the state and was not
talked into entering the apartment by the state. Thus there are no 4th
amendment implications with the landlord's illegal entry.
The police are going to evaluate the landlord's tip and apply for a warrant
just as they would if some stoolie gave the information. The relevant
questions will be is the information reliable, and based on the information
is there probable cause that the police will find a specific contraband or
evidence of a crime at the specified location at the specified time. On
the facts the OP gave, it looks like a slam dunk to get a magistrate to
issue the warrant.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:38:58 -0600, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
The landlord is not the police and doesn't represent the state and was
not talked into entering the apartment by the state. Thus there are no
4th amendment implications with the landlord's illegal entry.
The police are going to evaluate the landlord's tip and apply for a
warrant just as they would if some stoolie gave the information. The
relevant questions will be is the information reliable, and based on the
information is there probable cause that the police will find a specific
contraband or evidence of a crime at the specified location at the
specified time. On the facts the OP gave, it looks like a slam dunk to
get a magistrate to issue the warrant.
Isaac
Trespassing sir. The landlord has no legal right to enter the property after
it's been rented and occupied.
This is due to the fact that many women were raped in their own home by
their landlord simply because the guy had a key.
As the tenant, you have the right to change the lock on the door. It is your
property.
I lived in an apartment and was told by one resident that a girl living by
herself had her refrigerator go out on her.
The landlord came over, took a look. The next day, after taking a nap in the
bedroom, she found a brand new refrigerator in the apartment. She moved.
Unless it is an absolute life threatening emergency, the landlord may not
enter the premises without notice or permission.
However, had the landlord been invited into the apartment at which time
possible illegal items were seen, then that would be sufficient cause for a
warrant.
Or, if the landlord was outside of the apartment and looked through a
window, observing said items, then that is a different situation and a
warrant could be issued.
But not because he just walked in on his own.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:44:28 -0600, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
Isaac wrote:
Trespassing sir. The landlord has no legal right to enter the property after
it's been rented and occupied.
The landlord's actions are illegal, but that illegality doesn't implicate
the 4th Amendment unless the state does it or motivates the landlord to do
it. In the hypothetical, the landlord entered for reasons of his own and
then went to the police.
This is simple, criminal law textbook level stuff. While you may not like
the answer, it isn't the least bit controversial.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:44:28 -0600, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
The landlord's actions are illegal, but that illegality doesn't implicate
the 4th Amendment unless the state does it or motivates the landlord to
do it. In the hypothetical, the landlord entered for reasons of his own
and then went to the police.
This is simple, criminal law textbook level stuff. While you may not
like the answer, it isn't the least bit controversial.
Isaac
The state has already denied the landlord "at will" entry. It is therefor
trespassing.
Unless the evidence was observed during an "emergency" situation.
If the landlord's actions are illegal, how can the property be searched with
a warrant on his say so?
In "Dirty Harry", Harry busted into the sniper's living quarters and found
the weapon.
A federal judge stated that the weapon would probably be dismissed because
it was obtained without a proper search warrant.
You know a person to be dealing in drugs. You buy a "bag" from the dealer
and take it to the cops as evidence.
Who gets busted? You do. Why? Possession.
The proper way to handle the situation would be to take your observations to
the police and let them do a proper investigation.
Recently, someone posted a similar situation or I had read somewhere, where
during a visit to the house of an injured party, the police noticed certain
illegal items in the house. Instead of busting the owner on the spot, they
sat on the house and got a search warrant. Then they went in, confiscated
the illegal items and busted the person.
That is the way to handle that situation.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:27:03 -0600, Richard <anonymous@127.000> wrote:
The state has already denied the landlord "at will" entry. It is therefor
trespassing.
Unless the evidence was observed during an "emergency" situation.
If the landlord's actions are illegal, how can the property be searched with
a warrant on his say so?
I see how you've earned your reputation. One post at a time.
In "Dirty Harry", Harry busted into the sniper's living quarters and found
the weapon.
A federal judge stated that the weapon would probably be dismissed because
it was obtained without a proper search warrant.
Unlike the landlord, Harry was a policeman. The police are subject to the
4th Amendment. Your landlord is not. That's the difference.
Your theory about the cops busting you and being unable to bust the drug
dealer is just plain asinine. The cops are more than happy to use the
information that one criminal gives to bust yet another criminal. That's
done all of the time.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
<snip>
I see how you've earned your reputation. One post at a time.
You've noticed that too?
Unlike the landlord, Harry was a policeman. The police are subject to the
4th Amendment. Your landlord is not. That's the difference.
Your theory about the cops busting you and being unable to bust the drug
dealer is just plain asinine. The cops are more than happy to use the
information that one criminal gives to bust yet another criminal. That's
done all of the time.
I believe in just about any precinct station, it's called, "Let's Make A
Deal."
Isaac
|
| |
| |
|
