in illinois if you have a warrant for your arrest doese that give cops the right to stick their hand in a broken window in your home search for you and find you in a room then go to other rooms and search
State/Country relating to question: Illinois
Hi Jacustomer,Unfortunatey, yes. The whole purpose of a warrant is to allow the police to enter your premises and apprehend you. Now, if once inside the police exceeded the scope of their authority that could present Constitutional problems. If it's only an arrest warrant, for example, they can find you, but without your consent, they can only take what they see in plain view or within your reachable area as they apprehend you.If they went beyond that, this does not make the case dismissable. There is nothing ever 100% certain about a 4th amendment issue. The Supreme Court has said that what is or isn't Constutional must be litigated at pre-trial suppression heariings, on a case-by case basis. The Supreme Court also set the standard judges must use, which is what a reasonable police officer would do under all of the circumstances.So what would happen at the hearing is that the prosecutor would call the police officer to the stand and will question him as to what he did in your case. He will ask him to explain the basis for the warrant, the search, the arrest, the recovery of any contraband, any post-arrest questioning, and so on. All of the DA's questions will be geared to try to show that everything the police said and did when they entered your house was reasonable under all of the circumstances. When the prosecutor is finished, your lawyer would be able to cross-examine the police officer to try to show just how the police abused their authority by pointing up the facts that you have mentioned and anything else that he thinks would show evidence that the police were overreaching their authority. After both sides have finished getting all the evidence out there, the prosecutor and the defense attorney will each get an opportunity to argue their point of view before the judge, drawing support from the testimony that came out at the hearing and from relevant case law. After that, the judge makes his ruling.If the judge rules that police actions were reasonable under the circumstances, any evidence taken from the home would be allowed to be used against you at trial. If, on the other hand, the judge rules that the police violated some or all of your rights, evidence seized as a result of those violations should be suppressed. Sometimes, depending upon what gets suppressed, that would spell out the end of the case.
18 yrs of NYC public defense. Extensive arraignment, hearing, trial experience.
Hello Eric,This is in response to your follow up, You asked:"if the cops had the right to come in your house and just had an arrest warrent for failer to apper in illinois then they go looking around and find a purse in a room at the other end of the house and take it to jail and search it there and find a plastic bag with residue in it then charge you for possession of a controlled substance less than 5 grams whos to say that for one they had the right to search a different room then the room you was caught in and for another thing they could have put that baggie in the purse to make a case so i think that my rights were violated some where along this process dont you "___The answer does not change from what I have already told you, because unfortunately it doesn't matter what you and I think. Do I see issues in your favor based on the new information? Yes, I do, and they are the same ones you see. Does that mean you've got yourself a winning suppression issue? No. There is simply no such thing as a suppression hearing that is a slam-dunk for either the prosecutor or the defense. I'd be lying if I tried to tell you otherwise, because we don't know what information will come out on the stand and whether a judge will find the police actions reasonable.If the judge does hold for the state, and the evidence comes in, then your lawyer can bring the same facts out at trial, where the burden of proof is much more favorable to you than at the hearing. At the hearing, the police just has to be reasonable. At a trial, the defendant must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. So anything that the defense can put out there to instill some doubt into the minds of the jury can be very helpful.FranL41089.8156219907
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).