themaninred

In order to enter a residence, am I incorrect in thinking that the property-owner could grant police permission to enter as well? In that sense, since I am renting out a place to live, a manager/landlord could allow police to enter my house, right? That seems a little sketchy to me, but maybe that's how it works.

Can the police search areas outside of my residence after conducting a search there? For example, could they claim my automobile exigent circumstance and search it, too?

In other words, if I suspect police to come to my residence soon, the only safe stash is with some other person, because they can search my residence and car without warrant, as long as the landlord agrees?

BartSimpson

I am not sure where you get your information, but I suggest you read your rental contract. While I currently do not own residential rentals, I have several commercial rentals and have owned apartments in the past. The law is very clear on this in California.

As a landlord, without 24 hour notice, I am only allowed to enter your residence in an emergency - which is defined as an sudden and unexpected circumstance requiring immediate intervention to prevent significant damage or harm (such as a broken pipe). The police asking me for entry does not constitute an emergency as defined, therefore I would have civil liability if I allowed the police access just because they asked. If they presented a Warrant, I would allow them to use my key if it would prevent damage (such as kicking in the door). I am not entitled to grant them access in the state of California in the absence of your permission.

A warrant would generally cover all vehicles, outbuildings, garages or other spaces on the subject property under the control of the person or persons involved.

Not sure what television you watch, but chances of your knowing the Police are coming are pretty slim - they prefer it that way just for the reason you suggest, the destruction of evidence.

__________________

phuzz01

The landlord cannot give me consent to search your apartment. You have an expectation of privacy in there, so I would need your consent. The landlord could give me consent to search common areas, such as staircases, hallways between apartments, etc. You do not have a specific expectation of privacy in those areas.

As far as your car, the automobile exception under Carroll v. US is generally for vehicles stopped on the side of the road, not parked in your driveway. So they would need a warrant for that. Every warrant must specifically list what areas are to be searched. Other areas outside the apartment building might be searched without a warrant if they fall into the "open fields" exception (part of plain view).

So nothing you have mentioned constitutes exigent circumstances by itself. However, that does not mean that there could not be other exigent circumstances. For exaple, if you get into a domestic dispute in your apartment and a neighbor hears it and calls the police, that could constitute exigent circumstances to enter without a warrant. Or a million other "what ifs."

themaninred

Wow, I appreciate the replies going on here. Much faster than I expected! I was trying to get information on my specific state's search warrant laws, and thought I stumbled across part of a phrase that said 'police do not need to obtain a warrant if the property owner consents to a search.' I know that if the owner/resident of a house/apartment/etc consents to a search, then the police are free to search. I guess that 'property owner' clause made me nervous, because I know I don't actually own any part of the property. After I posted this, I gave my lease another read-through, and surprisingly did not find anything about landlord's right to enter/rights to search cars in company parking lots. I'll have to look over it again, but I thought that would be something in there.

The only reason why I said I suspected police is for a few reasons: my roommate and I smoke tobacco out of a glass hookah, and two nights ago we left the hookah outside before cleaning it up. There was a disturbance last night with some big party (college, ahh..) and there were police walking around. I heard two officers walk by and talk briefly about our hookah, and heard them assume we were smoking marijuana. (Not unreasonable, but still worrisome) I then thought I heard officers talking to the people in the room below us, and heard somebody respond to "You see them smoking marijuana, ma'am?" -- "Yes sir, I see them smoking up all the time. All the time."

At which point I become fairly worried. I know that the police should need a warrant to enter, and generally get a big need to move all of my stuff elsewhere. The problem is..I'm not sure where to move it to! I've read some instances of people getting their cars searched after an arrest outside their homes, and it would not be surprising if a search warrant included my car (they could probably use exigent circumstance and the whole destruction of evidence thing, right?)

I really don't want anything to happen, and besides throwing all my stuff away I don't see a safe road. I guess sometimes it just boils down to that

TheUnseenTruth

Phuzz, you're the man.

To further a couple of things, there's one circumstance where they wouldn't need a warrant, and that's if you had a roomate who gave them search rights, though I'm unsure as to if they can search all of the house, or just that tenants things.

They might search your car after an arrest, if they have reason to believe there's fruits of a crime, a weapon, or other like naughties inside the vehicle.

Don't panic man, just stay low ; and be careful.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodgirl I think I will be stopping by the bunker tonight....I could use a little of what you are all serving.

phuzz01

The US Supreme Court just ruled on this issue in March, 2006, in Georgia v. Randolph, 278 Ga. 6. They decided that if one tenant gives consent to search, and the other tenant is present and refuses consent, then the police cannot conduct a consent search of the premesis.

Before I get into the details of the case, I would point out that this decision only deals with a situation where a tenant is present and refuses the search. If one party consents, and the other isn't there, this case probably wouldn't apply.

The circumstances of the case were that the police were called to an apartment for a domestic dispute. They speak to the female party, who tells them that the male party has controlled drugs in the bedroom. The male party denies consent to search the apartment, and the female consents to a search. The police go to the bedroom with the female party and find cocaine there.

In his written dissent, new Chief Justice Roberts argued that if the Supreme Court decided that the warrantless entry was illegal, then that would mean problems for the police in domestic violence cases. Example: Woman calls the police and reports that husband is beating her up, police respond and knock on the door, woman says come in but husband says no, now police have to leave because one party refuses consent to enter. However, in the majority opinion, Justice Souter responded that that situation would constitute exigent circumstances due to the danger to the female party's physical safety, and the police would be able to make a warrantless entry without anyone's consent.

It was definitely an interesting case, so if anybody is interested in reading it:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/04-1067.pdf

themaninred

Thanks guys. I'll just be sure that nothing is ever on me on the premises, and try to keep everything not in my residence. I'm a lot calmer the day after my worry :O

themaninred

Yeah, definitely an interesting case. Brings up the issue of ownership/control. Both must agree in a 50/50 ownership, but it appears different if 80/20, etc.

I know my roommate and I have cleared this kind of stuff, but if you weren't aware of this problem, you could still maybe get yourself in a bad predicament.

phuzz01

Prior to this decision, the general rule of thumb was that a roomate could give consent to search that roomate's property, as well as joint property. So the roomate could give consent to search his/her own room, as well as common areas, but not somebody else's bedroom.

I think that this scheme would still apply if you were not present to refuse consent. So, the roomate could give consent for his own property and common areas.

If you are present to refuse, I would say that the roomate could give consent to search his/her own room/property only, and not common areas (assuming that you refuse consent of common areas).

Dachshund12

If the cops can do a search without a warrant if they believe that evidence could be destroyed, why would they brother to get a warrant at all? Is there any protection against this loophole that violates our Constitutional rights?
It's the same as how a cop just have to say he smells marijuana even if there isn't any to get probable cause to search your car.


It would be nice if cops, judges, politicans, and other people in the government wouldn't shit all over the Constitution.