if there is an illegal search and seizure would the case be dismissed at the preliminary hearing?
923306
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'\nprobably not. it all depends on the skill of the prosecutor, and the strength of their evidence. if it's a constitutional issue (which 4th amendment is) you'll need to hire a separate constitutional lawyer (believe it or not, hillary clinton is one of the best!) to address the constitutionality of the point in case. any more ?'s, just ask. "i ain't passed the bar but i know a little bit.....enough that you won't illegally search my shit."  - jay z
462806
The officers cannot conduct a search without a warrant or without probable cause, unless there are specific special circumstances.\n\nGenerally, the police can pull you over for any suspicion.  Expired tags, no front plates, broken taillight, etc.  If they then "smell" something suspicious (i.e., pot or alcohol), they can then search your car under suspicion of possession or DUI.  If they place you under arrest, they can basically search every inch of your car.\n\nIf they ask if they can search your car YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY NO!!!!!  If you consent to a search, they have the ability to search your entire car.\n\nIf they simply give you a ticket and search your car without consent, they have violated your rights.  If they find any evidence in your car, it cannot be used against you in court.  If they found nothing or no charges were placed against you, you should still make a complait to the police department they were from. It will go in their file and it may help someone else (or you) defend themself in the future.
1081732
Ordinarily, the court will keep both parties well informed.  However, if you had representation, even a public "pretender" then that is the preson whom the court will community with about the status of the case.\n\nYou can go to the clerk of the court and obtain the signed document (hearing) that verifies that charges were dismissed.
1023732
What is their Motion to Dismiss based on?  Did you fail to state a proper claim, get proper service, file after the statute, wrong court, wrong defendent...?  A Motion to Dismiss is usually filed claiming that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim.  You need to find case law that supports that you did whatever properly...\n\nYou really should seek counsel in Dade County~they will eat you alive.
849089
Many people sue the police every year for false imprisonment and sometimes they win their case - usually the arrest is lawful but they've been detained for too long or a review wasn't done when it should have been.\nFrom your question I guess you're looking for a specific case, but without more details I can't help you.
1185699
You can be arrested if someone files a criminal complaint on you with a law enforcement officer.  It is the police's duty to arrest you.  Only after that will an investigation begin of the incident.  \n\nIt is then up to the prosecuting attorney to decide if the case has sufficient evidence to win in court. (Notice I did not say IF THE DEFENDANT WAS INNOCENT.)  \n\nHow long you can remain in custody varies from state to state, most of them its 6 months if still in custody.  \nIf out on a bail bond, however, the state usually has about 9 months to complete the case with time excluded for various reasons. \n\nGenerally, however, if there is no actual crime committed I feel the police generally find that out and the charges are dismissed.
486947
Let me try to give you an answer to the question you asked:\n\nIn California (this may vary by state, and you didn't say what state you're in), there is no right to be present for anyone, at any time, during any legal search.  \n\nIf you are present at a location during a search, you may very well be removed from the location during the search, depending on the circumstances.  It's possible you would even be detained during the search, and not allowed to leave the premises (inside or out) until such time as the search is over.\n\nAlso, just because someplace is being searched does not mean there is an "accused" as of yet.  Search warrants are frequently issued and served prior to any other kind of legal proceedings having been initiated.  At that point, there would be no "accused", only someone who is a suspect.
562107
Yes, this is a HUGE separation of powers question.  While a valid search warrant was issued, the FBI (in my opinion) over-stepped their bounds.  You can look forward to this going all the way to the Supreme Court.
188775
Usually the exclusionary rule will require the exclusion of evidence, but there are exceptions.\n\nInitial decisions chipped away at the rule's application. Defendants who themselves were not subjected to illegal searches and seizures may not object to the introduction against themselves of evidence illegally obtained from co-conspirators or codefendants, and even a defendant whose rights have been infringed may find the evidence coming in, not as proof of guilt, but to impeach his testimony. Defendants who have been convicted after trials in which they were given a full and fair opportunity to raise claims of Fourth Amendment violations may not subsequently raise those claims on federal habeas corpus because of the costs overweighing the minimal deterrent effect.  Evidence obtained through a wrongful search and seizure may sometimes be used in the criminal trial, if the prosecution can show a sufficient attenuation of the link between police misconduct and obtaining of the evidence.  If an arrest or a search which was valid at the time it was effectuated becomes bad through the subsequent invalidation of the statute under which the arrest or search was made, evidence obtained thereby is nonetheless admissible.  A grand jury witness was not permitted to refuse to answer questions on the ground that they were based on evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure, and federal tax authorities were permitted to use in a civil proceeding evidence found to have been unconstitutionally seized from defendant by state authorities.\n\n\nThe most severe curtailment of the rule came in 1984 with adoption of a ''good faith'' exception. In United States v. Leon, the Court created an exception for evidence obtained as a result of officers' objective, good-faith reliance on a warrant, later found to be defective, issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. Justice White's opinion for the Court could find little benefit in applying the exclusionary rule where there has been good-faith reliance on an invalid warrant. Thus, there was nothing to offset the ''substantial social costs exacted by the [rule].'' ''The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates,'' and in any event the Court considered it unlikely that the rule could have much deterrent effect on the actions of truly neutral magistrates.  Moreover, the Court thought that the rule should not be applied ''to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity,'' and that ''[p]enalizing the officer for the magistrate's error . . . cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.''  The Court also suggested some circumstances in which courts would be unable to find that officers' reliance on a warrant was objectively reasonable: if the officers have been ''dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit,'' if it should have been obvious that the magistrate had ''wholly abandoned'' his neutral role, or if the warrant was obviously deficient on its face (e.g., lacking in particularity). The Court applied the Leon standard in Massachusetts v. Sheppard, holding that an officer possessed an objectively reasonable belief that he had a valid warrant after he had pointed out to the magistrate that he had not used the standard form, and the magistrate had indicated that the necessary changes had been incorporated in the issued warrant. \n\nThe Court then extended Leon to hold that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to evidence obtained by an officer acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute later held violative of the Fourth Amendment.  Justice Blackmun's opinion for the Court reasoned that application of the exclusionary rule in such circumstances would have no more deterrent effect on officers than it would when officers reasonably r
342934
Yes If they have a search warrant. It's "POLICE OFFICER search warrant" ... BAMB!! goes the front door. "HIT THE GROUND SCUM BAG" and then you best be sucking dirt!
678579
Its almost universally illegal, but enforcement varies from jurisdiction.  An arrest could possible arise, but there is a defense and you could sue the government for violation of constitutional protections (for an unlawful arrest).  See the dissent in Atwater v. Largo Vista.
804740
If they have a warrant, or reasonable cause, to search the house then they can search all of it.\n\nIf they actually admitted they needed to go get a warrant then anything they have already found is inadmissible in court, due to illegal search.
112712
Probable Cause: Referencing the 1st link below (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)\nThe 2nd link details the Fourth Amendment, which is where your rights against unlawful searches and seizures of your person/property/etc are explained.\n\nMR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe case was Brinegar v. United States, where Mr. Brinegar was arrested for liquor running in Oklahoma. The link below details the case, including the subsequent appeals and relation to another case, Carroll v. United States. Both of which revolve around search and seizure rules as relating to  vehicles.
613655
May depend on the state but... Basically you affirm under oath that what you say is true and did happen to the best of your knowledge. A court date will be set and it will be you plus the state or DA vs the defendent. You had better be able to prove your case in court and have been truthful in the warrant. If you weren't or etc. you could face civil suite by the defendent. If things are what you said then I would not worry and press forward with the truth. There are other things along the way... arraignment, pre-trial, hearing or trial etc. Depends on if the defendent pleads guilty.
1018766
Plead not guilty, get a public defender the evidence will be thrown out because probable cause doesn't exist. Seeing something legal in the car does not give them probable cause. Unless the pocket knife was illegal, or you are on probation, in that case he can search you. Overall though they just do as they please and usually get by with it, don't let them railroad you, he obtained evidence illegally. It all depends on what is in the report.
218693
A search warrant! they might say probable cause but is just to get them in the door! the constitution of the united states tells about unlawful search and seazure. Hope I spelled that last word right!
336438
Depends. Was this the 1st appearance? If so, then the cop had no idea you planned on contesting the ticket, and it is perfectly legal to allow the courts to give notice to the cop in order to get him to appear... But, if he doesnt appear at the trial date (May 17), then you get dismissed. \n\nIve gotten 26 tickets in my life, and only three have ever appeared on my record. If you know the laws and know what questions tto ask WHILE BEING TICKETED, you can beat almost anything they give you. If you'd like, youre welcome to email me and explain the situation completely, and Ill see if there is anything I can tell you that will assist in your defense. I love making cops look stupid in court!