Searches and Seizures in Drug Cases

When you are facing drug charges, working closely with an attorney who will explain clearly all your rights, options and potential consequences can help to ensure that you make decision that are in your best interests. Call today to schedule a consultation and case evaluation with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Particularly in drug cases, the legality of how law enforcement officials obtained the evidence used to support the State’s case is a central and often-challenged issue. If the government’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, the evidence is deemed inadmissible. Without the necessary evidence to prove the criminal charges, the State may have to dismiss its case against a defendant. If you have been charged with a drug crime, contact Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys in Minneapolis, MN, today to schedule a consultation with a criminal defense attorney who can advise you whether the evidence leading the charge may have resulted from an illegal search or seizure.

The Fourth Amendment provides:

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.

In addition, similar provisions in each state’s constitution may afford even greater protections.

Warrants and the protection of privacy

Fourth Amendment protections apply to situations where persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as their home or personal communications, for instance. However, whether the expectation is “reasonable” is the key to whether it is protected by the Constitution. Reasonableness is context-specific. The court looks at an individual’s intention to keep something private and whether the expectation is one that society is willing to recognize as reasonable. Just as standards of privacy are constantly changing in society, Fourth Amendment law is also constantly evolving.

The government can intrude on such a zone of privacy only if the search or seizure is reasonable. Generally, a “reasonable” search or seizure is one supported by a warrant. The warrant itself has to be valid. A warrant is valid if issued by a neutral judicial official, supported by probable cause and specifically identifies the person or thing to be searched or seized. To establish “probable cause,” the law enforcement officer has to present facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime is being, or has been, committed.

Exceptions to the warrant requirement

The Supreme Court has recognized a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement. A warrantless search or seizure is still “reasonable” if there is probable cause and certain circumstances exist that make getting a warrant impractical or impossible. These exceptions include:

  • Search incident to arrest: searching a person after a lawful arrest to locate weapons and/or prevent the destruction of evidence
  • Consent: when an individual voluntarily waives his or her Fourth Amendment rights
  • Plain view: searching or seizing objects in plain view, if an officer has a legal right to be in that position where he or she is viewing the objects
  • Automobile exception: searching vehicles if an officer has probable cause to believe there is contraband inside and it would be moved before a warrant can be obtained
  • Exigent circumstances: when there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant due to an emergency situation, e.g., life is at risk

Besides these exceptions, law enforcement officers can conduct limited detentions and frisks without a warrant if they have an articulable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring.

Contact a criminal defense attorney

Analyzing whether a search or seizure was legal requires a close look at many factors. In a drug case, a successful challenge to evidence can mean the difference between a dismissal and a conviction. Contact Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys in Minneapolis, MN, today to schedule a consultation with a criminal defense lawyer to discuss your situation and learn about your rights and options.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.