When you are on trial for criminal charges, the court or jury uses evidence to decide whether you are guilty. This evidence must be obtained legally. Evidence is often the result of search and seizure, or when law enforcement searches a location and seizes evidence. Under certain circumstances, this is legal. However, if it is not done correctly, it violates your right to privacy and that can be used to have the evidence excluded. The exclusion of evidence can sometimes be what decides the case, so it is important to speak up for your rights if you believe that law enforcement did not engage in the proper procedures to search for evidence. An experienced criminal defense attorney at the Law Office of Benjamin Greenwald may provide assistance in defending your rights and filing any necessary appeals if you have already been convicted. Call (845) 567-4820 to book a consultation and learn more about your legal options.
Your Right to Privacy
Everyone throughout the United States, and in New York specifically, has a right to privacy. This right to privacy means that people’s homes, cars, bodies, and personal possessions cannot be searched and taken without either their consent or a signed warrant. This right also means people are protected from intrusions such as unwanted surveillance, physical intrusion, and public sharing of private information. This right is protected on the federal level by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. At the state level, the New York State Constitution protects this right in Article 1, Section 12.
While privacy rights are well-protected, it is important to recognize that they are not absolute. In certain circumstances, such as when there is a compelling public interest like public safety or national security, a person’s privacy rights can be limited. Additionally, there are certain legal exceptions that may override rights to privacy. There are also frequent debates and concerns over newly evolving areas where privacy rights could apply, such as facial recognition, data collection, and online tracking. This also means the legal frameworks around those issues are evolving, so it is important that individuals who believe their privacy rights were violated consult with an attorney.
Grounds for Challenging Search and Seizure
When an individual is facing criminal charges or has been convicted and believes that some or all of the evidence against them was illegally obtained, they can challenge the search and seizure. There are several grounds for challenging it, depending on the circumstances.
Lack of Probable Cause
Both the United States Constitution and New York law requires law enforcement to have probable cause to arrest or search someone. Probable cause means that law enforcement must have a reasonable belief that is supported by facts and circumstances that a crime has been, is being, or is going to be committed. To conduct a search or obtain a search warrant, law enforcement must have probable cause to believe a crime was committed or that they will find evidence of a crime. Individuals can challenge the search and seizure if they believe law enforcement lacked probable cause.
No Warrant When Required
In most cases, a warrant is required to conduct a search. This warrant must be issued by a neutral magistrate or judge, and based on probable cause. If there is no warrant when one is required, the search can be challenged. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as when the individual gives consent to the search, evidence that is in plain view of the officer, searches incident to arrest, and exigent circumstances. Individuals may want to consult an attorney to ensure that a warrant was required in their circumstances.
Warrant Defects
In some cases, a warrant is issued and a search occurs, but the warrant is not valid. This can be because the warrant was based on inaccurate or incomplete information or the officer acted with a “reckless disregard for the truth” on the warrant application. Other reasons a warrant may be found invalid include not being particular with the place to be searched and the items to be seized, being too broad or vague, or being issued by a magistrate who is biased or has a conflict of interest.
Defective execution can also make the warrant invalid. Defective execution can include not conducting the search within a reasonable time, using excessive force, or not conducting the search in good faith. Failure to knock and announce law enforcement’s presence before executing the search warrant may also invalidate it unless it is a no-knock warrant or exigent circumstances exist, such as concern that the evidence might be destroyed.
Exceeding the Scope of a Warrant
A properly issued search warrant must specifically identify the areas to be searched and the items to be seized. This means that if a search warrant is issued for a house, law enforcement cannot search detached garages, sheds, other buildings, or motor vehicles on the premises. If the warrant names specific items to be seized, law enforcement cannot seize other items unless they are in plain view during a lawful search. Searching beyond the boundaries identified in the warrant or seizing items not named in the warrant and not in plain view may be exceeding the scope of the warrant and can give the individual grounds to challenge the search and seizure.
Illegal Initial Stop
An illegal initial stop can violate an individual’s right to privacy. To stop an individual, law enforcement must have a reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation or criminal activity is occurring or has occurred. Reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch or a gut feeling; it is specific, articulable facts that lead the officer to suspect illegal activity. Insufficient reasons to stop someone include targeting the individual based on race, vehicle type, or neighborhood they are in, or stopping someone without observing any traffic violations or criminal behavior. If the initial stop is found to be unlawful, any subsequent search and seizure as well as the evidence obtained during it, may also be considered unlawful based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.
Lack of Consent or Coerced Consent
People are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and by Article 1, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution. This means that without a warrant, law enforcement cannot perform a search or seize any evidence. However, people can waive this right by giving consent to the search. Often, people do give such consent, typically with the belief that they have nothing to hide, so it is best to allow the search to prove that. While this may work for some people, others find that this results in evidence being seized that is used to charge them with a crime.
In some cases, this consent is not voluntarily or freely given. If consent is not given and law enforcement searches anyway, or if consent is coerced, such as law enforcement making threats or using force, the search may be illegal and the evidence obtained may be excluded in court. If you did not give consent, or your consent was coerced, the Law Office of Benjamin Greenwald may provide assistance in getting the evidence declared inadmissible or appealing your conviction.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
The Office of Justice Programs explains the exclusionary rule mandates that any evidence seized during unlawful police activity (including searches), with few exceptions, will not be admissible in court. Even if that evidence is relevant and would otherwise result in the individual being found guilty, it is inadmissible if it is illegally obtained.
The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule and says that evidence obtained as a result of illegally obtained evidence is also inadmissible. For example, if evidence is found in someone’s home when it is searched with a warrant, but that warrant is obtained using evidence found during an illegal traffic stop or a search done without the individual’s consent, the evidence seized with the warrant is inadmissible. However, there are three exceptions to the exclusionary rule that may allow evidence from otherwise illegal searches to be admissible.
Inevitable Discovery
Inevitable discovery means that the evidence would have been found eventually through lawful means. For example, if law enforcement illegally searches a suspect’s home and finds a murder weapon, but a valid warrant was being signed to authorize a legal search of the same home, an argument would be made that even though the search was illegal, once the warrant was signed and the legal search took place, the murder weapon still would have been discovered and therefore, it should be admissible.
The prosecution must be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that the evidence would have been discovered by legal means. While not required, in some cases the court may consider bad faith on the part of the officer who discovered the evidence. This means that if the officer acted in bad faith, such as falsifying information on a search warrant, the court may still decline to admit the evidence even if its discovery was inevitable.
Attenuation Doctrine
The attenuation doctrine in New York is similar to federal law. With the attenuation doctrine, illegally obtained evidence may be admitted to court if the connection between the illegal law enforcement conduct and the evidence is deemed to be “attenuated” or weakened sufficiently. This means that even if evidence is obtained illegally, such as through an illegal arrest, it may still be admissible if the court decides that the link to the initial illegal behavior (the illegal arrest) is too remote or insignificant.
An example of the attenuation doctrine would be a confession after an illegal arrest. If the confession is made immediately after the arrest, it is more likely to be suppressed because it occurred so close in time to the arrest. However, if the individual is illegally arrested, then makes a confession several hours or days later, it is less likely to be suppressed because the court may find it is attenuated, or distant enough, from the illegal arrest.
Good Faith Exception
The good faith exception is a carve-out to the exclusionary rule that says if the law enforcement officer reasonably believed they were acting within the law when the illegal action took place, the evidence may still be admitted. The core of this exception is the requirement that the officer reasonably believed they were acting within the law. In other words, any reasonable officer in the same circumstances would have believed they were acting legally.
The most common uses of the good faith exception are when officers rely on a warrant that is later determined to be invalid, or when they act based on a legal precedent that is later overturned. However, there are other instances in which this exception is applied.
The Search and Seizure Appeal Process
There are two aspects to challenging illegal searches and seizures. The first is challenging it before the trial. The second is appealing a conviction if it was not challenged or the challenge was unsuccessful before the trial.
Pre-Trial Challenge
When an individual suspects an illegal search and seizure occurred in their case, they will likely want to consult with a criminal defense attorney to proceed with challenging the search. The individual or their attorney, if they have one, can first review the facts and circumstances of the case. This will include analyzing police reports, witness statements, and other evidence to determine whether a violation of their right to privacy occurred.
The next step is filing a motion to suppress evidence, which is a formal request to the court asking that the evidence obtained through the search be excluded from the trial. Then there is a pre-trial hearing, called a suppression hearing. During this hearing, the individual or their attorney will present arguments and evidence challenging the legality of the search and seizure. The final step in this process is the judge’s decision to either admit or exclude the evidence.
Post-Conviction Appeal
If the pre-trial challenge is unsuccessful, or there is no pre-trial challenge, the alternative for challenging illegal searches and seizures is an appeal after conviction. If there is no conviction, there is no need for appeal. However, if the individual is convicted, they can file an appeal based on one of the grounds for challenging searches and seizures. They may also be able to file an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel if the individual’s criminal defense attorney did not properly challenge the legality of the search.
Filing an appeal begins with filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of the sentencing date as indicated by the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The record must then be assembled by gathering the trial records, including transcripts and relevant pre-motions or hearings. A written appellate brief must then be prepared and submitted, arguing why the trial court’s decision was erroneous and should be overturned. The appellate court may then schedule oral arguments, or they may review the case and issue their decision.
Let a Criminal Defense Attorney Defend Your Right to Privacy
Every individual in the state of New York has a right to privacy, which protects them from illegal searches and seizures. This right can be complicated, with some exceptions and occasional pressure from law enforcement. If you believe that you have been a victim of an illegal search and seizure, and you have not yet been tried, we may be able to assist with getting any illegally obtained evidence suppressed. If you have already been convicted, we may be able to assist with an appeal. Call the Law Office of Benjamin Greenwald at (845) 567-4820 to book a consultation and discuss your legal rights and options.
