Can Cops search your house with a warrant but without you being present?

Yes
.....a copy of the warrant will be attached to the outside of the door when they leave.

and if they don't leave an itemized list of things removed... you should be able to obtain it by contacting them (or have your attorney make the request...).

Remember as well that officers (or investigators) have to show cause to a judge before a warrant is issued...

lemaymiami said:

and if they don't leave an itemized list of things removed... you should be able to obtain it by contacting them (or have your attorney make the request...).

Remember as well that officers (or investigators) have to show cause to a judge before a warrant is issued...

Click to expand...

It's been a while but if I remember correctly, I believe a list of item(s) removed is required to be attached to the warrant attached to the door.

Darth-Vang said:

So they can if necessary, break your door down with force and search your house whatever it is they’re looking for and leave with a note on your door?

Click to expand...

Do you need everyone to repeat what they said?

Darth-Vang said:

if they didn’t leave an official warrant on your door then most people would assume a burglary took place.

Click to expand...

Do you have a story to tell?

So, let's push the cart downhill. They have a warrant, break down your door, and find nothing. Can they just leave the house open, to passing opportunists, or are they required to
make repairs ?

Dibbs said:

So, let's push the cart downhill. They have a warrant, break down your door, and find nothing. Can they just leave the house open, to passing opportunists, or are they required to
make repairs ?

Click to expand...

It all depends entirely on your departments policy, the manner in which it was done, and court rulings. The police in Denver, Colorado literally destroyed a mans home after a shoplifter barricaded himself in someone's home and didn't have to pay him a dime because it was done in an attempt to arrest someone.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/7747...an-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says

Here's another example of how its all about departmental policy and in this case lack of a court ruling: one would assume that an officer taking property from an unlocked vehicle would constitute a criminal act in the same way a private citizen taking property from an unlocked car would constitute a crime, but in New Haven, Connecticut this was actually done.
https://lancasteronline.com/cops-to...cle_373efde0-8265-11e5-ab96-0305483ec1f1.html
The items were returned to the owner so one could argue this wasn't theft, however, the officer still illegally entered the car and illegally took possession of an item which did not belong to him without the consent of the owner. In this crazy world we live in, because this was implemented by the police department and the items taken from the vehicles were returned to the owner it was considered legal.

Long story short, you would have to check with your local department, relevant court rulings, and a lawyer or three to get a definitive answer to your question.

In other news, the FBI was looking for something in a safe deposit box, opened dozens of others NOT RELATED, took items, cash, and firearms. That is being reviewed as overstepping the line.

As for the local PD searching a home in a local jurisdiction, they found the perp, they wanted to search for the firearm, he had been hiding the attic and the parameters of the search were going to include removing all the sheet rock from the walls of the entire house, etc. The county commission ruled it out as they would be liable for damages and would not authorize that level of search. Firearm still not found AFAIK.

As for the search for the Boston Bomber, no search warrants issued again AFAIK, just "move out of the way we are coming in." Exigent circumstances well meant will sometimes be used in an incident where acting "under the color of law" could be argued in court. It's up to you how you want to handle that.

Another questionable search, cop and firefighter got into a masculine measuring contest driving in the public roadway, one contacted his buddies on the force, who, the next day came to sieze the firefighter's vehicle. In the search to document his belongings, he had a AR rifle, and a AR pistol broken down in one carry bag. At the station, the property officers illegally assembled the stocked lower with the short barreled upper and texted it to the local ATF. They took the picture at face value, prosecuted, the firefighters attorney was the worst least choice who immediately lost the case. That got the attention of tens of thousands of AR pistol owners. Don't mix arms in the same carry case. Just don't.

Lesson is: don't be looking for trouble, won't be trouble. Don't be the older American shooting squirrels in your yard weeks after NY passes the SAFE act requiring registration or turn in. Goes to: just how did you get their attention in the first place? Don't know? You need to up your game.

Having posted for a long time on a board known for paid agitators, questions like these tend to raise suspicion. The typical reply is something like, not today, Mr FBI man. We're a firearms forum, not a legal procedures forum, unfortunately. That even goes so far as to minimize how to protect our homes, which is Secure Construction from Intrusion. Hammers not guns. A moderators job gets harder every month now.

Nearly all search warrants for residential locations are issued under state law. That means you could get up to 50 different answers.

No state law, that I'm aware of requires that the owner, or resident, be present when a search warrant is executed.

The majority of my LEO service was in California. California law does not require the warrant to be left at the scene, nor does it require the warrant to be shown to any persons at the location, or even be possessed at the location when served. It's only required that the warrant have been issued. It's certainly good practice to have a copy at the scene, and to show it to concerned persons, but it's not required by law to do so. California law does require an inventory of items seized to be left at the location.

The law does require that LEOs make reasonable efforts to limit the damage resulting from the service of search warrants. One of the pivotal events in establishing that liability flowed from the infamous "Dalton Street Raid" done by the LAPD in 1988. The resulting investigations, and lawsuits, forced quite a bit of change in the way warrants were served.

I have two large dogs at my home. They are kept inside, but if law enforcement were to search my home, would my dogs be safe?

No.

Best advice is if they show up w paperwork be polite and comply. You will never win an argument at the doorstep just like you will not win an argument on the side of the road at a traffic stop. Contact attorney immediately and let them earn their dollar in court.

Making statements like “I do not give permission for a search.” is reasonable. Then stand aside and let them open the door and search if they must.

lemaymiami said:

and if they don't leave an itemized list of things removed... you should be able to obtain it by contacting them (or have your attorney make the request...).

Remember as well that officers (or investigators) have to show cause to a judge before a warrant is issued...

Click to expand...

I'll have to check, but my Judge might be Ronald Mcdonald. And the county judge is Ellen D.

Barr said:

Best advice is if they show up w paperwork be polite and comply.

Click to expand...

Right.
One board had a thread recommending "How to Get Arrested" training.
Best to give up even if SOCMOB.

Pudge said:

I have two large dogs at my home. They are kept inside, but if law enforcement were to search my home, would my dogs be safe?

Click to expand...

No. If your dogs are like mine (110 pound lab mix, 70 pound flat coated retriever) they won't let a stranger enter your dwelling without you, or at the very least without barking and growling. The barking and growling is enough for the officer to "reasonably fear for his/her safety" and may lead to the officer shooting the dog.

According to an article I found, "the Puppycide Database Project estimates the number of dogs being killed by police to be closer to 500 dogs a day, which translates to 182,000 dogs a year" whereas the DOJ "estimates at least 25 dogs are killed by police every day."
https://www.overtoncountynews.com/l...cle_98757e76-318f-11ea-8d4f-e35f8b517936.html

twofewscrews said:

No. If your dogs are like mine (110 pound lab mix, 70 pound flat coated retriever) they won't let a stranger enter your dwelling without you, or at the very least without barking and growling. The barking and growling is enough for the officer to "reasonably fear for his/her safety" and may lead to the officer shooting the dog.

According to an article I found, "the Puppycide Database Project estimates the number of dogs being killed by police to be closer to 500 dogs a day, which translates to 182,000 dogs a year" whereas the DOJ "estimates at least 25 dogs are killed by police every day."
https://www.overtoncountynews.com/l...cle_98757e76-318f-11ea-8d4f-e35f8b517936.html

Click to expand...

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26079096

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-p...-injuries-should-police-rethink-the-practice/

At 25 a day, there are ~9900 killed a year. Sadly, the family pet is going to die…the dog will do entirely what is in it’s worldview. With a warrant, do what is said above.

A few points to consider.. Yes, there are circumstances where you can search without a warrant (but you'd better be reasonable and have solid circumstances to back you up...) and have it good in court later. Most homicide investigators that I knew far preferred to get a warrant if at all possible since a warrant issued by a judge is far more likely to stand up in court... I even saw instances where at a homicide scene the killer left his (or her) firearm visible inside a locked car - and yet the investigators carefully secured the vehicle and waited until a judge issued a search warrant before entering the vehicle... In serious cases you always wanted to be as solid with evidence as possible since a key piece of evidence that's later tossed out can sink a case entirely... The main problem that I saw on the street was that everyone watches all the cop shows on TV or in the movies - and I rarely ever saw an accurate version of the laws regarding search and seizure on the tube (or on the screen...). That's why anyone in a possible criminal case is well advised to have a lawyer (and a lawyer that actually handles criminal matters...).

As far as dogs go - our SRT had a specific officer whose job it was to "kill the dog" if necessary... Let me back up and point out that most of the time we simply brought an animal control officer with us and it was their job to secure the dog (without injuring it - using a catchpole... ). We also made a point of scouting the structure before acting and very carefully briefed the entire team before the fact since a door that doesn't open the way you expect it to might end up getting someone killed... and knowing whether there were animals on the scene was also important... In a few cases the bad guys deliberately placed vicious dogs or other living hazards at their door or in their yards to prevent or delay a warrant service (usually drug dealers - or folks involved in explosives or weapon violations... ). Their idea was to use the dog(s) to delay entry while they were either destroying evidence or arming themselves or trying to evade arrest... Very bad scene... and very dangerous to officers and anyone else at that location. The result - a dedicated officer with a short barreled shotgun - and adios Fido... It should be noted that in my experience shooting one dog will seriously discourage the others - or at least get them to back off until you could secure the scene (or get the owner to properly secure the dogs..). Most of our guys were dog owners themselves and never sought to "kill the dog" - but sometimes it was a very necessary action. Have tragedies and mis-carriages of justice occurred in these types of incidents? Absolutely, but very few that I ever knew of...

For honest folks, my best advice is to be careful of any friends or family involved in criminal activities since their very presence in your house escalates the chances that police action will end up where you live... When I was a young man, fresh back from Vietnam all those years ago, long before I entered police work - I never even thought about that. It was not uncommon back in the early seventies to walk into someone's house and see a pound of grass on the kitchen table (south Florida was pretty much wide open in those "Jimmy Buffet" days). I was in places and knew folks back then that would later end up going down for everything from murder on down... and could have very easily been in the wrong place when a raid or warrant service went down... Something to think about when you have kids or your own - or in my case grandkids... Make sure you caution them - and of course you can be certain they'll ignore you... At least that's what I did - all those years ago..

Darth-Vang said:

If they didn’t leave an official warrant on your door then most people would assume a burglary took place.

Click to expand...

Okay, so you assume a burglary took place. You call the cops. The cops will tell you a warrant has been served...very similar to your car getting towed. People often think when their car gets towed that it was stolen. They call and report it and learn the truth.

At least these days with the power of computers when someone's car has been towed (and not stolen) a responding officer will quickly find that out - before taking the report if it's been entered correctly. That was not the case years ago (back in the pre-computer era...).

Remember as well that in many places there's not only multiple jurisdictions, but also a variety of different local, state, and / or federal outfits on the ground - each with it's own agenda - and too often stepping on each others jurisdictions... It makes my world, 1973 to 1995 look much simpler by comparison...

lemaymiami said:

A few points to consider.. Yes, there are circumstances where you can search without a warrant (but you'd better be reasonable and have solid circumstances to back you up...) and have it good in court later. Most homicide investigators that I knew far preferred to get a warrant if at all possible since a warrant issued by a judge is far more likely to stand up in court... I even saw instances where at a homicide scene the killer left his (or her) firearm visible inside a locked car - and yet the investigators carefully secured the vehicle and waited until a judge issued a search warrant before entering the vehicle... In serious cases you always wanted to be as solid with evidence as possible since a key piece of evidence that's later tossed out can sink a case entirely... The main problem that I saw on the street was that everyone watches all the cop shows on TV or in the movies - and I rarely ever saw an accurate version of the laws regarding search and seizure on the tube (or on the screen...). That's why anyone in a possible criminal case is well advised to have a lawyer (and a lawyer that actually handles criminal matters...).

As far as dogs go - our SRT had a specific officer whose job it was to "kill the dog" if necessary... Let me back up and point out that most of the time we simply brought an animal control officer with us and it was their job to secure the dog (without injuring it - using a catchpole... ). We also made a point of scouting the structure before acting and very carefully briefed the entire team before the fact since a door that doesn't open the way you expect it to might end up getting someone killed... and knowing whether there were animals on the scene was also important... In a few cases the bad guys deliberately placed vicious dogs or other living hazards at their door or in their yards to prevent or delay a warrant service (usually drug dealers - or folks involved in explosives or weapon violations... ). Their idea was to use the dog(s) to delay entry while they were either destroying evidence or arming themselves or trying to evade arrest... Very bad scene... and very dangerous to officers and anyone else at that location. The result - a dedicated officer with a short barreled shotgun - and adios Fido... It should be noted that in my experience shooting one dog will seriously discourage the others - or at least get them to back off until you could secure the scene (or get the owner to properly secure the dogs..). Most of our guys were dog owners themselves and never sought to "kill the dog" - but sometimes it was a very necessary action. Have tragedies and mis-carriages of justice occurred in these types of incidents? Absolutely, but very few that I ever knew of...

For honest folks, my best advice is to be careful of any friends or family involved in criminal activities since their very presence in your house escalates the chances that police action will end up where you live... When I was a young man, fresh back from Vietnam all those years ago, long before I entered police work - I never even thought about that. It was not uncommon back in the early seventies to walk into someone's house and see a pound of grass on the kitchen table (south Florida was pretty much wide open in those "Jimmy Buffet" days). I was in places and knew folks back then that would later end up going down for everything from murder on down... and could have very easily been in the wrong place when a raid or warrant service went down... Something to think about when you have kids or your own - or in my case grandkids... Make sure you caution them - and of course you can be certain they'll ignore you... At least that's what I did - all those years ago..

Click to expand...

Excellent summary above.

When training new deputies, I always had them closely review, and made sure they fully understood, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mincey v Arizona. That case explains why your homicide detectives were so careful to get a warrant. In the Mincey case, a Tucson undercover officer went to Mincey's apartment to buy dope. Something went wrong and there was a shooting between Mincey and the officer. Mincey was wounded and the officer killed. Backup officers entered the apartment, summoned medical aid for the officer, and arrested Mincey. Detectives and the crime lab folks arrived and did a full crime scene work-up. Mincey maintained at trial that he shot the officer believing him to be a drug dealer who was attempting to rob him. The prosecution successfully impeached Mincey's testimony by showing the trajectory of fired rounds was inconsistent with his version of events. Mincey appealed claiming that a search warrant was need for the crime scene work-up. The prosecutor argued that Arizona law provided a "crime scene" exception to the search warrant rule, and that officers made lawful entry to the apartment due to the exigency of the shooting. The Supreme Court overturned Mincey's conviction holding that while the initial entry was justified as an exigency, the crime crime scene work-up was not. Once the injured parties were removed from the scene, the exigency (and the corresponding search authority) ended. The Court also found that Arizona's "Crime Scene" exception violated the Fourth Amendment.

I made it a point to emphasize Mincey because LEO's tend to get into a "flow of activities" at emergent scenes and often don't realize that the legal "scene" changes considerably when the emergency passes.

At one point, I had a very minor question about the case that wasn't addressed in the decision. I called the D.A.'s Office in Tucson to get some more background as was put in touch with the actual prosecutor in the original case. I only planned on a five minute call at most, but spent three hours on the phone, and it wasn't me dragging out the conversation. Mincey was re-tried (without the crime scene evidence) and the jury hung in the second trial. He was tried a third time and was ultimately convicted.

I also share the above comments about dogs. I've responded as a supervisor to many cases where deputies have shot dogs, and it was never a "family pet" that was shot (even though it was often presented that way in the press). It was typically a "Guard Dog" that was tasked with guarding the illegal operation that deputies were responding to. In one case, the dog survived a .45 round. It's owner later boasted to his fellow gang members that the shooting showed how tough his dog was, and that the dog shouldn't be messed with.

I'm a big believer in the use of search warrants, and another point that I often made when teaching new deputies is that taking the time to get a search warrant gives the LEO ownership of the legal "Gray Area" if the search is later questioned in court. It works like this - A search conducted under an exception to the search warrant requirement is presumed to be unlawful and the prosecutor has to show it lawful in order to admit the resulting evidence. A search conducted with a warrant is presumed lawful, and the defense has to show it unlawful in order to exclude the evidence. In the real world, no showing of evidence is perfectly "good" or "bad". There are the two extremes and then a big "Gray Area" between them. If I do a search without a warrant, and the court finds it in the "Gray Area", I lose my evidence. If I do the same search with a warrant, and the court finds it in the "Gray Area", I keep the evidence. That's a big advantage. At the same time, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecutor to the defense to show the unlawfulness of the search. That often requires the defense attorney to play cards, they'd rather hold in order to win on a motion to suppress the evidence.

Darth-Vang said:

don’t even know what a warrant looks like or if a special fed or state seal

Click to expand...

It's a Court Document, and like like most court documents do--name of the court across the top, and a dividing line down the middle

There's no special seal or stamp, it's an entirely ordinary bit of court documentation.