Los Angeles County Criminal Lawyer Blog

In what has turned out to be a major investigation, deputies raided an Antelope Valley property where they uncovered an alleged cockfighting operation, $1 million in methamphetamine, children living in poor conditions and 100 roosters, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The operation started with a narcotics investigation and led to deputies seeking a search warrant served on a property in an unincorporated area near Lancaster, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said.

But all that was discovered could come unraveled if procedures weren't properly handled when police sought and wrote up an affidavit for a search warrant in Los Angeles.

Every American has a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. What that means in practical terms is the police can't barge into your house, your vehicle or stop you walking down the street to search you or your property without some basis. And that basis, called probable cause, often is memorialized in a search warrant signed by a judge.

But even after a search warrant is obtained, that doesn't mean that all the potential evidence found can be used. As a Pasadena criminal defense lawyer would tell you, there are many ways to challenge a search warrant.

For one, the officer must have had credible evidence to suggest that a search warrant was necessary in the first place. Without reliable information to base the request for search on, the whole thing falls apart.

Secondly, if officers fudge the information on the search warrant, even a little, that can lead to a suppression motion that allows the defendant to keep any evidence collected by police out of trial.

In asking a series of questions of officers who were involved in a raid, defense lawyers can often get them to give contradictory statements about what evidence they expected to find and the basis for seeking a search warrant in the first place. And even in some cases, evidence that has nothing to do with the search warrant request may be held out of trial, depending on the circumstances.

In this case, deputies got a search warrant for the property for a drug investigation.While there, they found about $1 million worth of methamphetamine -- about five pounds. They also uncovered what they are calling a cockfighting rink -- about 100 roosters -- as well as children living in dilapidated sheds.

The children ranged in age from 4 to 17 and were sent to child welfare workers after police intervened. Firearms were also recovered as well as sparring tools and drugs for the roosters.

Police made six arrests on drug charges, though their names weren't released. The Times didn't report that anyone faced child abuse or animal abuse charges, despite allegations by deputies to the contrary.

Search warrants must be examined and double-checked in order to ensure the police are held accountable.

Continue reading "Child Abuse, Drugs, Cockfighting Alleged in Los Angeles Search Warrant Case" »

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over much of the West Coast of the United States including Los Angeles County has ruled that strip-searches of incoming jail inmates are constitutional and necessary to prevent the smuggling of drugs and other forbidden items into lockup facilities.

This decision comes on the heels of a 2008 Ninth Circuit decision that such searches are so intrusive and dehumanizing that they violate a person's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure unless there is good cause to believe that someone is in possession of contraband.

The ruling is the result of a class-action lawsuit brought by nine antiwar protester against San Francisco arising out of their arrests at a 2002 demonstration.

Judge Sandra S. Ikuta attempted to justified the ruling by stating that the strip-search policy was "reasonable under the Fourth Amendment" as such searches resulted in hundreds of instances where money, drugs, and weapons were seized and that such items can jeopardize the safety of jail staff as well as other inmates.

Judge Sidney R. Thomas was joined by three other judges on the panel in his dissenting opinion. In his opinion Thomas stated that one of the plaintiffs had been arrested at a peaceful protest, slammed to a concrete floor during booking, stripped and subjected to a body-cavity search, then left naked in a cell for eleven hours. She was subsequently strip-searched a second time and then released without charges.

Thomas had ruled in 2008 that without probable cause such searches cannot be upheld as "the intrusiveness of body-cavity searches cannot be overstated."

While one's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure may be somewhat diminished in a lockup facility, in an automobile, or even in a school setting, under most circumstances, one cannot be detained or searched without ...

Continue reading "Strip-Searches of Incoming Jail Inmates Ruled Constitutional by Ninth Circuit" »