I really like this guy's videos, Jeff Hampton, a defense attorney in
Fort Worth.
In this video, he clearly explains an arrest warrant versus search
warrant. These address two separate issues, the right of a suspect to be
seized (detained) and the right of one's home not to be seized. There
are limited circumstances in which police may enter to make an arrest
with an arrest warrant but not a search warrant, but the rights not to
have one's home searched without a warrant continue to apply per
Steagald vs United States (1981)...
... except where they don't due to exigent circumstances. Exigent
circumstances has multiple parts.
Another difference between an arrest warrant and search warrant is lack
of expectation of privacy by arrestee if it's not his home. A casual
visitor being arrested has no right against warrantless search. He has
to be staying there, at least an overnight stay, to have a right against warrantless search. Minnesota v. Olson (1991)
However, some state constitutions offer additional rights. In Texas,
cops need a reasonal belief that the person named on the arrest warrant
is in a third party's home before nonconsensual entry. In Washington
state, cops must advice the resident of the consequences of allowing
entry and therefore search. In fact, in Washington state, the resident
cannot give police consent to search a guest's belongings (whether the
guest is casual or an overnight guest).
At around 22 minutes, he says if police show up with a warrant to ask if
it's a search warrant for the home, because if it's just an arrest
warrant, the resident may refuse entry. But what if police have a
reasonable belief that the person to be arrested is there? I'm confused.
Now, the next time I'm subject to search and seizure with or without a
warrant, will I remember this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTWbEQZjuvc
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)