Illegal Search & Seizure Lawyer in California | BNCL Law Firm

Illegal Search & Seizure Lawyer in California

If you have been arrested, your home was searched, or any of your property was seized, it is important to know that you have rights. Although law enforcement can perform legal searches and seizures, certain procedures must be followed when they conduct these searches. Our California search and seizure lawyers at Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy can explain when a search is unlawful, and how that may help your case, below.

Alt Text!

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects everyone in the country from unlawful search and seizure. Under this law, officers must have probable cause to search a person or their property and seize any of that property. Because an arrest is a seizure of a person, law enforcement must also have probable cause to make an arrest. Once a law enforcement officer or other government official has probable cause, they must then obtain a search warrant.

Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment does not clearly define probable cause. The issue has been debated largely in state and federal courts and probable cause is loosely defined as having reason to believe:

  • A person has committed a criminal offense and is also the subject of a warrant, or
  • There is evidence that a crime allegedly occurred at a certain location and that location needs to be searched.

It is important to note that there are instances when there are exceptions to the warrant requirements and a search could be considered lawful even when the above does not apply.

In addition to following proper procedure and obtaining a warrant for a search, warrants must also include certain information. When obtaining a warrant, police officers must state under oath:

  • The person or property to be searched or seized
  • The location of the search or seizure
  • Reasons for probable cause, which outlines the reasons an officer believes a crime was committed or is being committed

When a warrant does not include the above information, there may be a violation of the search and seizure rights of the person.

Over the years, the courts have provided certain exceptions to the requirements for a warrant. These exceptions allow law enforcement officers to seize property without first obtaining a warrant. The exceptions are as follows:

  • Searching a person while they are being arrested
  • Searching property when the occupant or owner has consented to a search
  • Seizing property that is in plain view, such as an open bottle of alcohol, as the police officer did not have to conduct a search
  • Searches of government offices, public schools, and prisons
  • A search of a vehicle if there are safety concerns for the officer

If you believe your rights have been violated, our California illegal search and seizure lawyers at Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy can help you seek justice. Call us now at 510-839-5200 or contact us online to schedule a consultation and learn more about your legal options.

How can we help?

    Subject*

    Please describe your issue

    Our Offices

    Northern California Office Airport Corporate Centre
    7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
    Oakland, CA 94621
    Ph: (510) 839-5200
    Southern California Office
    9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
    Beverly Hills, CA 90212
    Ph: (310) 601-7070
    For press inquiries,
    please contact:
    Lee Houskeeper
    newsservice@aol.com
    Ph: (415)654-9141

    Our Offices

    Northern California Office Airport Corporate Centre
    7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
    Oakland, CA 94621
    Ph: (510) 839-5200
    Southern California Office
    9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
    Beverly Hills, CA 90212
    Ph: (310) 601-7070
    For press inquiries,
    please contact:
    Lee Houskeeper
    newsservice@aol.com
    Ph: (415)654-9141
    Case Results

    Reginald Oliver v. City of Oakland

    Oakland Police keep fabricating evidence and lying about minorities to arrest and prosecute them for supposed “gang” crimes, in violation of a settlement that prohibits …

    Read More
    Named plaintiff Reginald Oliver claims the Oakland PD continues violating the Constitution, in defiance of the settlement in Delphine Allen e al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-00-4599 TEH, also known as "The Riders" litigation. Read Full Course
    John Burris
    Jane Smith v. City of Oakland

    Racial profiling of Asian women by police officer resulting in a class action complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief

    Read More
    Finding evidence about defendant's post-conviction parole violation unfairly prejudicial "since the jury could have construed that parole violation as character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)" Read Full Course
    Rodney King
    Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles

    Rodney King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have Judge John G. Davies disqualified from presiding at the trial of …

    Read More
    Rodney King waited too long to file a malpractice suit against the first of 27 lawyers who represented him in connection with the infamous beating he suffered from Los Angeles police in 1991, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The ruling by Div. Two affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Kough’s grant of summary judgment to Steven Lerman. King earlier this year dismissed his appeal of Kough’s ruling in favor of two other lawyers sued in the case, Federico Sayre and John Burris. Read Full Course
    FEATURED News & Updates

    Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

    Written by Janie Har, AP researcher Rhonda Shafner also contributed to this report. To read on AP News click here OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Before …

    Watch our video