Illegal Search & Seizure Decision May Change Los Angeles Criminal Law

Posted on: April 27, 2009 at 6:21 a.m.

A recent Supreme Court decision may radically change the way Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys defend their clients. The case analyzed the way police investigate crimes, and may provide new ways for Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys to poke holes in the prosecution's case.

Our laws are very, very specific. Court cases happen every day that help refine their exact legal meaning and intent. While to the casual observer, some of these court decisions may seem like splitting hairs, the results of each case can make a serious impact on our legal system and how people are prosecuted for crimes. Take, for instance, the case of Rodney Gant. On August 15, 1999, Gant was arrested by Tucson, Arizona police on an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license. Tucson police handcuffed him and secured him in the back of a police cruiser then proceeded to search his car, finding a weapon and a plastic baggie of cocaine.

Gant was charged with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia and convicted. Seems very cut and dry so far. During his trial, Gant asked to suppress the evidence that was found in his car as he believed it had been obtained illegally. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Americans from "unreasonable search and seizure." Nobody, including the police, can search your home without a very good reason and permission from local law enforcement.

Police in every part of the United States have very specific rules regarding the collection of evidence. If any of these rules are not followed, then that evidence is not allowed to be presented during a trial. In many cases, police must obtain a warrant before they can enter and search a persons home or car. The only exceptions to this are when police are pursuing a suspect and they enter a building following him or her, when police feel evidence is in danger of being destroyed before a search warrant can be obtained, extreme emergencies such as police hearing someone scream, or during an arrest when police feel there is a credible threat to their safety.

Gant made the argument that since he was secured in the back of the police cruiser and posed no safety threat to the arresting officers, the evidence they found in his car immediately following his arrest was obtained illegally. Initially, his request to suppress that evidence was denied, the evidence was presented against him in court and he was convicted. Gant appealed and the conviction was eventually overturned.

The United States Supreme Court made a ruling on this year that the evidence found in Gants car should not have been used against him in trial since it was not obtained according to the letter of the law. An experienced criminal defense attorney knows that little details like this can be the difference between a conviction and time in prison.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense in Los Angeles, call the Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, LLP today. Their combined 50 years of courtroom experience has trained each attorney to carefully consider every tiny detail in your case to fight for your freedom.

Tagged as: california criminal laws

Comments:

Komel Soin UCLA on June 14, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. wrote:

I don't think that the evidence should be used against Gant. The law that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court is very significant, I feel. Without it, there would be no motivation for police to be fair in regards to searching individuals' property. The issue that is presented is that Gant has obviously done something illegal- having the drugs in his possession. In the bigger picture, however, the injustice served against him with the illegal search and seizure is a bigger injustice.

Tulsi Patel on June 4, 2009 at 2:04 a.m. wrote:

I am pleased with the Supreme Court's decision that the evidence obtained cannot be used against Gant. The search is obviously intrusive as Gant did not pose any threat to the police officers while he was handcuffed in the back of their car. It seems that some law enforcement officers abuse their power and conduct such searches while intimidating the person in question. Unfortunately, intimidation goes a long way and may prevent someone from speaking up and securing their civil liberties. This case upholds an important principle that should be acknowledged by both law enforcement and the respective citizens.

Samantha Simchowitz on May 25, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. wrote:

In light of Mr. Greenfield and Mr. Grant's post I agree with Mr. Grant that this case would be better served if argued on a legal basis, as opposed to an emotional front. While Mr. Greenfield is completely correct in saying that the laws of the country are in place to protect both the criminal and the upstanding citizen, I believe that this is a fact that is difficult to get the jury to understand. Because from the prosecution's perspective these officers were doing the community a favor by removing a drug user from the streets. I think that the prosecution would have a much easier time connecting with people on the jury who have children that they do not want drugs to get to, or have been privy to someone close to them being an addict and changing them as a person. On a more legal note, while this case was clearly overturned and the search was found to be illegal, arent these situations very borderline? Couldn't the officers have said that they saw a suspicious white powder in the car or something like that, even if it was not true giving them probable cause to search the car. I feel like with a determined police officer these types of situations could really become a case of he said- she said. -Samantha

A Greenfield on May 23, 2009 at 10:35 p.m. wrote:

I think that in response to Andrew's post, yes, it might be difficult to get a jury to connect emotionally with the defendant. However, I think that it still would be possible to emotionally connect with a jury on this case. Though the defendant was in possession of drugs, the laws of our country are in place to protect both the criminal and the upstanding citizen. I think that putting the jury in this mindset and painting a picture of what our society would be like in any other circumstance than the precise execution of the law would help them to connect to the case. Thank you

Andrew Grant, UCLA on May 4, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. wrote:

Hi Professor, It would be hard to get a jury to connect emotionally with the defendant - as seen by the early conviction. Would you still speak from the heart to the Supreme Court justices or would you focus more on the legal debate - especially since this may not be the most sympathetic defendant? Thanks, Andrew Grant

Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin LLP has been recognized as one of the best U.S. law firms, based on the experience, professionalism, and ethics of its criminal defense lawyers and attorneys. We aggressively defend clients in all Southern California courtrooms on state and federal charges, including DUI, DMV, misdemeanor, felony, juvenile cases, in the following communities and courthouses.

Los Angeles County, CA: Agoura, Altadena, Alhambra, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Calabasas, Century City, Chatsworth, Compton, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, Downtown Criminal Court, El Segundo, East Los Angeles, Eastlake, Encino, El Monte, Glendale, Glendora, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Inglewood, Los Angeles Lawyer, La Canada, LAX Court, Los Padrinos, Long Beach, Los Angeles Attorney, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Marina Del Rey, Newhall, Norwalk, Palos Verdes, Pasadena, Pomona, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Marino, San Pedro, Santa Clarita, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Santa Monica, South Gate, South Pasadena, Sylmar, Torrance, Universal City, Valencia, Van Nuys, West Covina, West Hollywood, Walnut, Westchester, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland Hills, California. Orange County, CA: Anaheim, Anaheim Hills, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine Attorney, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, La Palma, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Orange County Lawyer, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda, California. Ventura County, CA: Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village. San Bernardino County, CA: Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland.

Prior Criminal Law Posts

Illegal Search & Seizure Decision May Change Los Angeles Criminal Law

Comments:

Add your comment!

Firm Fan Page & News

Our Criminal Defense Partners

Criminal Defense Resources

Prior Criminal Law Posts