# Why do the police let the suspects know they are searching their places?



## ironpony

I was watching documentary police shows based on real cases for research like FBI Files, and I noticed that when the FBI, or the police in general get a warrant to search a suspects house, they will do it when the suspect is home and actually knock on the door and announce to the suspect that they are searching his/her place.

However, why do they do this, when they know they are tipping off the suspects that they are onto them?  What if they don't find the items that they came for?  Now the suspects know the police are onto them, cause they announced to them, and they will be harder to catch now since they will be more cautious.

So wouldn't it make more sense if the police were to search when a suspect is not home and search in a way, in which you pick the locks and disarm security so no forced entry will be found by the suspect later, and put everything back in it's place, so suspects will not know that their places were searched in the first place?

That way, they do not know the police are onto them, and will perhaps not be as overcautious and easier to catch therefore.  Or at least it seems logical.  So why do they always give themselves away that they are onto them then?


----------



## Bloggsworth

Probable cause... Otherwise they could enter anybody's house on a whim "_He's black, he must be a druggie, we'll raid his house_."


----------



## ironpony

Oh yeah the police would have to have probable cause for sure.  What I am asking is, why do they let the suspect know they are entering his home?  Once they get probable cause and then get a warrant, why not just search the house without telling the suspect so the suspect does not know the police are onto him?

The police can do it without alerting him, as long as they have a search warrant, can't they?


----------



## Phil Istine

ironpony said:


> Oh yeah the police would have to have probable cause for sure.  What I am asking is, why do they let the suspect know they are entering his home?  Once they get probable cause and then get a warrant, why not just search the house without telling the suspect so the suspect does not know the police are onto him?
> 
> The police can do it without alerting him, as long as they have a search warrant, can't they?



One, not insignificant, issue is that evidence could be planted.  Okay, they could get away with that even if the suspect is at home, but it's harder for the suspect to make the allegation.
It's not unknown for cops to enter by warrant when a suspect is out, but that usually appears to be for the purpose of installing evidence-gathering equipment (this may not even be necessary with modern technology).


----------



## ironpony

Oh okay thanks.  That makes sense.  But even if there was an accusation of planting, how often would that stop a judge from still admitting it, since the police are probably accused of that a lot of the time, I would guess?


----------



## Guard Dog

Ironpony, go Google "No-Knock Warrants" and actually STUDY what you find.

It'll answer a lot of your questions before you even have to ask 'em.

And look at SEVERAL sites, not just the first one that catches your eye.



G.D.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

ironpony said:


> I was watching documentary police shows based on real cases for research like FBI Files, and I noticed that when the FBI, or the police in general get a warrant to search a suspects house, they will do it when the suspect is home and actually knock on the door and announce to the suspect that they are searching his/her place.
> 
> However, why do they do this, when they know they are tipping off the suspects that they are onto them?  What if they don't find the items that they came for?  Now the suspects know the police are onto them, cause they announced to them, and they will be harder to catch now since they will be more cautious.
> 
> So wouldn't it make more sense if the police were to search when a suspect is not home and search in a way, in which you pick the locks and disarm security so no forced entry will be found by the suspect later, and put everything back in it's place, so suspects will not know that their places were searched in the first place?
> 
> That way, they do not know the police are onto them, and will perhaps not be as overcautious and easier to catch therefore.  Or at least it seems logical.  So why do they always give themselves away that they are onto them then?





They do it because this isn't China or Russia.
In America we have an open courts system, it's literally written into the constitution and bill of rights.
The suspect even gets a copy of the search warrant.


But police search when they are home because if they did it while you were gone they'd *1)* have to break down the door, and *2)* if the suspect is home then so will be any weapons, drugs, or paraphernalia they might be carrying.  Better chance of finding something.  Also, their vehicle is at the residence, and that contains a ton of evidence.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Bloggsworth said:


> Probable cause... Otherwise they could enter anybody's house on a whim "_He's black, he must be a druggie, we'll raid his house_."




No. PC is not an issue for this scenario.


----------



## ironpony

Oh okay thanks.  Well the police don't have to let the suspect know they are onto them in other ways.  For example, let's say there is an undercover operation in the works, and the police know if they announce to the suspect that they are going to search his place, then they ruin the operation for example.


----------



## CyberWar

The police loudly announce themselves first and foremost for their own safety, physical and legal-wise. If they just barged in by surprise, a terrified homeowner who would otherwise have been cooperative might resist violently, mistaking it for a home invasion - with potentially lethal consequences to both himself and the officers involved. If anyone was hurt or killed in consequence, and the case was brought to court, the police would be guilty, since they failed to clearly and unmistakably inform the residents of their presence. 

A search warrant must be served as proof that the search has been sanctioned by a competent judicial authority. This is to prevent arbitrary abuse of authority by the police, such as conducting arbitrary searches to harass and intimidate or plant false evidence, and to prevent the suspect from intervening with the search and/or later claiming he believed it to be unlawful. 

Of course, if there is a reasonable belief that the suspect might resist and/or attempt to destroy evidence, the responsible authority may instead sanction a police raid, which is distinct from a normal search, and basically involves a SWAT team kicking down the door unannounced and rounding up everyone inside before evidentiary teams proceed to search the premises. The authority sanctioning these operations must obviously take into consideration the circumstances - they will obviously not send a SWAT team to the family home of a reputable professor suspected of embezzling university funds, both because it would be a waste of police resources and because the professor could later sue the police for excessive use of force and/or property damage, especially if the search fails to turn up any evidence against him.

---

In short, the main reasons why the police at least in the Western world normally observes certain formalities pertaining to entry and searches is their own safety (physical and legal) and public opinion.


----------



## ironpony

Oh what I meant was, why don't the police do it when they know, no one is home?  That way, the owner does not know the police were there, if they search but then put everything back and can still keep building a bigger case, now that the person is under surveillance.  They wouldn't barge in by surprise when someone was home.  I meant when they no for sure that no one is home.  The police would of course have to pick the locks and foil the security system, so the suspect didn't know that they were there.

And the police would of course have a warrant, but if they are wanting to keep undercover, couldn't they just present a copy of the search warrant later on, when the person is actually arrested, rather than having to do it in real time so to speak, and thereby breaking their cover?


----------



## Phil Istine

Ironpony, a suggestion that may help you:  People here tend to be writers and wannabe writers and very few have the knowledge you seek about legal and police procedures.  We can help with the writing techniques but, often, our knowledge of the legal stuff is insufficient to supply the information that you require.
However, there is a far larger forum at www.quora.com which is a wealth of knowledge about all manner of things.  Amongst others, it is frequented by lawyers and police officers, both ex and current.
On this writing forum, most can only guess at the answers you require but on quora, there are people who have actually lived it.
Maybe you will receive better answers if you post the legal and police enquiries on quora.
You are supposed to use your real name when registering on quora (I assume it's not Iron Pony  ).

I hope this is of help to you.

*ETA:*  I'm writing this as a member - not with my moderator's hat on.


----------



## CyberWar

ironpony said:


> Oh what I meant was, why don't the police do it when they know, no one is home?  That way, the owner does not know the police were there, if they search but then put everything back and can still keep building a bigger case, now that the person is under surveillance.  They wouldn't barge in by surprise when someone was home.  I meant when they no for sure that no one is home.  The police would of course have to pick the locks and foil the security system, so the suspect didn't know that they were there.
> 
> And the police would of course have a warrant, but if they are wanting to keep undercover, couldn't they just present a copy of the search warrant later on, when the person is actually arrested, rather than having to do it in real time so to speak, and thereby breaking their cover?



Asides from legal issues, the main reason that isn't done is because a proper search isn't a one-hour business. Thoroughly searching even a relatively small object, such as a motor vehicle, can take a whole day, which is why investigation teams at least in the better-funded police departments have dedicated garages to search impounded vehicles of suspects, literally taking them apart piece by piece if necessary. Properly searching an entire residence can in turn take as long as several days. Unexpected delays may occur if dangerous substances like explosives are found, necessitating their removal by qualified specialists.

Generally, the officers serving the warrant will only secure the premises until an evidence collection team arrives. Depending on their instructions and standard operating protocol of their police force, they might also conduct a rough preliminary search, though this is generally discouraged as they may unintentionally damage or contaminate valuable evidence. Searches are usually conducted by trained specialists, rank-and-file officers only being familiarized with the basics (mainly to prevent accidental damage to potential evidence).

---

As for clandestine searches, anything turned up in them would be inadmissible as evidence in court, since there would be no way of proving it hadn't been planted or tampered with. An undercover agent whose task is to dig up incriminating evidence might inform his handlers, who would then procure a formal warrant, but certainly not collect it personally for the aforementioned reason.


----------



## Terry D

It's called the 4th Amendment.


----------



## luckyscars

Terry D said:


> It's called the 4th Amendment.



Obviously this only applies if the story is set in the United States. Other countries do have sometimes quite different rules.

Generally speaking every democratic country based on common law does not allow searches of a legal domicile (a house, could also be a boat or RV) without a warrant. Police do actually often execute search warrants when the suspect is not there, mainly for convenience and safety reasons.

You do not need a search warrant at all if you have probable cause to believe somebody is in danger (such as a hostage) or in active pursuit. 

As far as concealing the execution of a search from the suspect, think about this a second: If somebody broke into your home to search it (and if the police are going to bother to search a home 99% of the time they are going to tear it apart) you would know as soon as you returned. Depending on the jurisdiction they may be required to tape a notice to the door of the search but even if they are not, wouldn't it be pretty obvious when you walked in the door that somebody had come in and gone through everything? 

In most cases any secret surveillance of an unknowing suspect could be considered pretty dead once the police have executed a search warrant of their home, which is why it's seldom used unless the police are either pretty confident about finding what they are looking for or there is no need to keep it a secret to begin with.


----------



## ironpony

Oh I meant if the police and search team were to put everything back where it was and take pictures, so they know where everything went back.  That way, the suspect wouldn't know the police were onto him, once he got back from vacation or something like that.  But if the law is, is that you have to alert the homeowner of the search, is there any the police do not have to inform the owner?

Like for example, let's say the homeowner, also rented a storage unit at a self storage facility that he kept some incriminating evidence in.  Do they have to notify him that they are going to search his storage unit, legally?  Or do they only have to notify him if it's the person's home?  Or do they still have to notify him and have him be there if they are searching his storage unit, so he cannot challenge them on planting evidence, if he is there.


----------



## luckyscars

ironpony said:


> Oh I meant if the police and search team were to put everything back where it was and take pictures, so they know where everything went back.  That way, the suspect wouldn't know the police were onto him, once he got back from vacation or something like that.  But if the law is, is that you have to alert the homeowner of the search, is there any the police do not have to inform the owner?
> 
> Like for example, let's say the homeowner, also rented a storage unit at a self storage facility that he kept some incriminating evidence in.  Do they have to notify him that they are going to search his storage unit, legally?  Or do they only have to notify him if it's the person's home?  Or do they still have to notify him and have him be there if they are searching his storage unit, so he cannot challenge them on planting evidence, if he is there.



No they don't have to notify in advance - if they have a warrant. There's actually no requirement to even show a warrant to a suspect unless they ask for it. You certainly don't have to inform them proactively it was executed. Cops in some jurisdictions tape a notice to the door but it would be more so somebody doesn't mistake police action for a burglary or whatever. The only legal requirement to execute a legal search is to have a warrant you can provide on demand. But the suspect has to be present to demand it and there's no rule that you need to wait.

Again: It's not as simple as "put everything back". If you are doing a proper search  the likelihood of making it look exactly the same as it was before is close to zero. If I come into your bedroom and go through all of your stuff, every single thing, chances are slim to none you wouldn't know as soon as you walk in. The cops aren't going to waste time adjusting the placement of dirty underwear on the floor or whatnot just to fool you. 

Again: 9 times out of 10 searching in the absence of a subject is for convenience and/or safety reasons more than it is to conceal for any significant length of time after-the-fact that an individual is a suspect. That would be an incredibly risky strategy. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's probably pretty uncommon. The vast majority of police searches are done on suspects who are either already in police custody or are about to be.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  For my story, I want the police to do a search but I want them to find evidence on a hard drive.  Evidence that they wouldn't know existed before.  However, is there anyway to search a harddrive without knowing what is on it?  It seems that according to the 4th amendment, that the police have to know what is on it, but is there any loophole in the law, in which the police can search a hard drive and discover something by surprise?


----------



## CyberWar

The search warrant already covers that. The police must have a rough idea of _what_ they are looking for in order to get a warrant, but naturally they aren't expected to know exactly _where_ to look.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the police might come across evidence of other crimes by examining a digital data carrier seized over a completely unrelated crime, i.e., discover something by surprise.


----------



## J Anfinson

Look up the U.S. Supreme Court case Wilson vs Arkansas.


----------



## ironpony

Oh okay thanks.  I understand the police normally knock and announce that they are searching?  But what if finding the evidence in the property could lead to building a sting operation, and they cannot let the owner know that they searched his property, cause him knowing would jeopardize the sting operation?  Could the police then search when the owner is not home, and not tell him in order for the sting operation to continue?

Could the police tell the judge they are applying for a search warrant, but they cannot tell the owner they are searching the house, because if the owner knows they are searching the house, then they cannot use the evidence they will find to complete the sting operation, if the owner knows about the search?


----------



## Theglasshouse

It's standard procedure to my own understanding. Because all citizens have rights, and I figure the police can plant evidence on the suspect.


----------



## ironpony

Well even though people have rights, the police haven't told criminals about things they did before in the event of a sting operation.  For example, there was a real life case, where the police had to do a sting operation on a suspect and wanted to tap his phone.  Now they didn't tell him that they were going to plant a tap on this phone for obvious reasons, cause they didn't want to ruin the sting.  So why is it that the police are allowed to break into a suspect's phone line to plant the tap, without telling him but cannot use evidence from a search without telling him?

Can the same legal argument be made?


----------



## Theglasshouse

My guess is that a judge must be ordered if there is reasonable suspicion a warrant for an ongoing investigation. There must be some sort of evidence that leads a reason to believe they will find more evidence. You can always ask a lawyer on the stack exchange website. You can find stack exchange on a google search. I am not sure you can ask legal questions but from time to time I have asked scientific questions. It's a website to ask of any questions you may have. (maybe legal ones as well)


----------



## Guard Dog

The police don't talk to the judge. They speak to the district attorney or the assistant district attorney, and that's who presents the evidence to the judge, who then decides if or what sort of warrant is issued.

If the D.A. doesn't think there's enough evidence, they won't bother the judge.

...or at least that's how it works here in my neck of the woods.


G.D.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks, that makes sense, it works the same way where I live too I think.  But I thought that the police do not have to notify the owner of the search if it's during a sting operation and notifying the owner will ruin the sting.  Isn't there some sort of exception to the rule, when it comes to sting operations?

I tried researching real life examples, but can I never find a search that has been conducted as part of a sting operation before, so that makes it tough, even for police and lawyers to answer, as I seem to perhaps have a scenario that has never actually made it's way into legal history before maybe.


----------



## Guard Dog

You wanna read about that sort of thing, you'll probably need to visit a legal library... or go to law school.

...either that, or know an exact case you want to research.

The fact is, there are just too many documented crimes in the U.S. to easily research one particular type or sort. Especially if what you're after is something odd or implausible. ( But may have happened all the same. )
( There's a reason lawyers go to school for years; The U.S. penal code is just too damned complicated and convoluted. )


G.D.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  I read some laws and the amendments on it, but the amendments do not cover the fact if a sting operation is already in play. I asked lawyers on another site besides the one recommended but they say they do not know, as they have never come across a search that had to be done during a sting operation before.

I can ask on the other site recommended to me.


----------



## Guard Dog

If you're having that much trouble finding information on what you're wanting to do, the likelihood is it just isn't legal/possible.

There are very strict rules governing sting operations that must be adhered to religiously, or risk having cases thrown out and officers reprimanded and/or fired, if not prosecuted themselves.



G.D.

P.S. It also sounds like anybody that's going to try to make a movie out of what you're writing is going to have to hire a Technical Consultant, if there's really a desire to make it realistic.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  Do you think that maybe because if there is no legal precedent for this scenario, that maybe a judge is just going to decide yes or no, and then if it's challenged later, it's challenged later, so a judge will just have to make the decisions themselves, knowing there is no legally right or wrong answer maybe?

Like in if a criminal case has reached a scenario in which their is legal rules to follow cause the scenario is just that unique, what happens then legally?  Just decide yes or no, and that's all you can do?


----------



## Guard Dog

I have no knowledge of whether there's a legal president or not. There may be one, but until a lawyer or judge looks at what's being presented... who knows?

I can tell you that no judge is likely to okay a warrant if he/she thinks doing so is going to provoke challenges to it, since even if there's cause for reasonable suspicion, the person the warrant is issued for is still presumed Innocent.

( Remember, the warrant is issued to gather evidence of a *possible* crime, if there is any. )


G.D.


----------



## ironpony

Yep for sure.  Basically in my story they need a warrant to search, but they cannot tell the owner cause alerting the owner will ruin the sting operation, so they need to search for this piece of evidence without telling him.  So the question is, would a judge okay a search, if it means not telling the owner, because a sting operation will be ruined otherwise.


----------



## Guard Dog

The answer I can give you, based on what I know about where I live is... Probably not.

If the warrant were issued, and it wasn't 'no knock', then the L.E.O.s would just have to do the best they could with it.

And if no one's life were at stake, then it very likely would not be a 'no knock' warrant.


G.D.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  Now the villain would not be keeping this evidence at his home of course.  He would keep it somewhere off his personal house property, like at a self storage unit or something like that.  Is there any rule that the police have to inform the owner that they have a warrant to search his storage unit, or can they search it without alerting him and ruining the sting, if it's a rented storage unit and not his personal house property?


----------



## Guard Dog

I'm fairly certain he would have to be notified.

( Rented property still counts as "personal property" as far as the law is concerned. Otherwise, the police wouldn't need a warrant to search an apartment complex, would they? )

"Illegal Search and Seizure" also applies to vehicles to, y'know. If the person doesn't give consent, a warrant is required, unless some illegal item is out in plain sight.


G.D.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  I guess I could stray away from realism then and have it so that there reason for not notifying him is that they don't want to blow a sting operation, as long as the readers are okay with that.


----------



## Guard Dog

Why do you keep saying 'readers'?  I thought this was supposed to be a screenplay.

And it's gonna be whoever's funding this and directing it that'll be deciding what's acceptable, if that's the case.

( Which is why I mentioned a Technical Adviser' earlier. )



G.D.


----------



## ironpony

Well I meant readers cause the movie was not made for an audience yet, but yes I should have had the audience in mind.

But I am also directing it as well, since I am into film directing and writing.  I will fund a percentage of and see what other funds I can get.  But as the writer and director I don't know if this is acceptable to audiences or not, on how much I make up legal wise, sometimes.


----------



## Myk3y

ironpony said:


> Oh okay thanks.  That makes sense.  But even if there was an accusation of planting, how often would that stop a judge from still admitting it, since the police are probably accused of that a lot of the time, I would guess?



 A warrant is issued for a specific place, sometimes to search only for specific items and sometimes at specific times. You don't need to be home, but if you are, they are obliged to tell you they are executing a warrant and if you ask to see it, are obliged to show you the original (not a copy) of the signed, dated, specific warrant to search the place they are at. 

You don't have to comply, but neither must you obstruct.

Different countries have various minutae about warrants, but all western rule-of-law countries have pretty much the same general guidelines.

But, some countries may allow police to search, for example, your car, your person, your workplace, without a warrant - don't assume one country is the same as another.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  If the police don't have to wait for the character to come home then, then I can just write it like that.


----------



## Cephus

Because they want the suspect to confess.  If the suspect left anything potentially incriminating at their home or at their job or wherever the police are searching, a lot of criminals will just give up and admit they did it.


----------



## ironpony

Okay thanks.  It's just in my story, the villain is going to meet with some other villains that the police are interested in seeing who he is going to meet.  If the police tell the suspect they are searching his place and wait for him to be home, then he will not go meet those people and the police may never find out who they are, if that's a reason not to tell him they are searching his place.  They can always tell him after the meeting with those people, to try to get him to confess.


----------

