POV:RAMEY, STEAGALD, PAYTON

Question 1

WHEN IS COMPLIANCE REQUIRED? 3

Answer 1

compliance is required only if
all of the following circumstances existed: (1) the
location of the arrest was a home or other structure
in which the occupants had a reasonable expectation
of privacy, (2) the officers physically entered the
structure, and (3) they entered with the intent to
immediately arrest an occupant.

Question 2

RAMEY,PAYTON, STEAGALD DOES NOT APPLY IN WHICH LOCATION

Answer 2

Ramey-Payton and Steagald would not apply
if the arrest occurred in a place or area that was
open to the public, such as a store, restaurant, or the
reception area of an office

Question 3

MAY AN OFFICER ORDER A SUSPECT OUTSIDE TO ARREST HIM TO AVOID THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT?

Answer 3

officers may also order the suspect to

exit, then arrest him when he complies

Question 4

IS THE DOORWAY A PUBLIC PLACE?

Answer 4

Such an arrest is permissible because the
Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Santana that
a person who is standing in the doorway of a home
is in a “public” place

Question 5

FROM THE DOORWAY; IF THE SUSPECT RUNS INSIDE MAY THE OFFICER CHASE INTO THE DWELLING?

Answer 5

if the arrestee runs inside after officers
attempt to arrest him at the doorway (as occurred in
Santana) officers may chase him inside.

Question 6

REACHING INTO THE DOORWAY; IS THE ARREST VALID ?

Answer 6

Ninth
Circuit has ruled that a violation would not result if
(1) the arrestee voluntarily opened the door; (2) he
opened it so widely that he was exposed to public
view; and (3) he knew, or should have known, that
the callers were officers; e.g., the officers identified
themselves as they knocked
*NOTE: IT IS STILL A GREY AREA

Question 7

TRUE OR FALSE? OFFICERS MAY NOT BE IN VIOLATION OF RAMEY IF THE PRIVACY OF THE RESIDENTS STILL WAS SAFEGUARDED AND DID NOT PRODUCE UNNECESSARY CONFRONTATION

Answer 7

TRUE: People v. Jacobs the court indicated that a warrantless
entry might not violate Ramey-Payton if,
under the circumstances, it did not “undermine the
statutory purposes of safeguarding the privacy of
citizens in their homes and preventing unnecessary
violent confrontations between startled householders
and arresting officers.”

Question 8

DOES RAMEY-PAYTON APPLY TO ENTRIES OTHER THAN AN ARREST?

Answer 8

NO: Ramey-Payton and Steagald apply only if
officers entered with the intent to immediately arrest
an occupant

Question 9

DOES RAMEY-PAYTON APPLY TO ENTRIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERVIEW?

Answer 9

NO: inapplicable to situations in which
officers were admitted for the purpose of interviewing
a person about a crime for which he was a
suspect.
a violation would not occur if officers
made the arrest after the suspect said or did something
that provided them with probable cause

Question 10

DOES IT EFFECT MATTERS IF OFFICERS ENTERED WITH PRE-EXISTING PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST?

Answer 10

YES; If, however, the officers had probable cause to
arrest when they entered, a court might find that
they intended to make an arrest (which, as we will
also discuss later, would probably invalidate the
consent) unless the court was satisfied that the
officers had not yet made the decision to do so.

Question 11

DOES RAMEY-PAYTON APPLY TO PROBATION/PAROLE SEARCHES OR SEARCH WARRANTS?

Answer 11

NO: Ramey-
Payton and Steagald do not apply if officers entered
to conduct a probation or parole search, or to
execute a search warrant.

Question 12

WHILE INSIDE; IF OFFICERS DEVELOPED PROABABLE CAUSE TO ARREST WOULD THERE BE AN ISSUE WITH RAMEY-PAYTON?

Answer 12

NO; a violation
would not result if officers arrested an occupant
after they found incriminating evidence and thereby
developed probable cause to arrest

Question 13

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES: IF THE OFFICER DEVELOPES PROBBABLE CAUSE DURING AN EXIGENT ENTRY DOES IT VIOLATE RAMEY-PAYTON IF THEY MAKE AN ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT?

Answer 13

NO: If officers entered because
they reasonably believed an immediate entry
was necessary to save lives or prevent the destruction
of evidence, they do not violate Ramey-Payton or
Steagald if they arrested an occupant after having
developed probable cause.

Question 14

WHAT IS NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH RAMEY-PAYTON WHEN ENTERING A HOME TO ARREST A SUSPECT? 3

Answer 14

(1) Authorization to enter: The officers must have
had a legal right to enter.
(2) Arrestee’s home: The officers must have had
reason to believe the arrestee lived in the house
or that he otherwise owned or controlled it.
(3) Arrestee now inside: The officers must have
reasonably believed the arrestee was inside

Question 15

PER PENAL CODE: WHAT ARE THE 6 REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID RAMEY WARRANT?

Answer 15

(1) PREPARE DECLARATION: The officer prepares a
Declaration of Probable Cause which, like a
search warrant affidavit, contains the facts
upon which probable cause is based.
(2) PREPARE RAMEY WARRANT: The officer prepares
the Ramey warrant, which is technically known
as a “Warrant of Probable Cause for Arrest.”33
A sample Ramey warrant is shown on page 19.
(3) SUBMIT TO JUDGE: The officer submits the declaration
and warrant to a judge for review. This
may be done in person, by fax, or by email.34
(4) WARRANT ISSUED: If the judge finds there is
probable cause, he or she will issue the warrant.
(5) FILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: After the warrant
is executed, officers must file a “Certificate of
Service” with the court clerk.35 Such a certificate
must include the date and time of arrest,
the location of arrest, and the location of the
facility in which the arrestee is incarcerated

Question 16

ON A RAMEY WARRANT; IS A LAST KNOWN ADDRESS SUFFICIENT FOR AN ENTRY AT THAT LOCATION?

Answer 16

a Ramey warrant constitutes authorization to enter only a home in which officers—at the moment they entered—
had reason to believe the arrestee was living
and is now present.

Question 17

IF THE PURPOSE OF ENTRY IS TO MAKE AN ARREST AND THE OFFICER USES A SEARCH WARRANT TO ACHIEVE THE ENTRY,,,,IS THERE ANY VIOLATION OF RAMEY?

Answer 17

NO; Because a search warrant authorizes
officers to enter the listed premises, it satisfies
the “legal authorization” requirement even if
they intended only to make an arrest

Question 18

MAY OFFICERS USE A PROBATION/PAROLE CONDITION TO ACHEIVE THE TRUE PURPOSE OF MAKING A PROBABLE CAUSE ARREST?

Answer 18

YES;Officers have legal authorization to enter the arrestee’s home for the purpose of arresting him if they were legally authorized to search it without a warrant pursuant to the terms of probation or parole

Question 19

WHAT ARE 5 OTHER TYPES OF WARRANTS?

Answer 19

PROBATION VIOLATION WARRANT: Issued by a judge
based on probable cause to believe that the arrestee
has violated the terms of his probation.39
PAROLE VIOLATION WARRANT: A parole violation
warrant (also known as a parolee-at-large or PAL
warrant) is issued by the parole board based on
probable cause to believe that the parolee absconded.
40
INDICTMENT WARRANT: Issued by a judge on grounds
that the arrestee was indicted by a grand jury.41
BENCH WARRANT: Issued by a judge when a defendant
fails to appear in court.42
WITNESS FTA WARRANT: Issued by a judge for the
arrest of a witness who failed to appear in court
after being ordered to do so.

Question 20

FOR 4TH AMENDMENT PURPOSES; WHAT IS CONSIDERED “LIVING” AT A LOCATION?

Answer 20

“LIVES”=COMMON AUTHORITY: An arrestee will
be deemed “living” in a home if he has “common
authority” or some other “significant relationship”
to it.
*but it requires more than a
sleepover at someone else’s place. It is insufficient to
show that the [arrestee] may have spent the night
there occasionally
*an arrestee may be deemed to
be “living in” a residence in which he stays on a
regular basis for any significant period.

Question 21

CAN A FAMILY MEMBER OR FRIEND BE THE DECIDING FACTOR DETERMING IF A SUBJECT LIVES AT A LOCATION OR IS PRESENT AT A LOCATION?

Answer 21

officers are not required to accept information
from a friend or relative that the arrestee
lives or does not live in a certain residence

Question 22

WHEN IS A PERSON DEEMED “LIVING IN” A RESIDENCE?

Answer 22

an arrestee may be deemed to

be “living in” a residence in which he stays on a regular basis for any significant period.

Question 23

ARE OFFICERS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT INFORMATION FROM A FRIEND OF RELATIVE OF A SUSPECT REGARDING THE CONFIRMATION THAT A PERSON DOES OR DOES NOT LIVE AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION?

Answer 23

officers are not required to accept information
from a friend or relative that the arrestee
lives or does not live in a certain residence.

Question 24

IS THE PRESENCE OF A SUBJECT’S VEHICLE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO INFER THE SUBJECT IS CURRENTLY AT A RESIDENCE?

Answer 24

“The presence
of a vehicle connected to a suspect is sufficient
to create the inference that the suspect is at
home.”

Question 25

DOES THE FAILURE OF A RESPONSE TO A KNOCK REQUIRE A CONCLUSION THAT THE SUBJECT IS NOT AT HOME?

Answer 25

NO; the failure of anyone to respond to
the officers’ knock and announcement does not
conclusively prove that the arrestee was not at
home, especially if there were other circumstances
that reasonably indicated he was present.

Question 26

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR A STEAGALD WARRANT?

Answer 26

commonly known
as a Steagald warrant—that expressly authorizes a
search of the premises (of a third party) for the arrestee

Question 27

WHAT ARE THE TWO TYPES OF STEAGALD WARRANTS?

Answer 27

conventional and anticipatory.

Question 28

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A CONVENTIONAL STEAGALD WARRANT?

Answer 28

Conventional Steagald warrants can be issued
only if there is both probable cause to search the
premises for the arrestee, and probable cause to
arrest him.

Question 29

WHAT IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A LOCATION FOR A WANTED PERSON? (2)

Answer 29

To establish probable
cause to search the premises for the arrestee, the
affidavit must contain facts that establish a “fair
probability” or “substantial chance” of the following:
(1) the arrestee was inside the residence when
the warrant was issued, and (2) he would still be
there when the warrant was executed

Question 30

WHAT IS AN ANTICIPATORY STEAGALD WARRANT?

Answer 30

“anticipatory”
Steagald warrant which will authorize them to
enter the premises and search for the arrestee if and
when a “triggering event” occurs; e.g., a completed
sale of drugs.

Question 31

WHAT IS A “TRIGGERING CONDITION”?

Answer 31

‘triggering
condition’—which, when satisfied, becomes the final
piece of evidence needed to establish probable
cause.

Question 32

WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO AVOID THE NEED FOR A STEAGALD WARRANT?

Answer 32

avoid the
need for a Steagald warrant if they can locate the
arrestee inside his own home (in which case only an
arrest warrant would be required) or if they can
wait until he leaves the premises or is in a public
place (in which case only probable cause would be
required)
*PREFERRED

Question 33

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES: NAME THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD AFFORD A WARRANTLESS ENTRY

Answer 33

essentially only four that are relevant in situations
where officers enter with the intent to arrest an
occupant: hot pursuits, fresh pursuits, armed standoffs,
and evidence destruction

Question 34

DEFINE HOT PURSUIT

Answer 34

“hot” pursuit occurs when (1) officers
attempt to arrest a suspect in a public place, and (2)
he responds by fleeing into his home or other private
structure.

Question 35

DOES HOT PURSUIT APPLY TO MISDEMEANOR CRIMES?

Answer 35

an entry under the hot pursuit exception is permitted
even though the arrestee was wanted for only a
misdemeanor

Question 36

DEFINE FRESH PURSUIT?

Answer 36

defined as investigative pursuits in the sense
that officers are actively attempting to apprehend
the perpetrator of a crime and, in doing so, are
quickly responding to leads as to his whereabouts;
and eventually they develop reason to believe that he
is presently inside a certain home or other private
structure.

Question 37

WHEN MAY AN ENTRY BE MADE UNDER THE FRESH PURSUIT EXCEPTION?

Answer 37

officers may enter the
premises under the “fresh pursuit” exception if the
following circumstances existed:
(1) SERIOUS FELONY: The crime under investigation must have been a serious felony, usually a violent one.
(2) DILIGENCE: After the crime was committed, the officers must have been diligent in their attempt
to apprehend the perpetrator.
(3) PROBABLE CAUSE: At some point in their investigation,the officers must have developed probable
cause to arrest the suspect.
(4) SUSPECT LOCATED: The officers must have developed
“reason to believe” that the perpetrator
was inside the premises. (The “reason to believe”
standard was covered earlier.)
(5) CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FLIGHT: The officers
must have been aware of circumstances
indicating the perpetrator was in active flight
or soon would be; e.g., he knew he had been
identified by a witness or that an accomplice
had been arrested.

Question 38

MAY OFFICERS ENTER A DWELLING WITHOUT A WARRANT AS A RESULT OF AN “ARMED STANDOFF’?

Answer 38

YES; officers
may enter without a warrant for the purpose of
arresting him
REASONING: [D]uring such a standoff, once exigent circumstances
justify the warrantless seizure of the
suspect in his home, and so long as the police
are actively engaged in completing his arrest,
police need not obtain an arrest warrant before
taking the suspect into full physical custody

Question 39

CAN OFFICERS MAKE A WARRANTLESS ENTRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE?

Answer 39

warrantless entry to arrest an occupant if they
reasonably believed (1) there was evidence on the
premises, and (2) the arrestee would destroy it if
they waited for a warrant.

Question 40

IS AN ENTRY ACCEPTABLE FOR THE ARTICULATED REASON THAT OFFICERS BELIEVED THE SUSPECT “MIGHT” DESTROY EVIDENCE?

Answer 40

NO

Question 41

CONSENSUAL ENTRY: IF THE OFFICER’S INTENT IS TO PLACE THE CONSETING PARTY OR ANOTHER PARTY UNDER ARREST UPON BEING PROVIDED CONSENT—- WOULD THE CONSENT BE VALID IF THE PERSON DID NOT KNOW THAT AN ARREST WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST?

Answer 41

NOT VALID IF THE OFFICER’S INTENT IS TO ENTER WITH THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ARREST AND DID NOT STATE THE INTENTIO OF MAKING AN ARREST

Question 42

IF AN OFFICER ASKS FOR CONSENT TO ENTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF “TALKING” TO THE SUSPECT; WHAT WOULD INVALIDATE THE CONSENT?

Answer 42

consent that was given to officers who said they
wanted to come inside to “talk” with a suspect will
ordinarily be deemed invalid if they had probable
cause to arrest him and immediately did so.

Question 43

IS CONSENT VALID IF OFFICERS REQUEST TO ENTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF TALKING, THEN UPON ENTRY MAKE AN IMMEDIATE ARREST?

Answer 43

NOT VALID

Question 44

IF OFFICERS ENTER UPON CONSENT AND EFFECT AN ARREST ONLY AFTER DEVELOPING PROBABLE CAUSE; IS THE ARREST VALID?

Answer 44

YES, VALID

Question 45

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES: IF ONE SPOUSE CONSENTS TO ENTRY AND THE OTHER REFUSES; IS THE OFFICER’S ENTRY VALID? WHEN IS THE OFFICER’S ENTRY INVALID?

Answer 45

YES; In domestic
violence cases, if one spouse consented to an entry for the purpose of arresting the other, officers may enter even though the other spouse objected–the rule that prohibits an entry if one
spouse objects—the rule of Georgia v. Randolph121—
applies only when the objective of the officers’ entry
was to obtain evidence against the non-consenting
spouse. Thus, it does not apply when the purpose
was to ARREST him or PROTECT the consenting spouse

Question 46

WHEN MAY UNDERCOVER OFFICERS ENTER UPON A SUSPECT’S CONSENT?

Answer 46

entries are permitted only
if the following five circumstances existed:
(1) CONSENT: The undercover officer or police
agent must have entered with the consent of
someone with apparent authority to do so.
(2) PROBABLE CAUSE: Probable cause must have
developed after the undercover officer entered.
(3) NOTIFICATION: The undercover officer or police
agent must have notified the backup officers
by radio signal or other means that probable
cause now existed.
(4) DILIGENCE: The notification must have been
made without unnecessary delay after probable
cause developed.
(5) ENTRY WHILE UNDERCOVER IS INSIDE: The backup
officers must have entered while the undercover
officer or police agent was on the premises,
or at least so quickly after he stepped
outside that there existed an implied right to reenter.

Question 47

CAN A SUSPECT WITHDRAW CONSENT TO ENTER IF THE OFFICERS ALREADY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE?

Answer 47

NO; A suspect’s attempt to withdraw
“consent” (e.g., by trying to close the door on the
arresting officers) is ineffective if they had probable
cause to arrest.

Question 48

ARREST WARRANTS: ARE OFFICER REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF AN ARREST WARRANT?

Answer 48

NO: POSSESSION OF ARREST WARRANT: Although it is
“highly desirable” for officers to possess a copy of
the warrant when they enter, this is not a requirement.

Question 49

CONSENT: FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE; CAN AN OFFICER SEARCH A RESIDENCE IF ONE SPOUSE DECLINES CONSENT WHILE THE OTHER SPOUSE PROVIDES CONSENT?

Answer 49

NO: the rule that prohibits an entry if one
spouse objects—the rule of Georgia v. Randolph121—
applies only when the objective of the officers’ entry
was to obtain evidence against the non-consenting
spouse.

Question 50

MAY UNDERCOVER OFFICERS MISREPRESENT THEMSELVES TO GAIN ENTRY WITHOUT VIOLATING RAMEY-PAYTON

Answer 50

YES: “It is
well-settled that undercover agents may misrepresent
their identity to obtain consent to entry
**even if the undercover officers had
probable cause to arrest the suspect when they
entered, and even if they fully intended to arrest him
after the sale was completed, the entry does not
violate Ramey-Payton or Steagald because it was
consensual.

Question 51

WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMITTED BY LAW FOR UNDERCOVER OFFICERS.

Answer 51

entries are permitted only
if the following five circumstances existed:
(1) CONSENT: The undercover officer or police
agent must have entered with the consent of
someone with apparent authority to do so.
(2) PROBABLE CAUSE: Probable cause must have
developed after the undercover officer entered
(3) NOTIFICATION: The undercover officer or police
agent must have notified the backup officers
by radio signal or other means that probable
cause now existed.
(4) DILIGENCE: The notification must have been
made without unnecessary delay after probable
cause developed.
(5) ENTRY WHILE UNDERCOVER IS INSIDE: The backup
officers must have entered while the undercover
officer or police agent was on the premises,
or at least so quickly after he stepped
outside that there existed an implied right to reenter.

Question 52

CAN A SUSPECT WITHDRAW CONSENT IF THE POLICE HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE TIME THE CONSENT WAS GIVEN?

Answer 52

NO; A suspect’s attempt to withdraw
“consent” (e.g., by trying to close the door on the
arresting officers) is ineffective if they had probable
cause to arrest

Question 53

IS KNOCK NOTICE REQUIRED WITH A SEARCH WARRANT OR ARREST WARRANT?

Answer 53

YES; KNOCK-NOTICE: If officers entered under the authority
of a search or arrest warrant, they must
comply with the knock-notice requirements unless
there were exigent circumstances that justified
an immediate entry

Question 54

SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; WHAT AREAS MAY AN OFFICER SEARCH?

Answer 54

Even if the suspect lacked immediate access, officers
may inspect areas and things that were (1)
“immediately adjoining the place of arrest,” and

(2) large enough to conceal a hiding person

Question 55

WHEN MAY OFFICERS CONDUCT A “PROTECTIVE SWEEP”

Answer 55

Officers may conduct a protective
sweep if they reasonably believed there was
another person on the premises who posed a
threat to them

Question 56

PROTECTIVE SWEEP: IF OFFICERS OBSERVE CONTRABAND IN PLAIN VIEW MAY THEY SIEZE THE ITEM?

Answer 56

YES: if the officers have probable
cause to believe that an item they observed in
plain view is evidence, they may seize it.

Question 57

MAY OFFICERS HOLD THE PREMISES IF THEY DECIDE TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT AFTER DEVELOPING PROBABLE CAUSE WHILE INSIDE OF A PREMISES?

Answer 57

YES

Question 58

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: OFFICERS THAT ENTER IN VIOLATION OF RAMEY-PAYTON MAY STILL ADMIT EVIDENCE BASED ON TWO CIRCUMSTANCES…..

Answer 58

admissibility of statements and
other evidence obtained after officers made an entry
in violation of Ramey-Payton or Steagald will depend
on two things: (1) whether the evidence was the
“fruit” of the entry; i.e., whether the officers obtained
it while they were inside the building, and (2)
whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation
of privacy in the premises

Question 59

ENTRY TO AN ARRESTEE’S HOME: WILL EVIDENCE/STATEMENTS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF RAMEY-PAYTON BE ADMISSIBLE?

Answer 59

EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN THE ARRESTEE’S HOME: If
officers entered the arrestee’s home in violation of
Ramey-Payton, their presence there is illegal. Consequently,
any evidence and statements they obtained
while inside will be suppressed

NOTE: a violation
of Ramey-Payton or Steagald renders the entry illegal—
but not the arrest.

Question 60

IS EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM A SUSPECT AFTER HE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PREMISES STILL ADMISSIBLE IF THE ENTRY WAS IN VIOLATION OF RAMEY-PAYTON?

Answer 60

YES; Evidence and
statements obtained from the arrestee after he had
been removed from the premises will not be suppressed
so long as officers had probable cause to
arrest

Question 61

THIRD PARTY HOME: EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF STEAGALD OBTAINED IN A THIRD PARTY HOME WILL BE INADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE THIRD PARTY,,,BUT WOULD IT BE INADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE ARRESTED SUSPECT WHO IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE HOME?

Answer 61

If
officers entered the home of an arrestee’s friend,
relative, or other third party in violation of Steagald,
any evidence they discovered inside the premises will
be inadmissible against the third party.144 It will,
however, be admissible against the arrestee unless
he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
place or thing in which it was found

Question 62

Does a Ramey warrant initiate criminal proceedings for the purpose of 6th Amendment rights ?

Answer 62

NO

Question 63

Regarding CLETS; what are the 2 different statuses a Ramey warrant can be entered in?

Answer 63

Permanent & Temporary

Temporary = 48-72 hours

Question 64

RE: RAMEY WARRANT

Who has the burden of proof?

Answer 64

DEFENDANT

Question 65

How long does arrest warrants and Ramey warrants stay in the computer system?

Answer 65

Valid UNTIL RECALLED BY THE COURT

Question 66

IF a warrant becomes stale, what are the options?

Answer 66

NEW WARRANT: new information, reason for delay, update stale info, mention any changes to PC

RESUBMISSION OF EXPIRED WARRANT: Original AFF + NEW AFF explaining the delay, change in PC, update stale information

Question 67

What are the times a warrant can be served WITHOUT night service endorsement?

Answer 67

7am - 10pm

Question 68

IF a search begins before 10pm without a night service endorsement, and the search goes beyond 10pm, IS THE SERVICE LEGAL?

Answer 68

YES, as long as the service began BEFORE the timeframe of 7am and 10 pm

Question 69

Securing a promise by actual entry: WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR OFFICERS TO MAKE ENTRY LEGALLY PRIOR TO OBTAINING A WARRANT?

Answer 69

PROBABLE CAUSE THAT CONTRABAND/EVIDENCE will be discovered inside
-AND-
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES - someone inside will destroy or remove evidence

Question 70

CAN OFFICERS SECURE A RESIDENCE, pending a search warrant, BY PREVENTING OTHERS FROM ENTERING?

Answer 70

Yes; with only reasonable suspicion that contraband of a crime is inside

Question 71

IS IT REQUIRED BY LAW TO LEAVE A COPY OF A SEARCH WARRANT FOLLOWING A SERVICE ?

Answer 71

NO

Question 72

ARE OFFICERS REQUIRED TO LEAVE A DETAILED LIST OF PROPERTY TAKEN FOLLOWING A SEARCH WARRANT SERVICE?

Answer 72

YES