Question

An officer enters a home by lying to the home owner by saying she has a search warrant. The owner of the home was never shown the warrant and the officer finds drug paraphernalia and a small baggie of cocaine. They arrest the owner of the home. In court, the owner of the home asks that the evidence not be admitted due to the false warrant. What would the Supreme Court rule? Which case provides precedent for this situation that falls under the 4th Amendment? I Need help

Answer 1

the supreme court would most likely deem that based on the fact that a law enforment officer forced entry into your home and lied saying that they had a warrant, that, that was a unreasonable search and seizure under the law.

Step-by-step explanation:

the police may knock and announce their presence at your door but unless they have a warrant, you are not required to open the door, to answer any questions, or to cooperate with the police in any fashion.

(source: libertylaw.ca)

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

"no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

(source: constitution of united states of america 1789 *revised in 1992*)

"the fourth amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government"

"however, not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law."

(source: uscourts.gov)

so

the supreme court would most likely deem that based on the fact that a law enforment officer forced entry into your home and lied saying that they had a warrant, that, that was a "unreasonable" "search and seizure" "under the law."