Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Are you saying the cops need a warrent to question you, or even search you for illegal substances?
Even if it is painfully obvious that you're acting in a manner that would suggest you're guilty?
|
Yes and No. The law hinges on the word "unreasonable". If the police have a 'reasonable' belief that you have committed a crime, then they can (legally) conduct a warrantless search.
In order to obtain a warrant, they must prove that that search would be 'reasonable' based on 'evidence', testimony, hearsay (I think...) or 'reasonable suspicion'. Both of these examples, reasonable warrant and unwarranted searches, are absolutely legal and help the police to do their job.
However, only observing what is considered to be 'suspicious' behaviour would not constitue grounds for a 'reasonable' search. That is why the police here questioned and did not search (they knew the legality of their right to search). This case in not based on the right of the cops to search, in this case, that is pretty clear, they had none, that is why they did not search. It has to do with evidence that they obtained while allegedly violating the suspects right to not be unlawfully detained.