There is some good advice and a lot of misinformation here. Let me set the record straight. Be advised, I am not a lawyer in Texas, so I will be talking exclusively about 4th amendment rights as interpreted by SCOTUS. Texan's legislature can give you more rights, but it CANNOT drop below this floor without violating your rights.
Quote:
|
They can come in and bust up the place at any given time without any additional warrants since they've made an arrest there before.
|
This is not correct. The police may watch this location more, but once the warrant expires, they would need a new warrant to search message rooms (see below). Warrants have to be supported by an oath or affirmation, which has two things: details and a reliable source. If one is weak, the other must be strong. But either way, the warrant must rise to the level of probable cause, which is admittedly low. My point is, a new warrant is required. And likely new facts to support it.
Chung's post is on point.
Quote:
But the only way LEOs can walk into that without a warrant is if one of the residents is on parole. Parolees are required to allow LEOs to search them at any time without Probable Cause.
In any other circumstances, the police will need to gather fresh new evidence, to get a brand new warrant.
|
You are correct about parole, but you are incorrect about "the only way LEOs can walk into that house". You didn't consider exigent circumstances, such as hot pursuit, emergency, etc. In Missouri v. McNeely (2013), SCOTUS broadened the exigent circumstances exception to be justified whenever a reasonable offer believes (1) acting is urgent and (2) securing a warrant is impractical. That's pretty damn broad. So there are many times an officer can enter your home without consent and without a warrant. For example, if they have probable cause you're destroying evidence.
@Op: Entering a waiting room of a business may not be a search. So no warrant is required. LEO just has to argue he wanted a haircut or massage, and boom, he had a right to be there.
Anything he sees he can seize under the plain view doctrine.
But entering a massage room with a shut (locked?) door is different. One critical thing no one mentioned is Katz. Under Katz, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Harlan's concurrence (later adopted by SCOTUS as the rule of Katz), if a two prong test is met, the police must get a warrant or have an exigent circumstance to search: (1) you must subjectively signal to the world your desire for privacy, and (2) a reasonable person must think giving you privacy in that circumstance is reasonable. Here, you signal to the world you want privacy when you shut the door of the massage room and put on music to drowned out sound. A reasonable person would know that you are naked or close to it when getting a massage, so it would be reasonable to give you privacy there. As such, under Katz, it would violate your 4th amendment right (applied to Texas's police through the 14th amendment) if the room you were in were searched without a warrant or exigent circumstance. This is true even if the police could be in the lobby of the business legally.
LE question for massage place previously busted
My Bio Page - Texas - Austin
My Bio Page - Kansas City Metro
