People have said that the FBI couldn’t raid Epstein’s Island before his “death” The FBI apparently did not raid Epstein’s property on Little St. James in the Virgin Islands until yesterday. Is this because now that he is dead, Epstein’s lawyers cannot make motions to block search warrants? Given that there was sufficient evidence to arrest him, should that evidence not haven be more than enough for investigators to obtain one or more Federal search warrants? Finally, wouldn’t the Emergency Clause of executing a search based on reasonable suspicion of possible threats to the well being and lives of any potential children being trafficked have been more than sufficient grounds for executing an immediate search when Epstein was taken into custody?
Such a search would have been emotionally satisfying for many people, but it would almost certainly not have been legal. Evidence that someone committed a crime is not always sufficient to permit a search of their home. An arrest warrant requires probable cause to believe the target individual committed an offense, and a search warrant requires probable cause to believe that the target location will have evidence of a crime. So whatever evidence they had that Epstein committed a crime, they would generally need a separate warrant to search his properties for evidence of that crime. There is no "emergency clause" for search warrants. I imagine you're thinking of the "exigency" exception to the requirement that the police obtain a warrant before searching property, which allows a search in cases where there is an actual emergency, where evidence is being destroyed, or when someone ducks into private property while officers are pursuing them. "Reasonable suspicicion of possible threats to ... potential victims" would not be enough to justify a search based on an exigency. If Epstein is already in jail, he doesn't really pose a threat to anyone, he isn't able to destroy any evidence, and no one is pursuing him anywhere.
Maybe I'm reading Walsh wrong, but it seems to me to be saying that Stout might apply in some cases, but it doesn't in that specific case. I think you are indeed reading it wrong. In the Walsh case, the court says: We have not had occasion to decide the question up to this time, but now that it is presented, we not only reiterate the doubt which we expressed in the McAlpin case (supra), but we think that the question of the defendant's negligence was erroneously submitted to the jury in the Stout case, and that we ought not to follow it as a precedent. It's clearly repudiating Stout here, and not just as it applies to that case. It literally says they think it should not be followed as precedent.
The ordinance is not very specific about how notice is to be given: therefore, it need not be in writing, and it need not be sent by mail. It would not be surprising if the "notification" came in the form of a city person inspecting the reported obstruction, walking up to the house and knocking and finding nobody home (thus triggering the "In case the owner cannot be found" condition), whereupon the city removes the rocks. That clause does not mean "In case we do not know who the owner is", it almost certainly means "in case the owner cannot be contacted immediately". Article III is in general about obstructions on streets, which are not allowed, except by permit in section 78 under "Permit to Obstruct Traffic Lane". Assuming that no obstruction permit was obtained, what usually happens is that an officer is sent to tell the owner to remove the obstruction (more or less immediately), and if nobody is at the site whom they can tell, they probably won't go any further (e.g. asking neighbors where the owner is). There is no legal definition of "reasonable time", instead the law simply takes that to mean "the amount of time a reasonable person would require". It would thus depend particularly on the size of the obstruction and the volume of traffic. One measure would be how quickly the rocks were moved -- if it was a matter of days and there was no notice, written or otherwise, then there would not be the kind of urgency that might justify the "We knocked and nobody was home" version of notification.
It depends on the nature of the crime, among other things. Under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) the police must provide evidence to a court that a search warrant is necessary to secure and obtain evidence relevant to an ongoing investigation into a crime. If there is evidence that time is of the essence with regards to the evidence at stake (e.g. there is a high probability that the evidence will be destroyed unless it is secured immediately) then the search warrant will be expedited. Once the search warrant has been secured, it will be an operational matter for the police to decide when and how to act on it. They could choose to do a dawn raid, for example, or they could monitor the suspect for a week and then search the property when the suspect is out. Be aware that under Section 18 of PACE, a search warrant is not necessarily required. The police may, in the course of arresting someone for an indictable offence, search the premises without a warrant provided certain criteria are met. Of course, this is predicated on the police having grounds for arrest, and in the vast majority of cases, a search warrant will be obtained.
If it is &quot;sufficiently obvious&quot; that a law is unconstitutional, evidence obtained relying on that law can probably be suppressed. Two important principles help discern the answer to this question: The Constitution prohibits searches that are &quot;unreasonable.&quot; The existence of a warrant authorizing a search is strong evidence that a search is reasonable, but the warrant is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a search reasonable. The Exclusionary Rule is designed to do one and only one thing: discourage law enforcement misconduct. Therefore, evidence obtained in reliance on a defective warrant will only be suppressed if it was &quot;objectively unreasonable&quot; for the officer to rely on that warrant. Courts typically find reliance on a warrant to be objectively unreasonable when the warrant was obtained through deception, when it authorizes a search of a person or place with no connection to a crime, or when it fails reasonably describe the person or place to be searched. It is likely also possible to have evidence suppressed because the warrant authorized a search for evidence of the violation of a plainly unconstitutional law. That was the question in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, (1987), where a defendant was prosecuted based on evidence obtained in reliance on a law that was later ruled unconsitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court held that because the law was unconstitutional, the search relying on it was also unconstitutional, and the evidence obtained thereby must be suppressed. But the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence need not be suppressed because &quot;this defect in the statute was not sufficiently obvious so as to render a police officer's reliance upon the statute objectively unreasonable.&quot; This suggests that if a statute's unconstitutionality is sufficiently obvious, that an officer seeking evidence in reliance on it would be objectively unreasonable, and that that evidence would therefore be subject to suppression. I don't know of it ever happening, but it's easy enough to make up ridiculous laws that might satisfy this standard. For instance, if Congress passed a law permitting police to write their own warrants to search any mosque at any time, evidence from that search would likely be suppressed. Or if Congress passed a law prohibiting all black women from criticizing the president, evidence that a defendant had violated that law would likely also be suppressed, even if it had been obtained with an otherwise validly issued warrant. Of course, most laws are not as obviously unconstitutional as those, so a challenge on these grounds will likely revolve around what exactly should have alerted a reasonable officer to the statute's consitutional infirmities. Likewise, an officer executing such a search is exposed to Section 1983 liability for an unreasonable search or seizure if his reliance on the warrant is not objectively reasonable. As always, there will be a question of whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity, but that question will turn as always on whether his violation of the law was clearly established. If he is searching for evidence of black people voting, qualified immunity is going to be a hard sell. If he's searching for evidence that a defendant violated a law in a gray area, qualified immunity may save him.
For the record, factual impossibility is rarely a defense to a crime. In United States v. Thomas the court decided that men who believed they were raping a drunken unconscious women were guilty of attempted rape, even though the woman was dead at the time. In this case there is no facts that made the offense impossible to commit. The suspect clearly submitted a false prescription and obtained the drugs he or she wished to obtain. There is no impossibility. Instead the police officer, as the saying goes, has the suspect "dead to rights". This is not legal advice. Consult an attorney for that.
Short answer: Maybe. Long answer: The answer here varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Normally, the process goes like this: The application for the warrant is usually made under seal or otherwise in secret to prevent the target from trying to hide evidence. So before it's been executed, you can pretty much forget about accessing it. After the warrant is executed, though, there are differing answers to this question. The Supreme Court gave us a test for this kind of question in Press-Enterprise II, which held that the First Amendment gives us a qualified right to access court proceedings and records. The right applies when public access makes sense using the "experience and logic" test: Has the Anglo-Saxon experience typically been to provide access, and does logic tell us that access has beneficial effects for the judicial process? But lower courts have disagreed about how to apply the test. The Eighth Circuit allowed access to warrants in a defense-industry corruption investigation in In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area-Gunn, but the Ninth Circuit denied access in to warrants in the same investigation in Times Mirror Co. v. U.S. I think, though, that the Ninth Circuit decision would have come out differently if the investigation had already ended. Just to mix things up further, the Fourth Circuit has also allowed access, but based on common law principles of access, rather than the First Amendment. That was Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz. Same in the Second Circuit: In re Application of Newsday, Inc. Individual states also have their own rules, but those are of course subject to limits under the First Amendment. When I wanted a copy of a warrant, I would go first to the clerk of the court whose judge signed the warrant. I would tell them what I was looking for, and I pretty much always got it. I would rarely submit a FOIA request, especially if the warrant was issued by a federal agency. Those requests sit in a queue for months or years without being reviewed, and the agency virtually always denies the request anyway. When law enforcement agencies and courts have copies of the same record, you're almost always going to have better luck getting access from the courts, which are set to open by default. If the court denies the request, try again after there's an indictment, and again after the trial.
Yes, they can. There was a time when no warrant was required at all. There was a time when it was thought that the Fourth Amendment requirement for a search warrant only applied to criminal cases. It was expected that administrative and civil cases did not require a warrant. For example, in 1959 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Frank v. Maryland that the conviction of a Baltimore City person who refused a warrantless search by a Baltimore City health inspector was valid. However, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Camara V. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco which held: ...that administrative searches of the kind at issue here are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment, that such search, when authorized and conducted without a warrant procedure, lack the traditional safeguards which the Fourth Amendment guarantees to the individual, and that the reasons put forth in Frank v. Maryland and in other cases for upholding these warrantless searches are insufficient to justify so substantial a weakening of the Fourth Amendment's protections. The standard for issuing such a warrant, the court ruled, is probable cause. Further: Such standards, which will vary with the municipal program being enforced, may be based upon the passage of time, the nature of the building (e.g, a multi-family apartment house), or the condition of the entire area, but they will not necessarily depend upon specific knowledge of the condition of the particular dwelling. The court also held that nothing in their ruling requiring warrants would preclude a warrantless inspection in an emergency situation. Portland, Oregon describes on their web site their process for obtaining such a warrant.