We treat you like family, we're here for you.

How DEA Attorneys Challenge the Legality of Drug Search Warrants

When the DEA wants to search a property for illegal drugs or evidence of drug crimes, they need to first obtain a search warrant. But sometimes these warrants are issued on shaky legal grounds. Defense attorneys fight back to get evidence excluded. This article looks at common ways DEA search warrants get challenged in court.

The 4th Amendment’s Probable Cause Requirement

The 4th Amendment requires search warrants to be based on “probable cause”. This means there needs to be reasonable belief that evidence of a crime will be found. The Fourth Amendment protects people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. But judges often rubber stamp warrant requests without digging into the facts. So one main way DEA search warrants get challenged is by arguing there was no real probable cause.

Defense lawyers look closely at the warrant affidavit to find legal deficiencies. Common problems include relying too heavily on informants of unknown reliability. They may make big leaps without direct evidence. Using stale information from months prior is another issue. Providing boilerplate explanations that don’t specifically relate to the case also weakens warrants. By attacking these issues, the defense can argue the warrant was invalid from the start.

Franks Hearings and False Statements

Another method for challenging a search warrant is claiming false statements. The affidavit supporting it may include false statements either deliberately or recklessly. If the defense can make this showing in a “Franks hearing,” the false statements get set aside. The district court’s refusal to conduct a Franks hearing is reviewed de novo. The remaining content then gets evaluated for probable cause.

Franks issues often come up when informants provide bad intel. Cops may exaggerate their credentials. Officers sometimes fudge timelines to create urgency for the warrant. Pointing out factual discrepancies in warrant affidavits is a good tactic. This approach helps get evidence thrown out.

Scope and Execution Issues

Even with a valid warrant, the DEA’s search can still be deemed unlawful. This happens if agents exceed the authorized scope or conduct it improperly. Common problems that spark litigation include:

• Exceeding spatial or temporal limits of the warrant
• Seizing items not covered in the warrant
• Using flash-bangs without justification
• Causing unnecessary property damage
• Remaining in the property too long after completing the search

By focusing on oversteps and carelessness in how the search gets executed, savvy defense lawyers can succeed. Instead of just attacking the initial warrant, they challenge the execution. This approach can still get damning evidence excluded.

Attacking Warrants for Lack of Particularity

Search warrants also need to describe the place to be searched with sufficient “particularity”. They must specify items to be seized under the 4th Amendment. This prevents officers from having too much discretion. The warrant must be specific regarding the items to be seized and the place searched. Challenges often arise where warrants include broad categories. Terms like “evidence of drug trafficking” give police a blank check.

By attacking the warrant as a “general warrant,” the defense pushes for more specifics. They argue about what agents can take. This might convince a judge to exclude evidence that strays too far from the core investigation. Particularity challenges can also reveal deeper probable cause problems. This happens if the cops didn’t really know what they were looking for.

Using Suppression Hearings to Fight Unlawful Warrants

If a defense attorney successfully shows legal deficiencies with a search warrant, the next step is suppression. They ask the court to prohibit admission of the illegally obtained evidence. The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. This often comes up when quantities of drugs get discovered.

Suppression hearings involve testimony from officers involved. They also include legal arguments over whether the 4th Amendment got violated. If the judge agrees on constitutional violations, critical evidence won’t reach the jury. Drugs, guns, documents and more found during the search become inadmissible. This could gut the prosecution’s whole case. It creates leverage to get charges dropped. A better plea deal becomes possible even if the ruling gets appealed.

State Law Issues

While the 4th Amendment provides baseline protections, state law sometimes grants additional safeguards. These safeguards apply to search warrants. They may include higher probable cause standards. Restrictions on nighttime searches are another example. Savvy defense lawyers use state statutes and constitutions to challenge warrants. This works especially well in state court prosecutions versus federal cases.

Evidentiary rules also differ between federal and state courts. These differences impact the suppression process. Understanding these nuances allows creative attorneys to make unique arguments. Arguments that might get laughed out of federal court could sway a state judge. The result could be exclusion of critical evidence.

Using the Exclusionary Rule as a Deterrent

Beyond helping individual clients, defense attorneys seek broader impact. They challenge questionable search warrants to influence law enforcement behavior more broadly. By constantly putting the exclusionary rule into play, they threaten to suppress evidence. The purpose is to deter law enforcement from conducting searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The goal is to deter cops and agents from taking legal shortcuts. It prevents relying on weak warrants signed by compliant judges.

There’s a transparency benefit too. Litigation over warrant challenges creates case law precedent. This precedent defines what constitutes adequate probable cause. It applies in different investigative contexts for drugs cases. So over time, these courtroom fights help reform the warrant approval process. They require more rigorous proof up front before signing off on invasive searches.