The Police Found Evidence. That Does Not Answer Whether They Had the Right to Find It.

Evidence can be powerful. But before a court decides what evidence proves, there may be another question:

How did the government get it?

The Fourth Amendment and Texas law place limits on government searches and seizures. Those limits can become critical when police enter a home, stop a vehicle, search a cellphone, obtain a warrant, approach private property, or seize evidence without a warrant.

Taylor Defense Firm examines not simply what police found, but the sequence of events that allowed them to find it.

A traffic stop does not automatically authorize a search of the vehicle.

Depending upon the circumstances, a defense investigation may examine the original reason for the stop, its duration, officer observations, alleged consent, probable cause, deployment of a drug-detection dog, statements by occupants, and the location where evidence was discovered.

When multiple people occupy a vehicle, another issue frequently arises:

Who actually possessed the evidence?

Proximity alone does not necessarily answer that question.

Constitutional questions do not always begin at the front door.

The area immediately surrounding a home can receive constitutional protection as well.

A defense investigation may therefore ask where officers walked, where they stood, whether they left the normal route used by visitors, whether they approached side or rear windows, and whether observations later placed in a warrant affidavit were made from a lawful vantage point.

Sometimes a case turns on a surprisingly basic question:

Where was the officer standing when the officer says the evidence was observed?

A judge's signature on a warrant does not make the underlying affidavit immune from examination.

Search-warrant litigation may involve whether the affidavit established probable cause, whether information was stale, whether statements were materially false, whether important information was omitted, and whether the facts described in the affidavit match body-camera footage, dispatch records, photographs, reports, and other evidence.

In appropriate cases, the defense may seek a hearing concerning alleged false statements or material omissions in the warrant affidavit.

Police frequently describe evidence as being in "plain view."

That phrase has legal significance, but it does not eliminate the need to examine how the officer reached the place from which the object was supposedly visible.

The question is not simply whether an officer could see something.

The question can also be whether the officer had a lawful right to be where the officer was standing when it was seen.

A modern cellphone can contain years of private information: messages, photographs, internet history, location information, application data, financial information, and communications with hundreds of people.

That makes the scope and particularity of digital searches increasingly important.

Defense analysis may involve the warrant itself, the categories of data authorized for seizure, the time periods specified, the relationship between the requested information and the alleged offense, and the methods used to extract and review the device.

The answer depends upon the circumstances.

A defense attorney may seek suppression of evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure. Texas law can also create jury issues concerning illegally obtained evidence when disputed historical facts determine whether the evidence was obtained lawfully.

Suppression litigation is therefore not merely about proving that an officer made a mistake.

The critical questions include what constitutional or statutory violation occurred, what evidence resulted from it, and whether the law provides a basis to exclude that evidence.