A search warrant procured with malicious intent and without probable cause is not only a federal crime under Title 18 U.S.C. § 2235, but a profound violation of your constitutional rights.
While search warrants are a standard tool used by law enforcement to gather evidence, they are not immune to abuse. In the vast majority of cases, warrants are obtained legally.
However, instances occur in which personal vendettas, corruption, or overzealous policing result in the issuance of a warrant based on lies rather than facts.
The consequences for the targeted individual can be devastating, ranging from wrongfully seized property to unjust incarceration.
Understanding the different types of DEA search warrants—and how they are used—is critical to protecting your rights.
If you are facing charges based on evidence obtained through a maliciously procured warrant, the skilled criminal defense attorneys at Eisner Gorin LLP can challenge the validity of that warrant so that the evidence obtained cannot be used against you in court.
Not only could this result in your charges being dismissed, but it could also lead to federal criminal charges against the investigators or officials who obtained the warrant illegally. Call for a consultation today at (818) 781-1570 or contact us here.
What Does Federal Law Say About Search Warrants Procured Maliciously?
Federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 2235 explicitly makes it a crime for any person to maliciously and without probable cause procure the issuance and execution of a search warrant.
Essentially, this law serves as a check on the power of the government and law enforcement. It acknowledges that the authority to search a private residence or business is a significant intrusion that must be granted only in lawful circumstances.
Violating this statute is a serious offense. Penalties include fines, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.
While the criminal penalty for the offender is significant, the most important aspect for a defendant is that a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2235 signals that the evidence against them is likely inadmissible.
What Are Some Examples of Malicious Procurement of a Search Warrant?
Malicious procurement typically involves an affiant (the person requesting the warrant) providing deliberately false information, fabricating evidence, or omitting crucial facts to deceive a judge into issuing a warrant.
In a perfect world, judges would verify every fact presented to them. In reality, judges often rely heavily on the sworn statements of police officers or federal agents.
If those statements are untrue, a warrant may be issued on false pretenses. Some hypothetical examples of how this could play out:
- Fabricating Evidence: A law enforcement officer, convinced of a suspect's guilt in a drug conspiracy but lacking concrete evidence, drafts an affidavit falsely claiming to have witnessed drug transactions during surveillance. The officer fabricates this narrative to secure a warrant, prioritizing a conviction over legal procedures.
- Omitting Critical Information: An officer applies for a warrant based on an informant's tip. The officer knows this informant has a history of providing false information and is being paid for their tips. By deliberately withholding these facts about the informant's credibility from the judge, the officer maliciously procures the warrant by making the tip appear more reliable than it is.
How Does a Maliciously Procured Search Warrant Violate My Rights?
A search warrant obtained through malice and without probable cause is a direct violation of your Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
When an officer or investigator lies under oath to obtain a warrant, they render the warrant constitutionally invalid. The subsequent search of your home, car, or office becomes a warrantless, illegal intrusion.
The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" Doctrine
In criminal defense, the remedy for this constitutional violation is the legal principle known as the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree."
- The Tree: The illegal search (based on the malicious warrant) is the "poisonous tree."
- The Fruit: Any evidence found during that search (drugs, documents, computers, etc.) is the "fruit."
Because the tree is poisoned, the fruit is tainted as well. Under the exclusionary rule, any evidence derived directly from an unconstitutional search is inadmissible in court.
This means the prosecution cannot use the tainted evidence to prove guilt. If the primary evidence is suppressed, the case against the defendant may be dismissed entirely.
Beyond the legal technicalities, the impact on the defendant is profound. A malicious search invades privacy, traumatizes families, destroys reputations, and interrupts livelihoods. It is not just a procedural error; it is an attack on personal liberty.
How Can My Defense Attorney Fight a Malicious Search Warrant?
If there is suspicion that a search warrant was procured maliciously, a skilled federal criminal defense attorney will meticulously review the warrant affidavit, challenge the existence of probable cause, and file a motion to suppress the evidence produced by the search warrant.
Defending against a malicious warrant requires a proactive and aggressive approach. It is not enough to simply claim innocence; the defense must attack the legal basis of the government's investigation.
Filing a Motion to Suppress
The primary vehicle for challenging a bad warrant is a Motion to Suppress Evidence. This is a formal legal document filed with the court, arguing that the evidence seized was obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights and should be excluded from trial.
The Franks Hearing
The most specific tool for addressing violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2235 is a Franks hearing. Named after the Supreme Court case Franks v. Delaware, this is a special evidentiary hearing in which the defense attempts to prove that the police officer lied to obtain the warrant.
To get a Franks hearing granted, the defense must make a "substantial preliminary showing" that:
- The affidavit contained a false statement (or a material omission).
- The statement was made knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth.
- The false statement was necessary to the finding of probable cause.
If the judge grants the hearing, the defense can cross-examine the officer and present evidence of their false statements.
Should the judge find that the officer lied and that the remaining information is insufficient to support the warrant, the warrant is voided, and the evidence is suppressed. Suppressing crucial evidence obtained from the invalid warrant may be enough to get the charges dismissed.
Investigating the Affiant and Informants
To build the "substantial preliminary showing" required for a Franks hearing, a defense team must act as investigators. This involves:
- Background Checks: deeply investigating the history of the officer and any confidential informants involved.
- Corroboration Analysis: Checking the timeline of events in the affidavit against GPS data, surveillance footage, or other objective records to find inconsistencies.
- Interviewing Witnesses: Finding individuals who can contradict the claims made in the warrant application.
The Importance of a Team-Based Defense Approach
Challenging the sworn word of a law enforcement officer is difficult. Courts generally presume warrants are valid. Overcoming this presumption requires a defense strategy that is detailed, creative, and relentless.
This is why, in complex cases involving constitutional challenges, we employ a multi-lawyer review.
By having multiple experienced attorneys review the warrant application and the discovery, we can identify subtle patterns of misconduct or contradictions that a single set of eyes might miss. This structured second opinion on strategy ensures that no angle is left unexplored when your freedom is on the line.
Protecting Your Rights
To summarize, 18 U.S.C. § 2235 is a vital safeguard against government overreach, penalizing those who maliciously procure search warrants without probable cause.
When this statute is violated, it triggers a cascade of constitutional breaches that can render the prosecution's evidence useless—provided you have a legal team capable of exposing the misconduct.
At Eisner Gorin LLP, we don't just defend your innocence, but also your constitutional right to a fair trial. By challenging the validity of a malicious warrant, we can protect your rights and work toward a dismissal or reduction of charges.
If you are accused of a crime and believe a search warrant was procured against you maliciously, time is of the essence. Call our Los Angeles-based offices immediately at (818) 781-1570, or contact us here to schedule a confidential consultation.
