Is a search and seizure legal if a warrant was invalid?

I was arrested at my home for warrants that were over a year old; they were

traffic warrants. I was incarcerated at the time the warrants were issued. When arrested, they found a small amount of meth on me. I am awaiting a court date to have the warrants quashed and the FTA’s dismissed. Will this have any bearing on my possession charge?

Asked on November 20, 2018 under Criminal Law, Arizona

Answers:

M.D., Member, California and New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 2 years ago | Contributor

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. A search and seizure is considered unreasonable if it is conducted by police without a valid search warrant and does not fall under an exception to the warrant requirement. If evidence is obtained without a valid warrant and no exception applies, the evidence may be subject to the "exclusionary rule". This rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being admitted in a court of law. Evidence obtained on the basis of illegally obtained evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree" and it will also be excluded.

S.L,. Member, California Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 2 years ago | Contributor

If the warrant was invalid, you can assert that your arrest and subsequent search and discovery of the meth were the fruit of the poisonous tree. 
In other words, the meth is inadmissible evidence because it was the result of an invalid warrant.


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.