“When I was arrested by the Feds on Drug Conspiracy charges, they told me I was facing mandatory life in federal prison without the possibility of parole. I knew that I was innocent, but I was scared . . . so I knew that I would have to find a lawyer who was not afraid of the Feds and would take my case to trial. I chose Greg Robey because he is a fighter. After over 2 weeks in a federal jury trial, I was found Not Guilty of all charges. My family and I am forever grateful to Mr. Robey.” -L.B., Mansfield, Ohio
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. With some exceptions, law enforcement must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before conducting a search of private property or a person. Evidence obtained from an unlawful search is inadmissible.
One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is consent. A police officer is permitted to conduct a search without a warrant if the party consents to it. However, consent is a complex concept. And, because consent can affect the lawfulness of the search, its meaning is important.
The February 2014 Supreme Court decision in Fernandez v. California added another layer to the definition of consent:
If you have been charged with a crime in Cleveland, OH, an experienced criminal defense attorney can review your case for Fourth Amendment challenges to keep incriminating evidence out.