Want this question answered?
It is only important to have a warrant when surveillance can violate a persons right to privacy. Law enforcement has to show probable cause to obtain a warrant to enter a person residence to plant eavesdropping devices.
In the Bill of Rights the fourth amendment says the government must have a warrant and probable cause to search and/or seizure of your property.
They must provide a judge with probable cause to do a search.
probable cause
The officer applying for the warrant must set forth in the application that sufficient 'probable cause' exists that the person named in the warrant was the one that committed the offense. The judge reviewing the warrant application must agree that the 'probable cause' is legally sufficient to support the arrest. When he signs the application it becomes the warrant and is then returned to the officer (or agency) for service.
Probable cause that the objects or contraband they are searching for will be found on the premises - submit a signed and sworn affidavit to a magistrate or judge and - the judges signature on the warrant.
In order to obtain a warrant, a police officer / prosecutor must ask a judge to issue the warrant (the application) and submit evidence (usually his own sworn testimony in the form of a written affidavit) that the search/seizure is supported by probable cause.Additional; The "application" for a warrant is called an "affidavit." The statement of probable cause contained in the affidavit MUST satisfy the issuing judge that sufficient probable cause exists to satisfy the law. ONLY after the judge signs the affidavit is a legally sufficient warrant issued.
(in the US) Only government agents properly authorized by a judicially issued warrant have the legal authortiy to search a residence. In order to obtain such a warrant they must prepare an affidavit to present to a judge, setting forth the specific probable cause supporting the request. If the judge does not find sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant the affidavit will be denied.
Government agents can obtain a search warrant when they have probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime or contraband will be found in a specific location. This typically requires them to present an affidavit to a judge or magistrate, detailing the specific facts and circumstances supporting their belief, and the judge will then decide whether to issue the warrant. Search warrants are generally required under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but there are exceptions in certain situations.
It depends on which state you live in, but for the most part, a search warrant is not needed if the following conditions are met: 1. There is a probable cause (i.e. the officer sees 6 sets of antlers poking out from under a tarp on your property) 2. The officer sees or obtains the probable cause legally (is it visible from the street, or did he/she observe you carrying out the elements of a crime) 3. The officer has the legal authority (i.e. is he/she a peace officer or otherwise authorized in your state) The officer can also get consent from the property owner by asking, then of course, a search warrant is not needed. Most investigators will not execute a search without a warrant unless they believe that there is a danger of destruction of evidence or there is a danger to public safety. It often takes only a phone call to obtain a telephonic warrant.
No. The officer would have to have other reasons than a revoked consent. Revoking a consent does not lead to the officer having a 51%/ more likely than not justification that there is evidence of a crime. There has to be other factors that play into it. And even if he does have probable cause he would need to get the warrant and then continue the seach.
With the proper warrant or probable cause, a cell phone could certainly be searched. More commonly the police would obtain necessary records from the cellular service provider.