No they do not. If they have a signed search warrant they are allowed to enter without notice. They are only required to show you the warrant upon your request to see it. If they do not allow you to see the warrant, this could potentially invalidate the search and make any evidence found against you during the search inadmissible.
Added: While the above may be true in the specific case of the service of search warraants, it is NOT so in the case of the service of an arrest warrant. Mere knowledge of the existence of an arrest warrant for an individual is sufficient to take that person into custody. The arrestee need not be shown the actual warrant at the time of arrest.
If they have a warrant, they don't need to ask. It also depends on why and where they searched the car, but generally, no.
If there is a warrant for your arrest, certainly. The Secretary of State office will do a search on your name and address for prior issued ID. If it comes up in the records, they will notify the police that you are there and the police will come and pick you up.
It is possible that if the police were there at the time the drugs were sold then an exigent circumstance exception could apply. However that is not normally the case. Most often the information about drug sales are presented to a magistrate and a warrant is obtained. The police may then do a controlled buy to confirm drugs are in the house immediately prior to the warrant service.
No, if law enforcement officers reasonably believe that a valid warrant has been issued, the officers may begin the search. The warrant does not have to be with them, and the warrant does not have to be given to the owner.
Yes, there must be supporting paperwork defining the offense and the reason for the warrant application, prior to one being issued.
If the question is whether the police need to speak with you or interview you prior to arresting you on a warrant, the answer is no. If it was a requirement that they speak with you, anyone could avoid being arrested on a warrant simply be refusing to speak with the police. Police have an obligation to make sure they are serving the correct person (i.e. - the person named on the warrant) and to do so they will often ask questions first. If they already have a warrant for your arrest, that means that a judge already decided there was probable cause to believe you committed a crime. You might be interviewed after the arrest but if they have probable cause already there is no requirement for them to interview you prior to serving a valid warrant.
The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution refers to searches and stipulates that a warrant must be obtained prior to a search. However, there are seven recognized exceptions: 1. Consent 2. Plain view 3. Incident to arrest 4. Motor vehicle exception 5. Exigent circumstances 6. Caretaker function 7. Inventory search
I am including a link to a non-copyrighted website that describes the finding of the US Supreme Court in the case of Mincey v. Arizona. Reading all the way through the one page decision will enlighten you. Briefly; At the scene of a homicide or serious injury assault, once the police have conducted and concluded a cursory search for victims, and the victims have been removed the premises can be sealed, but a warrant must be applied for before the police can do any further search of the premises. A 'Mincey Warrant' must be applied for before they can search for and gather any evidence. Prior to 'Mincey' the courts had allowed the police to make an immediate search for evidence, but that is no longer the case. See: <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/13023/Mincey-v-Arizona.html">Mincey v. Arizona</a>
The question is framed INCORRECTLY. It is only necessary to ask for consent to search if the officers do NOT have a search warrant. In that instance, asking such permission would constitute a legal search and any illegal items they might find would be legally admissible in court. When they are armed WITH a search warrant, unless the officers simply feel like being polite (which we hope they always are) it is NOT required or necessary to ask permission of anyone to conduct the search.
A magistrate is neutral if there is no conflict of interest and he/she has no prior knowledge of the case.
Unlikely. Unless they have a search warrant. A five month window is clearly unreasonable.
The Miranda Rights have nothing to do with a search or seizure. The Miranda Rights are only read prior to a custodial interrogation, which a search and/or seizure is not.