The reasons for the search would have been included in the warrant which the resident(s) of the property would have received a copy. The terms of the warrant would also be made public at time of trial/hearing and to the defendant and his or her legal counsel. Such information is not available to those persons who are not directly named in the case.
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.
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.
A warrant is VALIDATED by the signature of the approving judge or magistrate. An APPLICATION for a warrant must include enough information (who-what-when-where-how) and include "probable cause" that what is sworn to in the warrant is taking place within the premises named.
Too much of a theoretical question that has an AWFUL LOT of "ifs." There are 3 items mentioned in the question: (1) If a warrant was issued it was issued upon the presentation to a judge of "articulable probable cause." This warrant application would have had to contain enough information to convince a judge to issue it in the first place. (2) If the warrant was served and the individual or the property described in the warrant wasn't found that does not necessarily mean that the warrant was faulty. (3) "Search and seizure" is either "legal" or 'illegal" not "reasonable" or "unreasonable." If the matter wound up in court then the transcripts of the trial are public record and anything about the trial (except the names of confidential informants) can be learned by getting a copy of the transcript and referring to it.
Unreasonable searches are those performed without a warrant or probable cause. Probable cause is established when a law enforcement officer can reasonably suspect the commission of a crime, without explicitly violating the suspect's expectation of privacy. For instance, if someone were to rob another person on the street in plain view of others, and then run into his private home, an officer could enter the property and apprehend the criminal. But if an officer randomly decided to search a house without permission or a search warrant, the search would be unreasonable, and the fruits of the search would be suppressed in court.
probable cause
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.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including raids on your home by law enforcement. This amendment requires authorities to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before conducting a search of your property. If your home is being raided without a warrant or probable cause, you can assert your Fourth Amendment rights.
probable cause
Probable cause.
Yes.
it isnt