That depends on a lot of things.
"Depends on a lot of things" - this can mean a few things. If you are guilty, and sent to prison, your car may be auctioned off at some later point to pay impound fees. That's forever, then, that you won't have it back.
It could also mean you were never charged with a crime, but your car was, under the odd Civil Asset Forfeiture laws under RICO that we have. If your car is then found "guilty", you don't get it back.
Depending on state statutes, your car may also be seized (permanently) for a repeat charge of driving while impaired (DWI/OMVI/DUI) or if x-quantity of drugs is found in the car, among other things.
If your car is being held as evidence, it will be in police custody until the case is disposed.
If your car is impounded because you've been taken into police custody, you may be able to retrieve the car as soon as you're released.
See the US Supreme Court decision: Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (1974) or the article in the Freeman, "The Government's War on Property" (link below).
There is no specific time period. The police may wait a "reasonable" period of time. The courts usually define "reasonable" by looking at what the circumstances were that the police were dealing with. If the police hold your car at the side of the road while another officer returns to the police department, writes a search warrant request, goes to a judge's office or home and gets the warrant signed, and then executes the warrant the courts will probably deem that a "reasonable" period of time, even it takes hours.
On the other hand, if your car is kept at the side of the road while the officer does little or nothing to further his goal of obtaining a warrant, that will likely be deemed "unreasonable" by the court.
This depends on the circumstances at hand. Police may only detain you for a reasonable amount of time. The Supreme court has never actually ruled how much time is considered reasonable or not.
Police will need to provide the courts with evidence or testimony based on fact to support their need for a search warrant along with the officers oath or affirmation that they reasonably suspect you're in possession of something illegal.
Also, sometimes law enforcement will use the trick "If you don't let us search, we'll get a warrant." It takes hours to get a warrant to search someone, their property, or to arrest them. This is a trick to get you to waive your right and grant permission.
However, there is a few things you can do, and you should do each and everyone one of these, as your attorney will thank you.
If the officer finally brings a warrant, you have to comply with the search. If the officer continues dragging out the traffic stop with no intention to get a warrant but to aggravate you, this can be used later when filing a Civil Rights lawsuit.
There is no statutory time limit but they can't hold your car forever either. Be more specific as to what timeframe you are referring to please, and then re-submit.
This depends on whether the car will be entered into evidence.
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.
There are many places where one can obtain an Alaska Airlines visa. One can obtain an Alaska Airlines visa from the official Alaska Airlines website on the web.
Unless you're an law enforcement officer, you can't obtain a standard Search Warrant (if you are, your Sergeant can help with this). You have the chance to obtain an Ex Partite warrant, but it's unlikley without at least the tacit cooperation of law enforcement. An affadavit won't help as you can't execute due process without being an officer of the law or a duly deputized agent.
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.
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.
Yes if they have enough tips to make the warrant.
To obtain a search warrant an officer must go before a judge and explain the reason for the search. The warrant will list the reason or reasons why they are searching, what they are looking for, and why. please refer to this link for more information, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant
A Governor's Warrant is what is commonly known as a WARRANT OF EXTRADITION. It is used to return fugitives to the requesting state from the state in which they were apprehended.
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.
Without a warrant you must find reasonable grounds to arrest someone, whereas with a warrant your reason to arrest the suspect already exists. Without a warrant a Police Officer can arrest anyone without permission of a Magistrate as long as they follow the correct procedures so their arrest is lawful, which is unlike an arrest with a warrant where you must be granted the warrant to be able to arrest that person. Without a warrant, a Police Officer can mess the arrest up and make it an unlawful arrest but with a warrant it is very unlikely that they make it an unlawful arrest.
In 1867.
probable cause