That is up to the police.
Because, without probable cause, any evidence found is inadmissible. You can't go in looking for a gun, for instance, and find a knife, and subsequently use that to convict.
you can get a picture off of google on the i touch by holding down on the picture for a few then it will ask to save image or you can open your photos in itunes and drag it in there.
It's not possible say without your specifying which meaning of "convict" you're considering. CON vict is a convicted criminal. conVICT is what the jury voted to do in court.
A conviction that something is true for which the only evidence is the sincerity of the believer.
The duration of Without Evidence is 1.55 hours.
Double jeopardy
The claim that can be asserted without evidence requires evidence to be considered valid.
Without Evidence was created on 2000-09-12.
If an officer were to obtain evidence illegally, such as searching you without probable cause, the evidence they acquired would not be admissible in court. That's not to say the entire case would be thrown out, but that single piece of evidence would not be allowed in court. The exclusionary rule doesn't prevent unlawful searches and seizures, but it disincentivizes them by making evidence seized unlawfully inadmissible at trial. There's no reason to illegally obtain evidence if it can't be used to convict a defendant.
Nothing is known about the circumstances of your question. It MAY be, but there is no guarantee. Your attorney would have to mount a convincing argument to the court that the search WAS improper. Even if that hapopens there may be enough evidence to convict you anyway, even without the search. Consult with your attorney.
Your breath
No, a case cannot proceed to trial without any evidence. Evidence is necessary to support the claims made by both the prosecution and defense in a trial. Without evidence, there is no basis for a trial to proceed.