An arrest warrant is not a general search warrant. It may permit limited entry into the named person’s own home to arrest that person when officers have reason to believe the person is inside. An arrest warrant for someone else generally does not authorize a search of a third person’s home for that person. Even after a lawful arrest, the warrant alone does not permit officers to search the whole home or a phone’s digital contents. (Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, Steagald v. United States (1981) 451 U.S. 204)
Which place or search is at issue?
| What happened | The arrest warrant’s limit |
|---|---|
| Officers entered the named person’s own home | Under Payton, officers may make a limited entry to arrest the named person if they have reason to believe the person lives there and is inside. That is not authority to search the home for evidence. |
| Officers entered another person’s home to find the named person | Under Steagald, an arrest warrant alone does not authorize that search. A search warrant, consent or exigent circumstances may present a separate basis; the facts and the affected person’s privacy interest matter. |
| Officers searched after arrest | A routine search incident to arrest reaches the arrested person’s body and the area within immediate control, for weapons or destructible evidence. It does not automatically extend throughout the house or into closed spaces beyond that reach. (Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752) |
| Officers looked through a phone | Securing a phone and searching its digital data are different. The ordinary incident-to-arrest rule does not authorize a data search; police generally need a warrant, subject to a fact-specific exception such as exigency. (Riley v. California (2014) 573 U.S. 373) |
California Penal Code § 1524(a)(6) lists an existing arrest warrant as a ground on which a magistrate may issue a separate search warrant. That does not convert the arrest warrant into one. A search warrant must be supported by probable cause and particularly describe the place to be searched and things to be seized. (Penal Code §§ 1524(a)(6) and 1525)
There may be another asserted basis, such as consent or an emergency. The actual circumstances matter, including who consented, what officers asked to search, where they went, what was happening and when. The presence of an arrest warrant alone does not answer those questions.
Compare the paperwork with the entry and search
Save copies of the arrest warrant, any separate search warrant and attachments, and any property receipt or inventory. Note the address, who lived there, where the named person was found, where officers went, what they opened or searched, what they seized, and what officers said about consent or an emergency. If a phone was taken, keep the paperwork identifying it and any description of a later search.
Penal Code § 1538.5 provides a motion process for challenging an unreasonable search or seizure, including certain warrantless searches and unreasonable warrant execution. Whether a motion is available or succeeds depends on the facts, the defendant’s own privacy interest and the evidence; an alleged warrant violation does not automatically dismiss charges or exclude every item. (Penal Code § 1538.5(a))
For related questions, see our guides to police requests to search a phone without a warrant and property seized outside a search warrant’s scope.
The Law Offices of David S. Chesley can review the warrant, address and search sequence in a California criminal case. Call (800) 755-5174.