Search warrants are generally required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Search warrants protect important liberty interests by limiting the government’s power. Good criminal defense attorneys will review every warrant for weaknesses.

Exposing a faulty warrant is a powerful defense tactic because defeating a warrant can result in the suppression of evidence. Suppression means that the evidence cannot be used in court. Without this evidence, criminal charges are frequently dismissed because the prosecution cannot prove its case.

Here are four of the more common reasons a Court may find a warrant is unconstitutional:

1.) No Probable Cause.

Search warrants must be based on facts, not speculation. To obtain a warrant, law enforcement officers must apply for review by an independent judge. This application must include a sworn affidavit or statement setting forth the facts the officer is relying on.

The facts must convince the judge that there is “probable cause”, meaning a “fair probability”, that searching the particular place or person will find evidence of a specified crime. This information may come from a confidential informant, a witness, or an officer’s own observations, if made from a place the officer was lawfully allowed to be at the time.

If the information in the application is untrustworthy or weak, a Court may find that the warrant lacks probable cause.

2.) Too Broad or General.

The Fourth Amendment requires search warrants to be sufficiently “particular”. This is meant to protect against general searches for anything and everything. Thought of differently, this requirement prevents the unjustified assumption that because someone maybe committed one crime, they also committed others.

Thus, if the information suggests that someone might have a stolen car stashed in their garage, this same information does not support a warrant to search their bathroom medicine cabinet or to dig up their backyard looking for bodies.

3.) Too Old or Stale

The information in the search warrant must be reasonably timely. There is no specific deadline, and each case will depend on the unique circumstances presented, such as the type of crime at issue (is it a one-time event or an ongoing enterprise?), the type of evidence the police want to find (is it movable, easily disposed of, or is it expected to be kept?), and others.

If too much time has passed since the information supporting the warrant was gathered, a Court may decide the information is too old or stale.

4.) Unreasonable Execution.

A search warrant does not grant unlimited authority to search any time or in any manner. Searches must still be reasonable. More common examples of this include nighttime searches, no-knock warrants, and the use of excessive force. While all of these more invasive searches might be justified in specific, serious cases, these types of searches require more than the average warrant.

Ultimately, fighting and beating a search warrant requires carefully analyzing the warrant application, the facts it is based on, the source of the information, and the timing and manner of execution. An experienced defense attorney will know where to look for weaknesses in a warrant.

—-

If you or someone you know had their home, property, or person searched with or without a search warrant in Minnesota, don’t wait to get the legal help you need. Contact McKinney Defense today by calling (612) 300-1208 or filling out our online form to schedule a FREE consultation. Let me fight for your rights and help you take the first step toward fair representation.

Copyright © 2025 McKinney Defense PLLC. All rights reserved.

This blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in Minnesota or your jurisdiction. No information in this post should be construed as legal advice from the individual author or the law firm, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting based on any information included in or accessible through this post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country, or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.