You should speak to a criminal defense attorney and a civil rights attorney. They will need far more information about your case before they can give you any solid information.
Answer Applies to: Minnesota
Retain an experienced criminal defense attorney in your area who can thoroughly review your case for any legal or procedural errors that could be used to get the charges dismissed. If you want to sue the police, contact an attorney that handles 1983 police civil suits.
Answer Applies to: Michigan
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities. The other side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of you, your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if: ? the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or ? The particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued. The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues. Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched: ? Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy? ? Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable that is, one that society is willing to recognize? For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy) and most people including judges and juries would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness. Courts have also established an "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement. "Exigent circumstances" simply means that the officers must act quickly. Typically, this is because police have a reasonable belief that evidence is in imminent danger of being removed or destroyed, but there is still a probable cause requirement. Exigent circumstances may also exist where there is a continuing danger, or where officers have a reasonable belief that people in need of assistance are present. This includes when the police are in 'hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.? In this circumstance, so long as there is probable cause, police may follow the suspect into a residence and seize any evidence in plain view. Police are allowed to search the property and person that is on probation or parole, this includes his living space, and the space he has access to if staying with a roommate.
Answer Applies to: California