Sealin an indictment or a search warrant may be common in federal criminal prosecutions, but whenever a search warrant is executed, sealed or not, it must be presented to the proper individual whose property, possessions, etc., are the subject of the search.

Likewise, with sealed indictments. They are sealed only until the indicted individual is served with the arrest warrant. He must receive the arrest warrant. Now the Judge may order that some parts of the indictment remain sealed, but that only seals it from public view and scrutiny, the defendant and his attorney get to see the whole shebang! Otherwise the defendant would be denied due process, etc.

Eric The(GuessWhoDidn'tBringTheSearchWarrantToMt.CarmelInWaco,Texas?)Hun[>]:)]

Absofrigginlutely wrong. The warrant does not have to be physically present. The warrant does not have to "produced" before you are legally required to "cooperate."

If it was a search and arrest warrant, they should have had at least the cover page of the search warrant to serve on the defendant, Beck, at the scene. This is SOP in most agencies, but not a legal requirement. If it was just an arrest warrant, then they probably would not have had the actual warrant present. Imagine this scene:

"Sir, our records show that you failed to pay a speeding ticket/killed three people last week and there is a warrant active for your arrest. Please wait here while I go downtown and pick up the warrant. I should be back in about an hour. Please don't drive off or use this time to get rid of any contraband. Oh, by the way, you are under no legal obligation to cooperate until I actually show you the warrant."

I work with law enforcement as a volunteer so don't take this wrong.  An officer walks a fine line between being behind the all-powerfull arm of the STATE and being a criminal with his butt hanging out in the wind.  If you operate within the rules you are nearly untouchable.  Try to search my house without a warrant (edit; present) and you will be eating lead.  A lawman's authority is drawn from the law.  If you choose to step outside of the law and be proactive YOU are the criminal that needs to be stopped.

Recently a city cop tried to pull a stunt in uniform and strongarm our church (sorry I can't give details) Long story made short, our church has an impecable relationship with LE and this guy may have deep sixed his career by using his badge as a prybar.  I'll give some details after he (the officer) knows how bad his ass chewing is going to be.

This is only meant as a flame to the hot heads in LE.  You level heads rock on!  Planerench out.

Yes. This is a long established practice in case law and by statute. There is no duty for the officers to actually show you a warrant before conducting a search or arrest based on that warrant, nor is there any kind of duty, in law, case law, the Constitution or anywhere else that requires officers to physically show a person a warrant before taking them into custody.

There is also no right to resist service of a warrant, even if the warrant later turns out to be incorrect.

The vast majority of warrants are served without the warrant ever being physically present. Most are probably served by officers who encounter wanted persons on traffic stops. In those cases, the warrant is physically at a Court or Dispatch center that is far removed from the scene of the arrest.

I don't know what else to say. It seems that most of the posts about the warrant not being at the scene miss the reality of serving warrants completely. The warrant does not have to be physically present to be served, and there is no "right" constitutional, statutory or constructive, to "see" a warrant on the part of a defendant before it is executed. All of the posts dwelling on this non-issue are diversions; they detract from the primary point, which is that Beck (may he burn in Hell), unlawfully resisted the service of a lawful warrant resulting in the death of another person. Once again, he, or any other person, has no right to resist the service of a lawful warrant.

Search warrants must be present and a copy must be given to the person whose property was searched, or a copy must be left on the premises if a property owner/custodian was not present.

Arrest warrants need not be present to arrest. The warrant must be served on the person when they are in the jurisdiction that issued it. Meaning if you have a warrant in upstate NY and get caught in NYC, upstate can send a detainer request to NYC. When the arrestee is tranported upstate the warrant should be served on them. You don't have to explain the warrant prior to the arrest. The officer can arrest if he has knowledge of a warrant, ie computer record, personal knowledge, or briefing about the warrant/subject.

Having said that if an officer says "you have an arrest warrant, you are under arrest". If the arrestee decides he won't be arrested until/unless he see they warrant, he will be using an invalid argument as a defense for the resisting arrest he is about to commit.

If the officers says we have a search warrant, and the person being served locks the door to their house yelling "I didn't see it...". And hides in a closet. That will not be a valid legal defense to keep the search warrant from bing served. Officers are authorized to use "neccesary force" to serve search warrants. Including a forced entry into the area that the search warrant specifies is to be searched.

Arrest warrants may also give officers the legal privilege to force entry to a residence/business/structure under certain much more limited circumstances.

Edited cause it type like I have hoofs

Depending on your state, a copy of the search warrant will most likely be present with the officers serving. The "copy" however, may only consist of a single page, signed by a magistrate (judge) that says that a search warrant has been issued for a particular piece of property. They do not have to show it to anyone before they begin searching, and you have no right to examine it before they can enter the property and start searching. They do have to provide the owner of the property with a copy of the warrant (again the cover page) and a list of the items seized before they leave. The Probable Cause Affidavit leading to the issuance of the warrant is generally "sealed" and will not be immediately released to the owner of the property, but will always be released eventually before a trial (the right to face one's accusers and all).

"No-knock" warrants are based on case law and particular, articulable threats to the officer's safety, the safety of the public, and the loss of evidence (basically, a race to get the house and occupants secured before they can violently resist or destroy the contraband). No-knock entries must generally be approved by a judge during the issuance of the warrant, though the procedure varies from state to state. Beck's warrant was served as a knock and announce (or "call" and announce, as the case may be). I retrospect they probably should have done it as a no-knock warrant, wouldn't you agree?

One more time, when the officers show up to serve a warrant, you do not have a right to read the warrant and "grant" them permission to enter the property and conduct the search. They already have permission, from the judge. If the warrant is not correct, you can petition a court for the redress of your grievance, but the officers are duty-bound and legally required to serve the warrant, and no amount of roadside barracks lawyering on anyone's part can change that.

Arrest warrants carry with them a different set of authorities. In most states, a felony arrest warrant gives the officers the authority to enter any property where they have good reason to believe the offender may be concealed. The warrant is issued for a person, and not a particular place. That entry can, at times, be forcible, and there is no right to resist.
The key here is "good reason to believe." It basically hinges on the officers having very reliable information before entering.

The two previous posts show exactly what is wrong with the system.  The laws are so complex that even those who enforce it do not know it or understand it.  I have had to educate a few LEO's on different occasions.  If those in the system do not know the law why should we be expected to.

I think the reason for arguements in this discussion are the lack of clarification. "warrant" is being bantered around an few are clarifying which type... search or arrest. everyone here should be able to understand that arrest warrants are filed and made public info and if a LEO is aware of an arrest warrant for any individual, and they encounter that individual ANYWHERE they are duty-bound to either arrest that individual or facilitate whatever actions (call for backup, etc) needed to enforcer that ARREST warrant.
Any LEOs out there not get regular briefings on new arrest warrants for "hot cases"??  do you all get a copy of the arrest warrant or just the info on the individual if you encounter them?
Correct me here if I am wrong, but a search warrant is issued based upon information submitted regarding specific charges or good suspicions of criminal activity or illegal possessions at the location for which the search warrant is issued to search. As I was told by a LEO friend if the search warrant says house and property, it doesn't include the car (unless probable cause is given) or conversly if a search warrant is issuede to search a car reported to have drugs in the trunk, doesn't give authority to search the house. course there are always probable cause searches. but if not justified (or justafiable) they may be dismissed in court anyway.  

my 2 cents.