I invoke my " Reasonable Expectation of Privacy"

"evidence" your public defender says "exception" or something along that line?

Is that a way they leave a door open to challenge it after the conviction? Saw this happen when a couple of folks were convicted on circumstantial evidence, just wondered.

not changed, is that an evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search is "fruit of the poisonous tree." They cannot use it. That is the problem with many of the Gitmo confessions, the confessions were obtained illegally, therefore they are thrown out. What they can do however, knowing what they know they can use that knowledge they gained to find other evidence through legal means and try to get you that way.
There may be exceptions or finer points I am not aware of, but that is the basics.

Your word against theirs.

or asap if not white.

Some states required the Defence to inform the judge they are making an exception to the ruling of the judge, other states did not (i.e. objecting to the evidence was enough).

You must understand that unless someone objects to the evidence it is coming in and once in you can NOT object to it on appeal. Thus your MUST object to any evidence before or doing the trial to preserve that issue for appeal.

In my home state you also have to file a motion with the Judge after the hearing for the Judge to reconsider his ruling. If you do NOT present such a motion, the case will be dismissed on appeal.

I once had a case where the only issue was the criminal activity of a family member in an eviction case. This was before the US Supreme Court ruled such evictions were legal, thus there was a legal issue of whether the Housing authority could evict the tenant do to the criminal activity of a family member.

There was no disputes as to the facts of the case. The adult daughter of my client HAD sold drugs out of my client's apartment. It was clear my client knew nothing about it, but the Housing Authority said that did not matter. Under Federal Law the Housing Authority could evict any tenant whose family member or "Guest" did an illegal act including buying or selling drugs. The only legal issue did that include a family whose child or guest did the illegal act without the knowledge of the Tenant. The law was a little unclear, it could be construed that only the person who sold the drugs were evicted. Thus innocent family members could stay.

I argued that position in a motion before trial, at trial and on appeal the Appellate court asked why I did not argue it again after the hearing and the Attorney for the Housing Authority spoke up and said why, it would have been the third argument on the same subject (The case was one of the few times when I went to the Judge to get his signature on the appeal that he gladly signed the appeal, he hated that law and still does, but he had to follow it).

On appeal, one of the Judges on that court brought my failure to bring it up in a post hearing motion with the judge. My position was clear, why? The only issue from day one was one of law and it had been argued at least TWICE already. There were NO disputes on the facts, the only issue could the Housing Authority evict my client? In that case the court ruled Yes, and the Judge who questioned my "failure" to file a post trial motion wrote separately that she would have dismissed it on that grounds alone.

Now, the Trial Judge had granted my client a stay till the appellate court made its ruling. I would have filed a further appeal to the State Supreme Court, but my client had obtain some funding and bought a home and was moving at the time of the Appellate court decision. Thus I kept her in housing till she found other housing. Given she was no longer in public housing I could NOT file a further appeal for the case was moot. A few years later someone else took the case to the US Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court ruled such evictions of the entire family was permitted under Federal Law.

I bring this up, for I did NOT have to say "Exception" on any issue I wanted to preserve for appeal, there are other things one must do to preserve things on appeal, the first is to object to any ruling by the judge. At times, trial lawyers leave in inadmissible evidence for it is NOT worth fighting.

An example of this is a case I did in Children And Youth Court. A psychologist was on the stand and asked a question by one of the lawyers, another lawyer objected. Children and Youth Court can be a circus, in that case we had five lawyers, I was representing the parents, the public defender was representing the Children, Children and Youth had their own attorney. Another attorney was representing the Grandparents who had the children and a fifth attorney was representing someone else with an interest, but I just can not remember what (I think it was the other set of Grandparents). There we were five lawyers and a Judge. Children and Youth had put their Psychologist on the stand. He was asked the question, that another attorney objected to, then the other two attorneys spoke up in support of the objection. My client were after me to join in, I told them no, the Judge will over rule the objection and the Psychologist would be asked the question again and will answer "That is beyond my medical expertise" for the question involved his expertise as a psychologist. I have debt with psychologist for many years at that point and I knew what the Psychologist would say. I told my client what he would say and thus I would object. The Judge then overruled the objection and the Psychologist said "That is beyond my medical expertise". I impressed my client they understood I knew what I was doing. They later won their children back after they did a lot of work to get their act together. The case involved neglect not abuse and Children and Youth just wanted to make sure the children were safe before the children were returned.

I bring it up for it is a good example of leaving people speak and NOT objecting to what may be bad evidence. At times you leave it in and address it, not object to it even coming in.

I do NOT do criminal law and many of the rules involving Civil Law is different then in Criminal law but the rules to preserve things on appeal is generally the same. All you have to do is make sure that the Trial Judge had a chance to rule on that evidence admissibility. Some post trial motions may be required to further preserve those rights but as a whole the Appellate Courts want to rule on the merits of the appeal not on legal technically of the appeal. On the other hand they want people to do appeal correctly, thus the emphasis on proper appeal procedure including making sure the issue was presented to the trial judge.

If something is NOT presented the trial judge it is not appealable, this includes even asking a judge to exclude himself from a case do to a conflict on interest. We once had a criminal case in my home county where the criminal asked all of the Judges to be excluded from hearing his motion for a new trial for he had been in front of all of them one time or another on various minor criminal actions. We brought in a judge from another county (the State Supreme Court picked the Judge), who after a hearing ruled against the motion for having no merit. We joked about it being a waste of taxpayer's money but it was had to be done under the circumstances.

Thus the real key on preserving things on appeal is to make sure it is presented to the trail Judge first, both at the trial and after the Trial (and sometimes before the Trial). Once the issue has been perceive, file the appeal, such appeals must be filed within 30 days of the end of the trial. If no appeal is taken, the right to appeal is waived.

It is very common for local police in some stations to board an Amtrak train and ask several of the passengers if they can search the compartment you are in and your baggage. If you deny them permission they threaten to remove you from the train and hold you until they have a warrant. Your train departs and there are no more trains until 24 hours later, even then you may not be able to get accommodations on that train. Will Amtrak honor your tickets? I've heard that sometimes after the train has departed the police will inform you, that they have reconsidered and will not try to get a warrant. You are on your own for meals and lodging for the next 24. This happened to a friend in Reno.

in terms of allowing the authorities to search your stuff?

Always. All the cop has to say is that the person in question consented to the search. It's that simple. The judge will almost always go with what the cop says.

on their smartphone, which would result in a perjury charge and a ruined career.

And that is more good advice: if you can, record the encounter.

and then searched the car anyway.

Pulled over for a headlight out (I didn't know, would have been grateful to be told if they left it at that).

Asked me for reg, when I went into my glovebox he noticed my MMJ card in there (I'm in California), he had a flashlight on the glovebox as I opened it. As soon as he saw that, he said he smelled mary jane. Not true of course, no recent use and what I had was extremely well air-isolated, and it was immediately on seeing the card that he suddenly decided he smelled some.

He asked if he could search, I was nice and apologized but told him that everything I had ever heard told me to answer no to this question, and that I refused.

Ordered me out of the car, searched my person, repeatedly and with increasing hostililty wasn't satisfied with how I was spreading my legs (I was in good faith doing everything I could to follow his exact instructions, I have no interest in escalating anything with cops, I am a hippie which is a persecuted subculture when it comes to cops). Loudly said over and over that he was afraid for his safety (laughable, I am a peaceful yes-sir no-sir geek with no hostility whatsoever towards this cop), called for backup, kept insisting on search, I kept refusing, backup came, huge scene, kept me waiting in public and humiliated for a long long time while they then thoroughy searched my car, found my stash, told me I have no legal right to carry it in my car unless I was just returning from purchasing it (completely untrue), then the guy just let me go, no write-up whatsoever, not even for the headlight.

Looking back, I'm pretty sure he escalated due to my search refusal, if I had just been comepletely upfront, as my instincts told me to do, I don't think I would have had to go through all of this.

I still can't get over the fact that they searched even when I told them loudly and repeatedly that I did not authorize the search.

I think he couldn't write me up as that would create a record of this, which he wanted no part of, he just wanted to seriously mess with me for some reason, probably for the search refusal. I was determined to make a big deal about this with our city (small-town city police) but whe it came down to it I thought they might find a way to make more trouble for me so I never filed a complaint.

Bottom line, I really don't know if the title of this thread is good advice or not. I've read countless things that say it's the thing to do, but my real-world experience doing so was traumatic and terrifying, for me and my passenger. Thought I'd pass this experience along as something to consider.