We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Freezing Residence

Officers receive information that a homicide has occurred and identify the suspect and that he lives with his parents. When they get to the residence they get information that the suspect has come and gone from the residence. Officers can see inside the residence and can see that it is empty. They send somebody back to the office to start writing a search warrant. The parents come home while the officers are present. What should they do? What can they do?


There are four legal justifications for entering a residence that will provide protection from civil lawsuits and lead to legal seizure of evidence: 1. Valid consent; 2. Entry with either a search or arrest warrant, a Steagald warrant if it is not the suspect’s residence; 3. Valid/confirmed probation or parole search; and 4. Exigent circumstance where there is the risk of death or great bodily injury to a potential victim, other members of the public or officers, destruction of evidence, rescue of a potential victim and escape prevention of suspect.

The problem of course is the delay in seeking a search warrant may alert the suspects, confederates or others that officers are seeking a warrant. Confederates/suspects or others may wish to enter the location to be searched prior to officers which could lead to the destruction of evidence or assistance in escape. Courts have acknowledged this problem and have allowed the limited entry and or “freezing” of a residence to secure the residence pending the issuance of a warrant.


In one U.S. Supreme Court case, officers arrested a suspect outside of a residence and developed probable cause to get a warrant. While obtaining the warrant, officers arrested the resident returning to his home and took him inside where four other people were inside. Everyone was arrested and officers secured the residence until the warrant was issued. The court found the entry with the resident was illegal but since no evidence was found in that entry the warrant was valid. The court held, importantly, that securing a residence to prevent destruction/removal of evidence is not an unreasonable seizure. Segura v. U.S. 468 U.S. 796 (1984)

In another case the USSC gave officers a gold star for 4th Amendment knowledge when they prohibited a resident from entering his home while awaiting a search warrant. Officers went to a home on a civil standby. When the wife left the residence she told officers suspect had dope inside. The suspect was present. The officers kept suspect outside for two hours while they obtained a warrant. Dope was found. The court again said that when officers have probable cause to believe that occupants may remove or destroy potential evidence before a warrant can be obtained officers may either enter and secure the residence or prevent entry until the warrant is issued. Illinois v. McArthur 531 U.S. 326 (2001).



  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police