The 21:40 search and the confession without counsel
At 21:40 on 12 January 2025 police officers went to an apartment in Prishtina to execute a search warrant issued that morning by the competent court. The warrant authorised a search of the apartment of 'A.B.' for narcotics and related items 'between 06:00 and 20:00'. The officers found the building's outer door open, went up, knocked, and A.B.'s flatmate opened. They entered without presenting the warrant to the flatmate and found 180 g of heroin and an unlicensed pistol in a shoebox in A.B.'s bedroom. A.B. was arrested at 22:30 and taken to the police station, where he asked for a lawyer at 23:00. Questioning began at 08:00 the next morning without counsel present; he confessed at 11:00 and signed a statement at 15:30. The prosecutor now seeks 30 days' pre-trial detention, citing flight risk (A.B. holds a Serbian passport) and risk of reoffending. The defence argues that the search was unlawful and the confession coerced.
1. Is the evidence found in the apartment admissible? Analyse the time limit, the manner of entry and the likely judicial approach.
Read the worked answer
Two breaches must be assessed separately, then together: the warrant's time limit and the manner of entry.
Time limit. The warrant authorised a search between 06:00 and 20:00. Entry at 21:40 fell outside it. A warrant is authority to act within its terms; once the window closes, the authorisation lapses and the officers needed a new warrant or a recognised exception. The exceptions - consent, hot pursuit, flagrant offence, risk of destruction of evidence - are narrow. An open outer door is not consent. Even if the flatmate had consented, a co-occupant's consent does not override the absent target's clear expectation of privacy in his own bedroom, and here no consent was sought at all.
Manner of entry. The warrant was never shown to the flatmate. Presenting it lets the occupier verify the authority and object to its scope. Standing alone this is procedural; combined with the expired time window it means the officers were acting without lawful authority from the moment they crossed the threshold.
Consequence. Everything found derives from the same illegality. The plain-view doctrine cannot rescue the pistol, because it requires that the officers were lawfully present. Expect exclusion of both items unless the prosecution proves the breach was trivial and the evidence would inevitably have been discovered - a weak argument here.
The prosecution will say a 100-minute delay is a technicality. The answer is that the time limit is a substantive safeguard against night intrusion into a home, the most protected space under Article 8 ECHR and the Constitution. Its breach is not formal.
2. Was A.B.'s right to counsel violated, and what is the consequence for the confession?
Read the worked answer
The right to counsel attaches when a person is deprived of liberty, not when the first formal interview begins. A.B. was arrested at 22:30 and asked for a lawyer at 23:00. From that moment the authorities had to provide counsel or obtain a recorded, informed and unequivocal waiver. Nothing in the facts suggests a waiver.
Questioning began at 08:00 without counsel and ran until 15:30 - a long session with no lawyer and no judicial control. Under the Salduz line of ECtHR case law and the corresponding fair-trial guarantee, a confession obtained in these circumstances is presumptively inadmissible. The presumption can be rebutted only if the prosecution shows that the absence of counsel did not affect the substance of the statement. That is very hard where the statement is a confession.
The allegation of coercion is a separate factual issue. The defence must specify the ill-treatment; the burden then shifts to the prosecution to prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt. A forensic medical examination should be requested immediately, and the custody record, the interview log and any video should be disclosed.
Consequence: the confession should be excluded and cannot Found a conviction. It may still be used to impeach the defendant's credibility if he gives a different account at trial, subject to the court's discretion.
Note the structure of the case: the drugs evidence stands or falls on the search issue, not on the confession. If the search evidence is excluded, the confession is the only remaining evidence and its exclusion ends the prosecution case.
3. Should the court order 30 days' pre-trial detention? Assess the grounds, proportionality and alternatives.
Read the worked answer
Pre-trial detention is an exception, not a default. The prosecutor must show a reasonable suspicion based on evidence, a specific statutory ground, and proportionality.
Reasonable suspicion. It rests on the drug find - but if that evidence is excluded, the basis collapses and detention must be refused. This link should be argued first.
Grounds. Flight risk rests on the Serbian passport. That is relevant but not sufficient by itself: the court must assess ties to Kosovo - residence, family, employment, previous compliance with summonses. If those ties are strong, the risk can be managed by seizing the passport and ordering reporting to the police. Risk of reoffending is supported by the quantity of drugs and the weapon, again only if that evidence is admitted.
Proportionality. The court must choose the least restrictive measure that meets the risk: house arrest, bail with a surety, reporting obligations, a ban on leaving the municipality, surrender of travel documents. Thirty days is a heavy measure for a first-time accused and must be justified by reasoning specific to this defendant, not by formula.
Procedure. The police may hold a suspect up to 48 hours; the prosecutor must bring him before the pre-trial judge within that period, and the judge must hear him and his lawyer. If detention is ordered, the defence must be given access to the file to prepare the appeal.
Realistic outcome. If the drugs are excluded, the detention request fails. If they are admitted, argue for house arrest with passport surrender and a surety; a court that nonetheless orders detention must explain why the milder measures would not suffice.