CPRsm
Active Member
Why ? Would 200 kilos make it any more dangerous to another persons life ? Besides, the amount wouldn't be known until after the door was opened.
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
- Thread starter BleedBlueOval
- Start date
- Status
Not if there's 5 bricks of it sitting on a table that is visible through a window or open door...
Not ever. They prone out automatically.
And that is what the court was getting at, however, the justice that wrote the opinion could have worded it a lot better.
The "plain view" exception to the warrant requirement means the items must be in plain view of the officer who is in a lawful position to see it (this is usually the argument of curtilage comes into play). The officer can go and seize such an item, however, they cannot go on a fishing expedition.
Search incident to arrest is also not an open invitation to a fishing expedition. The case law holds that the immediate area around the defendant and areas he/she just had access to may be searched incident to arrest but no further without a warrant or exception to the rule.
Yes it would make a difference. A distribution weight means that those are likely the dealers/traffickers who are more likely to protect their product with force. As opposed to a personal use amount, that person is just getting mellow and is, in general, must less of a threat.
CPRsm
Active Member
That would seem to me a better reason to stay out for any PD and wait for a warrant and back up. Keeping with the scenario and the cop just smelling it outside, and the suspect inside unknowing of the officers presence, the amount would matter ?
But again you wouldn't know how much until the door is open. No one gets a whiff and determines the weight behind the door.
Thanks for the clarity, Adam.
I read most of that and figured that's what it meant, but am glad to have it solidified.
The key point is; violated without cause. You may feel it is without cause, however if the officer/s are there based on their belief there is cause, who should prevail? I would rather let them complete their mission, verbally remind them they are there in error and win after-the-fact............if I am, in fact in the right. after all, if they are there to find dope, they will be sadly disappointed.
And to answer your question - retired LEO with a background in such issues. :beer:
I can see and understand your point of view. Thanks for the insight in your last few posts! :thumbsup:
This particular area of the law is without a doubt the most challenging, interesting and controversial. And, I'm sure Adam would agree - the most satisfying to work in since it makes you think really hard about the balance between personal freedom and society's greater needs.
after all, I certainly don't want anyone rummaging through my humidor, they might claim some of my stogies look a lot like Cuban cigars, but we all know they are illegal................:beer:
after all, I certainly don't want anyone rummaging through my humidor, they might claim some of my stogies look a lot like Cuban cigars, but we all know they are illegal................:beer:
There is a a lot of missing info- and with Sheriff "Dimwit" running things, who knows what's really happening.
That being said- I'm not saying the warrant wasn't issued in good faith by the judge. What I'm saying is, say the investigation concludes there really was no valid reason to issue the warrant- doesn't that mean it's a violation of the 4th amendment? If that were the case the victim has no recourse because he's freaking DEAD. You can't remedy that in civil court- which IMO is what makes this ruling so dangerous. You can't always just say "oops- our bad we made a mistake, here's a few hundred g's".....- unless they've figured out how to resurrect somebody?:shrug:
You have obviously never been around a very large quantity of marijuana. The intensity of the smell is indicative of the amount. Regardless, I agree the prudent thing is to provide surveillance and get a warrant and a team. However, if exigency arose, they could go in.
I agree there is no remedy for his death that would be appropriate, certainly not money. But the point of this exercise is that if he didnt respond with deadly force he would not be dead himself. The court is saying that people who feel their rights have been violated should take it to court not in their own hands at that time.
I think we agree for the most part. My 2 main points are for one he was exercising 2 of his rights that the court obviously disagrees with. #2 and #4. On the surface it looks like the Sheriffs dept screwed the pooch bigtime on this one especially since it's been confirmed that the former Marine did NOT fire his weapon (which he had in his own home- a point apparently lost somewhere in the mix, trying to defend his family against unidentified home invaders) which was in fact on safe. It seems to me the SWAT team were the ones who acted with great haste and without fully vetting the situation. I don't normally like "Monday-Morning" QB'ing. But when a man loses his life in such a terrible manner, every effort MUST be made to find out all the details and hold people accountable.
I can't wait to find out what the warrant was based on. I'm actually a pretty big fan of the law enforcement community... but NO ONE is above the law regardless of what their intentions are LEO's included. I get that the judge is trying to err on the side of caution and provide a remedy. However given that no one is perfect you can't give law enforcement or ANY gov't entity this kind of authority- it's so contrary to what our country was founded on it's just a bit scary that this is even a debate. Hopefully the Supreme Court will smack this ruling down.
Just my .02.... keep up the good work Adam:beer:
The thing is the US Constitution does not confer rights onto individuals. It is a set of rules and limitations for the government. Over time the law has developed and adapted and been interpreted to give certain protections. The second amendment does not grant anyone the right to point a firearm at another without consequences. It surely does not matter whether he was given the opportunity to fire or not. Having done these type of raids on many occasions I can tell you there is no way to full vet them. It just does not happen. You take your intel and you address the situation accordingly. My injuries occurred on one of these raids. We vetted the best we could and things still went south.
I agree the lose of life is significant and should be avoided at all costs. However, we still do not know whether this man is an actual victim. No one questions the legality of the warrant. No one is suggesting it was the wrong house. Therefore, if illegal activities were occurring there or someone in that residence was committing illegal acts they should have been aware of the potential outcome.
That is what I have said from the beginning. I want to see what the details are. The news article alluded to the fact that the police recovered some evidence directly related to the warrant. It will be interesting to know what that evidence was and who it implicated.
I understand the ruling in that fighting L.E. at the time serves no valid purpose, case in point here. The judge could have stated it a lot more eloquently.
Interestingly, the WV case had to be cited by a couple of defendants a few years ago. They were legally open carrying in a city that didn't like it and were tagged with breach of peace charges (or something similar). They were eventually acquitted (how they didn't win on a pretrial motion to dismiss is beyond me, unless the judge was as biased as the prosecution) based on that dusty old case.
CPRsm
Active Member
No, I haven't been around that much. Then we agree they should follow the standard method of getting a warrant. Why this ruling is needed is still beyond me. It wouldn't be needed here. This to me seems nothing more than circumventing the 4th.
The ruling was made because the court decides whether the protections against unlawful searches and seizures was violated not the person who is being investigated. At the point of search is not the time nor place to argue it and it is especially not the place to get violent about it. There is a remedy in the law for such a finding.
Please post a link to that decision as I am willing to bet it was more than that case that led to the acquittal.
I've always said that if you are really that worried about the police breaking into your home, just cop proof it.
Put a little brass plate at your front door saying " Internal Affairs Division"
No cop is going to want to go in there.
Or you can paint your neighbor's house to look like a Crispy Creme shop.
Your house will become invisible to police.
Put a little brass plate at your front door saying " Internal Affairs Division"
No cop is going to want to go in there.
Or you can paint your neighbor's house to look like a Crispy Creme shop.
Your house will become invisible to police.
Sorry, don't gots no WestLaw.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
