Searches Without Warrants approved

[RoadClosed]

It looks like as usual a lot of stuff is left out. But if they were given permission it enter the residence by another occupant. Why the new powers? Do they actually have new powers or is the rhetoric based on the decision to uphold the arrest? As in someone's interpretation that the police have these all sweeping new powers?

[bballad]

This is waht I get fpr not reasearching thestory...if the cohabitant of the house gave permision for the search then no rights have been violated...remember folkes if a cop askes you to come in your house you can say no. to quote a friend of mine who is a cop "we are like vampires, we have no ability to enter a house untill we are invited in."

[RoadClosed]

Same with your car. If you get pulled over and the police man asks to look in the car, you have a right to say no. In most cases the property rights are extended to the hidden areas of your car. Of course if you have a fatty tucked under your ear or a Bud in the cup holder, that right becomes vague depending on state laws.

[bballad]

most states if they can see it they can see it, but cops need a warrent to search a trunk......only once haei had to insiest on one...i think the cop felt that i wasn't willing to wait untill one got there.

[OverdueSpy]

I put some serious thought int this topic, and after due consideration I have decided that I have to agree with the defense council.

While it is obvious that the defendent is guilty of firearm possession by a parolee, the more prevalent issue is about illegal search. The officers knew about the threat to commit murder, knew about the prior Federal convictions for violent crimes, and knew about the high probability that weapons were stored in the defendant's house. Normal and established protocols for this scenario dictated acquiring a search warrant or even an arrest warrant for parole violation. I also doubt that any judge would hesitate in issuing the aforementioned warrant. Also there is large amounts of case law referencing illegal search when no warrant is involved. Now I hate to admit this but, the police oversteped thier authority. Personally I think the guy needs to be back behind bars, however our rights to privacy as viewed per the rule of law must be upheld or the law becomes moot.

[RoadClosed]

Yeah most people are stressed when they are in that situation. And they don't want to make it any worse so they just open the trunk where their case of Budweiser is setting on ice.

//Edit OverdueSpy - you overlook the fact the police were given permission by a co-occupant? I can agree that given all the evidence and circumstance that they definitely should have followed protocal and obtain search warrent. But given all that, they were given permission to go inside, were they not?

[OverdueSpy]

Yes they were given permission to go inside and look around, but this is where we get into the issue of "Why did the officers conduct a search when there was no intent to arrest the individual and no search warrant had been issued?" Accoring to the officers testimony they went to the premisis to "only question" the defendant, and conducted the security sweep to protect themselves. If the officers were indeed there only to question the defendant then why was there a need to conduct a security sweep? My contention is that if the threat was that high then a warrant should have been issued prior to proceeding to the residence, unless there was a potentially violent dispute ongoing at the time. IMHO the security sweep/search was conducted under false pretenses.

[RoadClosed]

I kind of see your point of veiw, you are saying since they had a complaint from a co-worker and they had his criminal record, they should have seen the danger and got a search warrent. I guess I would have to see the actual ruling from the court or a time line. For instance perhaps they only did want to question him and upon entering the residence saw something that forced an imediate response? Certainly if they did indeed have some presumption they would arest him, based on circumstances I see, a search warrent would have been very easy to obtain?

[bballad]

one tip from a coworker...depending on the judge you would be hard pressed to get a warrent on that evedience....and we must assume that the local police know the local judges and how they will react to any given request., I doubt any one here knows enough about the judges in teh area to know how eaily or how quickly a search warrent would be otained on very thin evidence, IMHO they went the right route by looking to question the guy.

They where allowed into the premisis, unless the cohabitant can show that they intimadated their way in no laws where broken and no rights where violated.

[silver-bullets]

"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.

Right, which is why they have search warants, to make sure you have a legit reason.

-Cheers-