4th Amendment Issues and Legal Help

[Possum]

I am searching for information related to the following fourth amendment topic:

united states v. leon

that states that police making a good faith effort to uphold the law can violate a persons 4th amendment rights.

I feel that we should start with Illinois v Gates

and include Weeks v. united states

Mapp v Ohio

the exclusionary rule and its implications

Beck v Ohio

Whitley v. Warden

Wilson v. Arkansas
exceptions Richards v Wisconsin

Hudsun v. Michigan

and any other information that you may feel of use to people on these forums....


many thanks,

possum

 

[upNORTH]

from this site, http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be 'reasonable. ' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44 ('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728 F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a hearing was reasonable).

In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps typically incident to arrest. See id.

Unreasonable Searches And Seizures.

Non-consensual extraction of blood implicates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 16 ('89) ('this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes [a reasonable] expectation of privacy'); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 67 ('66) (compulsory blood test 'plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment').' '[f]or the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619; accord Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, No. 95-590, 1995 WL 373274, at *3 (June 26,'95) ('the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is `reasonableness''). A search's reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment generally depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued upon probable cause. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83).

there is more on the site

 

[Possum]

more specifically i'm looking for information related to 'good faith' police searches and violation of the 4th and 5th ammendment.

things like the 'inevitable discovery doctrine'

things like 'people v. albea' where testimony obtained in the course of an unlawful search cannot be admitted into court.

for instance if you admit a bag was yours during an unlawful search - can this legal president help you?

'fruits of the poisonous tree' and deontological ethics...

PLEASE HELP.

AND

THANKS UPNORTH!!!!!!

 

[bergerbuddy]

You know.... I know more on this subject than I would like to admit... and I can go on and on about the absurdity of the Leon decision hell of the Illinois v. Gates decison which essentially wiped out 30 years of Jurisprudence... So much for Stare decises...
Are you dealing with a Federal Court or a State court?
If state what state? (I'll need to review how the state applies federal 4th amendment and what states OWN constitution states..)

If you dealing with Federal... let me start out by saying.. I'm very very sorry for you or whoever you know that has the problem... your chances of prevailing EVEN IF YOU PROVE THE COP ACTED IN BAD FAITH.. are VERY slim... to NONE..

First... Leon ONLY APPLIES TO SITUATIONS WHERE WARRANTS WERE ISSUED.. Not in cases where cops acted without a warrant... Leons rationale was to rectify search warrants with errors... such as wrong address or mis stated name or info left out...

It has evolved into a CATCH ALL WAY OF DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS..

Look at the case of Franks vs. Deleware... it outlines the way to recieve a FRANKS hearing where in you challenge the truthfullness of the officer... you have to meet the FRANKS Threshold... but you show BAD FAITH or a DELIBERATE INTENTION TO MISLEAD BY MISINFORMATION OR OMMISION.. and that OMMISSION is a critical point.. as you can strengthen you posistion often by demonstrating that the Affiant had information that contradicted info he may have asked the judge to rely on etc.... In most cases that is clearly bad faith and bad faith defeats a LEON CHALLENGE... but you must attack it with FRANKS..

As for the fruits challenge... i.e Wongsun vs. U.S... That is pretty rudimentary in that.. once you defeat one part of the warrant... ALL JUDGES I'VE SEEN IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM WILL FOLLOW WONGSUN.. its just DEFEATING the initial thrust of the warrant that is the trick...

I've written more motions to suppress both federal and state than a lot of full time criminal attorneys have.... Unfortuneately things like... what was siezed?? i.e.. what are you asking the Judge to suppress??? a ton of coke??? NOT GONNA HAPPEN... a gram??? maybe... a pound??? good luck... you better PROVE the affiant was a liar... and not just a liar a BALD FACED LIAR THAT NO ONE CAN BELIEVE... and the Judge signing the warrant should have seen that.. or was decieved..

There is a tough road ahead... not impossible... but EVEN IF THE LAW... CASE LAW... AND THE FACTS are on your side... don't think that... 1.. They will come out like that or be allowed to be presented in court... 2. The Judge will give a shit..

Sorry bro.. but thats the cold hard facts.... Do a search here on fourth amendment... you will find a huge thread where in a guy back east and his gf got busted..... by a cop just opening up his front door to see if he was ok.... and he and I went over the law for weeks... months... I even talked to him on the phone and did some work for him.... no search warrant... no probable cause.. no reason... other than a "welfare check"... poor guy STILL GOT A FELONY AND HIS GF AND HE PAID AN ATTORNEY 5k... which I would add was not enough...


Peace

 

[bergerbuddy]

more specifically i'm looking for information related to 'good faith' police searches and violation of the 4th and 5th ammendment.

things like the 'inevitable discovery doctrine'

things like 'people v. albea' where testimony obtained in the course of an unlawful search cannot be admitted into court.

for instance if you admit a bag was yours during an unlawful search - can this legal president help you?

'fruits of the poisonous tree' and deontological ethics...

PLEASE HELP.

AND

THANKS UPNORTH!!!!!!

The case is Wongsun vs. U.S. and its stands for this... the point at which something is WRONG... anything that follows... is fruits of that wrongness... i.e. fruits of the poisoned tree...

Now there are the good faith exceptions i.e. Leon...

If you admit that a bag was yours during an illegal search.. AND THE COURT RULED THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGAL.. anything found in that bag can not be used as evidence against you in court... however they could well rely on evidence in that bag to build a SEPERATE CASE against you.. say.. they see and addy in there.. and they go to that addy and find a grow... the grow could be used against you.. and you would say... WAIT WAIT they had no right to go in my bag...
And the Court says... RIGHT.. so anything in the bag can't be used against you.. but the fact they got an address means nothing.. cause they could have got your addy from a number of other sources too... i.e. one form of enivetable discovery..
and it could go on and on and on...

Also remember... and illegal search... where in STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN... those statements can't be used against... THE PERSON THAT GAVE THE STATEMENT... BUT MOST ASSUREDLY CAN BE AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE... cause its PERSONAL RIGHTS being abrigdged and that someone else was not violated by LEO...

Sorry man its like 5 am and I aint slept.... so I hope you get what I'm trying to say...


OTHER THAN THAT!!!!!!!

VOTE RON PAUL.. AND THE CONSTITUTION WILL MATTER AGAIN GOD DAMNIT!!!

THATS ALL AMERICA HAS TO DO... IS VOTE FOR DR. RON PAUL

 

[seesawsee]

Ahh, nice, a remember when thread. The 4th was a neat one indeed. I miss it so. Don't kid yourself. It only exists in text. In practice, it is certainly not applicable. I am not saying that loopholes sometimes allow the fed/state to bypass it. I am saying, for all practical purposes, you make a grave mistake even pretending that it exists.

 

[Possum]

a few more details....

a few more details....

alright it went down like this...

left the car running in the drive way on dec. 22...the door was ajar.

city cops drive past...then come back five minutes later, cars still there, running.

they come to the door and knock. i'm inside hoping that who ever it is will just go away because i dont want to talk to anyone.

they find a garage door open. so, now they are saying that they have probable cause to think its a burglary. i think they should have to run the plate on the car to determine that the car owner is the same name as on the mail box.

in they come.

they (2 cops) walk all the way through the house to the far end and open a bedroom door and announce, "police". and promptly put me in cuffs.

questions ensue can they call someone to verify that i live at this residence. i say sure. i hand them a note addressed to me saying to call this number, certain dept. they call and dispatch says, "that's not so and so it's a business".

well cop #2 (cause he's a shit head) then says he's going to do a protective sweep and starts asking about guns and who else is in the house. i told them, "no, you know i live here. Get Out." he then asks for permission to do the sweep and i say, "no, get out." where upon he says, 'oh i'm gonna do a protective sweep.' i say, 'alright then, whatever.'

so he goes to do the sweep.

the person they called then calls home to ask what's going on. the machine picks up, and i tell the cop it's so and so. she picks up the phone and holds it to my ear. i say, 'i dont know, i told them to leave and they won't'

cop#2 then comes down and asks if there is anymore Marijuana in the house. he found about 2 or 3 grams of compact mexi-bud. it was in my shirt pocket up stairs on a table, but he said it was laying out on the table.

my lawyer says they will try to use US v. Leon to say they acted in good faith.

i think, they should have checked the plates first (there is a law in this city/state that says you cant leave your car running un-attended) before being able to say it was a burglary in progress.

then they find me at the computer playing poker and i hand them a note to me saying call this number then tell them to leave and he still does a 'protective sweep'.

now, in the history of burglary has there ever been one where the police find the guy playing on-line poker with a note to them saying call this number, BEFORE deciding they needed to do a protective sweep?

is it usual police procedure to ask a person suspected of burglary for permission to do a protective sweep?

also, he told my lawyer that he found several doors upstairs, "locked from the inside". now If he was doing a 'protective sweep' wouldn't he be concerned about other burglary suspects in those rooms instead of continuing on to the one unlocked room?

and finally he had to go through my stuff to find that bag, no body was hiding in my pocket.

so now i am charged with a felony for paraphernalia possession over some rolling papers, and a misdemeanor for the weed.

guy, totally violated my rights...I think anyway.

please help.

P

 

[bergerbuddy]

What state? if u don't want to say in pub shoot me an email..

THIS IS DAMN NEAR LIKE KERRIKS CASE.. They went in his house cause someone at work called the cops to say he had not come to work..


I AM GONNA BE SHORT HERE.... YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RIGHT THE PIGS SHOULD HAVE RUN YOU PLATES!!!
Do they come back to THAT RESIDENCE???

Ask your lawyer.... WHAT OBJECTIVE REASONABLE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CAN TH PIGS ARTICULATE FOR SUSPECTING A BURGLARY...

NOTE** ANY PRUDENT PIG WOULD HAVE RUN THE PLATES!!!

FIRE YOUR FUCKIN LAWYER CAUSE HE/SHE IS STUPID..

Tell me the state your in... LEON is a FEDERAL case that many states don't recognize... and LEON is for where a WARRANT WAS OBTAINED..

Your right... you have a poisened situation from the point the pig went to your garage door and ENTERED... BAD AT THAT POINT.. ENTRY... everything fails..

BUT WTF WERE YOU THINKING WHEN YOU SAID GO AHEAD WITH A SEARCH???

Dont EVER do that again..

 

[KharmaGirl]

wrong forum....

 

[Possum]

sorry moderator...please move this thread to the correct forum as:

NO TRUE BILL - DISMISSED!

sometimes, by God, i AM right.

Happy Days are here again!

Just like to mention that the outdoor season is going great here.

loki

 

[Maj.PotHead]

BB i remember the person in that thread so thats what happened to E eh

 

[JJScorpio]

What you're referring to is whats known as the "good faith doctrine". And it's bullshit. What it means is if the police officer felt he was acting in good faith or they had reason to believe their actions were legal. In this the Court determines the mental state of the police at the time.

The rule was established in the two seperate cases. The first was the United States v. Leon and the second was Massachusetts v. Sheppard.

It's the last and worst of the doctrines.

 

[twojoints]

my house was searched after i told them 3 times, NO. im finding out the hard way- there is no privacy anymore, there is no inalienable rights, and there sure as hell is no law-binding document that says 'constitution' at the top.

 

[Classyathome]

What you're referring to is whats known as the "good faith doctrine". And it's bullshit. What it means is if the police officer felt he was acting in good faith or they had reason to believe their actions were legal. In this the Court determines the mental state of the police at the time.

Problem is that leo gets courses and training on how to exactly phrase things (aka lie).

Perry Mason doesn't exist, and leo don't just blurt out the truth when confronted with their actions.

Like the vid posted awhile back, re: the leo that pulled over some dude that had a secret cam running, and the leo dicked him around huuuge, and told the guy that he could make up 5 things right there and then that would justify a bad stop.

That asswipe leo sure backpedalled when he found out about the cam.

Lying sacks of shit...

 

[twojoints]

yup.

thing is, there is no reason for them to not lie. even when caught red-handed, the cops dont go to jail for lying. they dont get fined for trumping up charges. nope, the charges at worst get dropped and life goes on for them. they dont even thank you for your lost time or grievance. their the ones on the clock- why would they need to be straightforward with shit? fuck, if i do that in my job you either raise the standard of whats expected from you or you simply work yourself right out of your job. the police force is just as cutthroat as the construction industry- much of a cop's wrongdoing is basically just preventive actions on their part from getting passed up for another officer who gets results.