L
lysol
Oh you don't want to consent? That's fine then I'll just call in the dogs I don't need your consent, by the way when is the last time you smoked marijuana?
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Can they search your house if they find a few oz in your vehicle?
- Thread starter sillybillygum
- Start date
It's always better not to give consent.. It's also always best to have an attorney paid on reatiner... People think warreants are these magical things impossible to get... A warrant is very east for police to get.. They don't need much for a warant.. /and if they are confident they wil find contraband inside a home they can always say they seen something in plain view and that gives them reason to enter your home without a warrant.. Of coarse they can lie.. Finding weed in a car outside the owner's home is probabily enough to get a warrant..
SmokyMtnToker
Member
Keys alone don't equal probable cause
Keys alone don't equal probable cause
The cop that took your keys and entered your home without a warrant could NOT have simply used what he sees for a warrant. In other words, cops cannot LEGALLY take your keys and enter a private home without a warrant or consent, and snoop around hoping to find evidence. Probable cause is needed to search, and that means no hunches or guesses.
In SOME states, getting caught with drugs MIGHT be enough to get a magistrate to sign a warrant ( which could be challenged later), but it takes a warrant ( except under emergency situations, as Scorpio said) to enter a home without consent. The cops pulled a fast one hoping to get your stuff; they would be happy to screw you and lose the case later: They get your stuff and thats usually enough for them.
Cops cannot legally search private dwellings without a warrant because they MIGHT find something; the KNOWLEDGE of a crime being committed is a MUST. If they are snooping, then they do NOT have that knowledge.
The cops did what a lot do these days: Violate your rights and the law, satisfied to make your life hell for a while. If a judge later throws out the charges related to the illegal search, they are happy to have ruined your life for a while. The system is so screwed up that it encourages cops to violate the rules, because there is no penalty for them except to lose a case now and then.
Scorpio is RIGHT about what he says....and cops do bad stuff all the time...sometimes getting away with it..BUT if you follow the rules and never give consent and never talk to the cops, you at least are giving your lawyer something to work with. There are always exceptions to the rule, but the rule is that in SOME states courts have for some reason allowed warrants based ONLY on the fact that someone was caught with contraband at another location; I cannot imagine any judge justifying a warrant based on a ' maybe', as the law clearly says that a ' prudent person' must have articulable reasons to believe...
And HOW exactly does a judge decide that because SOME people caught with drugs MIGHT have more at home, that a defendant HAS committed a crime at home? It is convoluted in the appeals courts as well. SOME jurisdictions have backed up a warrant for someone caught elsewhere because some thug pig says: " In my experience, many people caught with drugs have more at home".
How in God's name does a fishing expidition, with no proof at all, become legit? because some ignorant right wing scumbag judge decides that he will let the poor defendant challenge the verdict, knowing they cannot afford it, or because they don't want their political opponents to scream that the judge is weak on drugs.
It is one of the most aggravating areas of law: KNOWING that the Constitution and common sense say NO WARRANT, while cops and their pals the judges try to subvert the intent of the law to fit their own agendas. Sadly, someone with top flight legal representation will get justice, while the rest of us have to struggle to appeal bad decisions and outright violations of the law.
What SHOULD be is rarely the way it is; You may be legally totally in the right but the system is gamed to screw the poor. Thats why we never ever give consent and never speak to the filth. The lawyers are the ONLY ones that can navigate the sick system we have here at home.
SOME states will NOT allow warrantless searches based ONLY on an allegedm crime at another location....but until it gets to the Supreme court, the states will follow the political path. Sick system.
Keys alone don't equal probable cause
The cop that took your keys and entered your home without a warrant could NOT have simply used what he sees for a warrant. In other words, cops cannot LEGALLY take your keys and enter a private home without a warrant or consent, and snoop around hoping to find evidence. Probable cause is needed to search, and that means no hunches or guesses.
In SOME states, getting caught with drugs MIGHT be enough to get a magistrate to sign a warrant ( which could be challenged later), but it takes a warrant ( except under emergency situations, as Scorpio said) to enter a home without consent. The cops pulled a fast one hoping to get your stuff; they would be happy to screw you and lose the case later: They get your stuff and thats usually enough for them.
Cops cannot legally search private dwellings without a warrant because they MIGHT find something; the KNOWLEDGE of a crime being committed is a MUST. If they are snooping, then they do NOT have that knowledge.
The cops did what a lot do these days: Violate your rights and the law, satisfied to make your life hell for a while. If a judge later throws out the charges related to the illegal search, they are happy to have ruined your life for a while. The system is so screwed up that it encourages cops to violate the rules, because there is no penalty for them except to lose a case now and then.
Scorpio is RIGHT about what he says....and cops do bad stuff all the time...sometimes getting away with it..BUT if you follow the rules and never give consent and never talk to the cops, you at least are giving your lawyer something to work with. There are always exceptions to the rule, but the rule is that in SOME states courts have for some reason allowed warrants based ONLY on the fact that someone was caught with contraband at another location; I cannot imagine any judge justifying a warrant based on a ' maybe', as the law clearly says that a ' prudent person' must have articulable reasons to believe...
And HOW exactly does a judge decide that because SOME people caught with drugs MIGHT have more at home, that a defendant HAS committed a crime at home? It is convoluted in the appeals courts as well. SOME jurisdictions have backed up a warrant for someone caught elsewhere because some thug pig says: " In my experience, many people caught with drugs have more at home".
How in God's name does a fishing expidition, with no proof at all, become legit? because some ignorant right wing scumbag judge decides that he will let the poor defendant challenge the verdict, knowing they cannot afford it, or because they don't want their political opponents to scream that the judge is weak on drugs.
It is one of the most aggravating areas of law: KNOWING that the Constitution and common sense say NO WARRANT, while cops and their pals the judges try to subvert the intent of the law to fit their own agendas. Sadly, someone with top flight legal representation will get justice, while the rest of us have to struggle to appeal bad decisions and outright violations of the law.
What SHOULD be is rarely the way it is; You may be legally totally in the right but the system is gamed to screw the poor. Thats why we never ever give consent and never speak to the filth. The lawyers are the ONLY ones that can navigate the sick system we have here at home.
SOME states will NOT allow warrantless searches based ONLY on an allegedm crime at another location....but until it gets to the Supreme court, the states will follow the political path. Sick system.
Smokey have you ever heard of a "sneak and peek warrant"... I guess not... A sneak and peek warrant is a warrant that let's police break into a home and plant wires and other recording devices to TRY and find evidence of a crime... This happens with organized crime usually.. They do not need "proof" of crime for this.. All they need is suspicion.. They use this warrant looking for proof... Police can usually get a warrant if they want it.. Judges only sighn warrants.. They do not have intimate details of the targets and alledged crimes.. They just trust the warrant is factual and that the police did there homework... When a warrant goes to a judge he just sighns it.. I doubt he reads much of it... It is not on him/her if the proof included in the warrant is factual... They don't care... That's why a police officer has to swear that all the information in the warrant is true..
M
movingtocally
SmokyMtnToker
Member
totally different
totally different
Ok, here is the answer: of course I have heard of ' sneak and peek" warrants, and they are very rare. It is ONLY in cases where there is an investigation underway that has already led to the ' articulable' reasons for believing that a hidden mike or whatever they are doing is justified.
It does NOT apply to 99.99999% of criminal cases, and your mentioning it in this reference means that you do not have a broad knowledge of the law. Judges ARE held responsible for the warrants they sign, and they read them carefully, in MOST cases. What judge wants to be embarrassed by an obvious problem?
Even a sneak and peek is NOT allowed for the purpose of getting probable cause for the w2arrant; that is not allowed. There MUST be probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and who did it, BEFORE the judge signs the sneak and peek. you seem to think that some cop can go to a judge and say: :" your honor, we think Joe Blow is up to something fishy in his basement...give us a warrant so we can break and enter and see if we are right". That cannot happen, legally, and if it did it would be thrown out at trial.
Cops are required to swaer the oath for warrants because they are then legally bound by perjury laws, and hopefully that would deter false claims( NOT!!). But your whole take on this is out of kilter: You are talking about a rare and seldom used warrant that still MUST be backed up by probable cause.Remmeber the Constitution:
NO WARRANT shall issue...except by Probable Cause...and that is the truth. Any attempt to get around this most basic legal right will ultimately fail in the courts. You might have to fight it up the ladder, but if the basic elements are not there it cannot withstand legal scrutiny. I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
totally different
Ok, here is the answer: of course I have heard of ' sneak and peek" warrants, and they are very rare. It is ONLY in cases where there is an investigation underway that has already led to the ' articulable' reasons for believing that a hidden mike or whatever they are doing is justified.
It does NOT apply to 99.99999% of criminal cases, and your mentioning it in this reference means that you do not have a broad knowledge of the law. Judges ARE held responsible for the warrants they sign, and they read them carefully, in MOST cases. What judge wants to be embarrassed by an obvious problem?
Even a sneak and peek is NOT allowed for the purpose of getting probable cause for the w2arrant; that is not allowed. There MUST be probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and who did it, BEFORE the judge signs the sneak and peek. you seem to think that some cop can go to a judge and say: :" your honor, we think Joe Blow is up to something fishy in his basement...give us a warrant so we can break and enter and see if we are right". That cannot happen, legally, and if it did it would be thrown out at trial.
Cops are required to swaer the oath for warrants because they are then legally bound by perjury laws, and hopefully that would deter false claims( NOT!!). But your whole take on this is out of kilter: You are talking about a rare and seldom used warrant that still MUST be backed up by probable cause.Remmeber the Constitution:
NO WARRANT shall issue...except by Probable Cause...and that is the truth. Any attempt to get around this most basic legal right will ultimately fail in the courts. You might have to fight it up the ladder, but if the basic elements are not there it cannot withstand legal scrutiny. I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
You don't need proof of a crime for a sneek and peek.. If they had proof of a crime they wouldn't need anymore evidence.. All they need is a finger pointed at them... I know it is different.. But no judge is held responsable for a warrant obtained with false information... No jugde is embarrased.. It's on the police.. All a judge does is sighn a warrant... That's it.. He takes the word of the officer and that's all. Sneek and peek warrants are rare when you comare them to search warrants.. But alot of drug cases get brought in with these kinds of warrants... I wasen't looking for clarification on the issue.. I know the issue already.. Police get warrants with half truths and 30% of the information all the time.. A judge will sighn basically anything that comes in front of him.. I seriously doubt judges shoot down any warrants at all because they think the information is fake or filled with holes... Basically any cop can point a finger with only hear-say and get a warrant it happens all the time..
if you don't believe me, run this by yer lawyer:
Leo has to think your house is connected to the crime or a related continuing crime in order to request warrant. They have to convince a judge you might have more pot at your house because....
In reverse, if they get a warrant to search your house, they can't search your car unless it's dictated on the warrant. Even if it is sitting in yer driveway.
Leo has to think your house is connected to the crime or a related continuing crime in order to request warrant. They have to convince a judge you might have more pot at your house because....
In reverse, if they get a warrant to search your house, they can't search your car unless it's dictated on the warrant. Even if it is sitting in yer driveway.
Welcome, Captain Obvious.
The answer to this is HELL NO! At least in the US. I don't know a Judge on earth that would allow a search of a house based on a little weed in a car. Yeah, they have to be very specific about where and what they want to search, what they want to find, and make some sort of connection between your car and your house. I've never seen that threshold met (I've been a criminal defense lawyer). Any judge who would sign that weak of a warrant would be reckless b/c it would almost certainly be reversed on appeal, and no Judge wants that as it's bad for their career. And never ever consent to a search of anything! Like not even your car when you're NOT carrying, b/c maybe your buddy dropped a roach on the floorboard and you never knew it. God, if people just knew there rights!
SmokyMtnToker
Member
Bluelaw: You are an attorney and cannot correctly spell: " their ' instead of ' there"? ( In the last sentence of your post). For a person with advanced degrees I am suprised at the spelling errors.Oh well, maybe English was not your forte'. You ARE correct about what you say. No judge wants to be embarrassed and few will sign off on obviously flawed warrant appplications. People imagine some judge with a rubber stamp that slams it down on any and all papers a pig proffers...not so!!
You: "Officer am I being arrested or am I free to go?"
Officer: "You made your choice, smart guy. I'm gonna call for K9. Stay in your vehicle."
You: doot-dee-doo....
Officer: "I ran your license and it was clean so I'm gonna let you go with a warning [or this speeding ticket, if you were speeding.] But you better not let me catch you around here again!"
LESSON: If they have enough on you to bother with K9.... they don't bother with threats. The threats are to frighten you into giving up your rights.
Ask if you're being detained and if so, tell him that you will not resist him, but that you don't consent to search of your vehicle. After that, exercise your right to shut the fuck up.
Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 (2001)
(internal punctuation and citations omitted):
- "One of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth." [Emphasis Mine.]
- "Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit purgery claiming the privilege."
Information in this post was brought to you by:
BUSTED: The Citizens Guide To Surviving Police Encounters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
and also brought to you by:
"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
and
"Don't Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&q=&hl=en
and also by the letters M, J and the number 420.
God Bless America!
BUSTED: The Citizens Guide To Surviving Police Encounters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
and also brought to you by:
"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
and
"Don't Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&q=&hl=en
and also by the letters M, J and the number 420.
God Bless America!
sillybillygum
New member
We all reserve the right to mock people who post 500-word blocks of misspelled nonsense. But then you have the situation where somebody posts a perfectly clear and clever message but within their well-articulated points they dare to confuse "your" with "you're." And then somebody will flip the fuck out.
Like a Mossad agent in rural America, you quickly discover that you've found a Nazi. Of the Grammar variety.
In Real Life it's Called...
Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, or OCPD.
OCPD should not be confused with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (or, "The OC Disorder"). OCPD shares the obsessive component of OCD, but it is different from OCD in that OCPD has the letter P in its name. That and people with OCPD do not perform the weird ritualistic actions of OCD'ers, like opening a door four times or having to always eat Pringles with the concave side up.
OCPD types simply have an incredibly strict standard by which certain tasks be done, to the point that it literally can lead to violence otherwise.
So Why Does it Happen on the Internet?
At the heart of the real-life OCPD sufferer seems to be an irrational fear that the rest of the world is sloppier, dirtier and more disorganized than it should be, that it's rapidly getting worse, and that the world will fall to pieces unless someone straightens it up.
On the Internet, five minutes spent reading YouTube comments can convince even an average, level-headed person that the Internet is about to suffer the same fate. The old-fashioned holdouts who insist on typing in actual sentences see what seems to be an inexorable move toward a language based entirely on texting abbreviations. It's not hard to feel the desire to take up arms to defend language at all costs. Srsly.
Dude, I totally be feelin' you on your point, dawg!
TacoSusio
Member
OMG LMAO! +1
