Make or Break! Tommorow,Court decides if search warrant was issued illegally

[MynameStitch]

Tomorrow is make or break with my case, either judge grants our motion to supress evidence and the search warrent,because it was issued against our 4th amendment right, or he does not if he doesnt he sure is not a judge to uphold the constituion, if he does NOT supress it, we will fight the plant numbers down,because they beefed it up and then my rights have been shit on by the police department

the cop got up under oath and lied and said the snitch went before a judge, and said the judge met him in the basement of the courthouse in the storageroom closet!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was sworn in in the basement of the courthouse in a broom closet??? WTF ever!!!

THIS WAS THE TESTIMONEY he gave the judge

When my attorney asked him if the judge did talk to him what did he ask him and why it was not documented in the warrent!

HE stated he does not remember if the judge asked him anything because he was busy on his cell phone getting his crew together to go do the raid on my house :{


@&*(@& piece of shit

my attorney gave 10 case laws where evidence and search warrent had to be thrown out due to bs no investigation and going by someones word

they had to threaten him with perjery, if they didnt trust him why would hte judge have?

my attorney asked the pig this, he did not respond




I will have to explain tomorrow what happend in court last week, all i can say is my attorney made the cop turn beat red in the face and the other people in the court room laughed at him even the JUDGE asmirked and giggled!!!!!

its a story i will save for tomorrow

but after almost one year ago our case is nearly over if our motion is granted!

Oct 28th 2005 is when we got busted

8 days away from one year ago that day.........

lets see what the answer will hold tomorrow........

 

[mybeans420]

Good luck.
hope it goes in your favor.

 

[Tunefull]

Like many others on here m8 i will be thinking of you tommorow....

It sounds very very sketchy(on the cops side)

just keeep calm,Put your point across plainly....Take your time in the stand

Make sure you get a chance to sit down with your breif and go thru things one last time(u dont want to go over old ground(unless it suits you to)))



Anyway hell you kow all this

Just lots of luck to you*smileS*

 

[Dr Dog]

good luck bro

 

[sam6655321]

i wish you the best of luck.....i hope that cop gets nailed by your attorney.

 

[Nape]

good luck bro

Good Luck "SISTA" Your family is in my Prayers.........

 

[seek_UP]

Stitch, I'll be thinking of you tonight and tomorrow. I hate to hear of the apparent corruption which led to your bust, but unfortunately, this is typically how busts are made. Sounds like you have a good lawyer who can make to cop look bad to a jury (that's half the battle!).

We're with you.

 

[Guest]

Hang in there - you go girl!

Sure sounds like a crock and I'm sure you got a fat chance in hell of suing the pricks for mental anguish and lost meds......

Glad to hear you're still hangin tight and appear to be winnin!

 

[guineapig]

I am praying all day and lighting a religious candle all for you MynameStitch....

Fight for the Fourth Amendment!!!

yer pal guineapig

 

[cooked cook]

good luck, stitch

good luck, stitch

Wow, I remember way back on OG when that went down, and they're JUST NOW gettin to this?!?!?


I hope it gets thrown right the hell outa court.
Good luck to you, stitch.
much love
cc

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Keeping the positivity headed your way, and our fingers crossed...
Hope they toss it out...

 

[acidfire]

Best of luck to you.

 

[chuckyoufarley]

keep your head up STITCH

 

[Guest]

if you think the cop is lying, subpoena the judge that he claims swore in the snitch.


the judge will NOT lie.

good luck

 

[dude06version]

gl, i remember when i read your original thread and what the cops did to you.. i was so pissed off. karma is on your side. peace

 

[dude06version]

btw if everything goes well you should tell your story some how, like a movie script or book or something.. peace.

 

[MynameStitch]

dude today did not go well at all

this is what it came down to motion to supress was denied because............

ONE FUCKING CASE LAW

Because the CI the sntich went before a judge, the judge had the oppratunity to talk to him. In that case because he was in front of the judge and he told the judge directly,

He did not need probable cause that going in front of the judge was enough
not to mention we argued that the warrent was not valid because the cop hide information from the judge that would of determined if the warrent was issued or not

Here is the case law the asshole prosecutor used

In fact, this court also essentially so held in People v. Phillips, 265 Ill. App. 3d 438, 448 (1994). In that case, in addition to a motion invoking Franks, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered by exercise of that warrant asserting that probable cause had not been established to support the warrant application because there was no showing of the credibility of the informant. In addressing the motion to suppress, the Phillips court stated:

"[C]ases which concern the credibility of hearsay informants have no relevance to a case such as that presented here, where the informant appears before the issuing judge. [Citation.] When the informant appears before the judge issuing the search warrant, the informant is under oath and any statement which he makes is subject to that oath; moreover, the judge has the opportunity to personally observe the demeanor of the informant and to assess the informant's credibility." Phillips, 265 Ill. App. at 448.

The Phillips court went on to hold that, when the informant appears before the magistrate, it is not even necessary for the police to corroborate the informant's account since "the judge issuing the search warrant ha an opportunity to *** determine the basis of [the informant's] knowledge." Phillips, 265 Ill. App. at 448.

Thus, since John Doe appeared before the magistrate to testify surrounding the allegations contained in the complaint for the search warrant of the second-floor apartment at 4849 S. Honore, this case falls outside the scope of Franks. Therefore, there was no error on the part of the circuit court in denying defendant a Franks evidentiary hearing.

Because of this. all the case laws and argument my attorney got, was null because his involved all cases where the informant did NOT go in front of a judge,

BUT the cop that went before the judge with the snitch, the cop did NOT give all the information, he did not tell him he just got arrested and he did not tell him he struck a deal with them in exchange for information
had he known this the judge would of most likley not signed it

my attorney arrgued this the cop did not give all the information so how would the judge know if he was in probable cause to sign the warrent and because we did not have a case law saying motion to supress was overturned because of proof he did not give all the information to the judge

I found one!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9530285

o get a search warrant for the trailer, a state trooper and a state prosecutor took Dang to a state magistrate. Instead of presenting affidavits, the trooper and Dang gave live testimony under oath. Based on the testimony, the magistrate issued a search warrant for the trailer at space 56. Upon serving it, the troopers found cocaine, cocaine sales equipment, large amounts of cash, and other evidence of narcotics deal ing. Hall was charged in federal court. The magistrate judge held a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and found that the state trooper "either intentionally or recklessly" withheld information bearing on Dang's credibility, several of his criminal convictions and "most significantly, two criminal matters that went to the heart of Dang's character and credibility, namely: the probation violation involving death threats to a wounded police officer, and the 1990 conviction for the offense of falsely reporting a crime." The district judge considered the magistrate judge's two reports and recommendations, adopted them, and suppressed the evidence found in the search. The magistrate judge and district judge reasoned that since the state trooper intentionally or recklessly withheld information critical to the magistrate's evaluation of Dang's credibility, and Dang's credibility was "absolutely critical," the magistrate would probably not have issued a search warrant had he known the truth.

There was no evidence of probable cause to believe that narcotics and drug dealing paraphernalia were in the trailer, except for what Dang said. Dang had a criminal conviction for making a false report to the police. The record does not show the citation, but presumably this was for the crime Alaska calls "making a false report." See AS 11.56.800. A person commits this crime giving "false information to a peace officer with the intent of implicating another in a crime," AS 11.56.800(a)(1), or in various other ways makes false reports or gives false alarms. The state trooper withheld this information from the magistrate.



So i want to appeal because the prosecutor sent his memo 2 days before our decesion
attorney did not have enough time to look

So prety much if the pigs get the snitch or CI in front of a judge its alright and warrent is signed! no questions asked doesnt matter the reliblity or probable case, all they gotta do is go in front of the judge!

FUCKING PIGS

thats alright though, the case law i found states that if the cops did not tell the magistate of there past or they struck a deal,. its purposely misinformation and violation 4th amendment

 

[sproutco]

06-01: Reliable Confidential Informant (CI) for Purposes of Search Warrant

Case: Raucho v. State, 2005 WL 3299437 (4th DCA)

Date: January 5, 2006 (Opinion filed December 7, 2005)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS: A documented CI reported to Ft. Lauderdale P.D. that a fellow named Allan sold him MDMA in the recent past. Detectives gave the CI money for a controlled buy, searched his car, wired him with a listening device and followed him to Allan’s house. Allan got in the car with the CI and directed him to another house down the street. Allan took the buy money and went into the second house. An unknown individual, later identified as Raucho, came outside, looked around, and then went back into the house. Allan subsequently emerged with a baggie containing MDMA which he gave to the CI. After dropping Allan off at his house, the CI met with the detectives and gave them the pills. Using the controlled buy as the probable cause, detectives obtained a search warrant for Raucho’s house, the execution of which revealed a number of controlled substances. Raucho moved to suppress because the affidavit did not establish the CI’s reliability or sufficiently establish probable cause to believe drugs would be in the house. The trial judge denied the motion and Raucho appealed.

RULING: The appellate court stated that the reliability of a CI does not need to be established where there is a controlled buy which is monitored and partially observed by the affiant. The monitored buy itself corroborates the CI’s credibility. As to probable cause, the court said “the affidavit established that the CI gave Allan $200 to buy ten ecstasy pills. Allan told the CI that he had to go to Raucho’s residence to get the ecstasy. Allan emerged from Raucho’s residence carrying what was determined to be amphetamines. Based on these facts, there was fair probability that contraband would be found in Raucho’s residence.”

This ruling is helpful in recalling that CI past reliability is not an issue if other factors corroborate the CI’s credibility. Without such other factors like a controlled buy, failure to sufficiently establish the CI reliability in the search warrant affidavit may create admissibility problems for evidence found pursuant to the warrant.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/ogc/case_updates/cu06-01_1-07.html

 

[MynameStitch]

If anyone knows caselaw that where the CI goes in front of the judge and does not have to prove realiable or anything that helps i would be so freaking gratefull

sproutco, he didnt make a buy, he tryed and failed
Here are the document the prosecutor stated in over turning the decesion

He judge was just about to supress the motion untill the asshole brought this document up

see pictures

 

[sproutco]

In that case, the ci made a buy so his credibility did not matter. That case states, and i put it in bold, without a buy the ci credibility can be questioned and evidence found from the warrant can be thrown out. The ci has to be proven credible in the affidavit not a flunky off the street trying to make a deal with the cops.