Posted on 06/18/2015 11:58:24 AM PDT by Elderberry
I mostly go to little locally owned places here.
I go to admire the food.
Why do you think Ybarra is a bit of a stretch? The Supreme Court restricts the government from using the probable cause associated with one person to search/seize a different person.
It is directly applicable to this case, and makes it pretty clear that authorities did act, and still are acting, unconstitutionally.
In Ybarra the search was of a public place where Ybarra wasn’t mentioned in the warrant. This particular Waco warrant does mention the defendant by name. That doesn’t mean the attorney can’t still question the warrant, but I will be interested in seeing how a judge sees it.
He was “mentioned by name” because the names on the warrant were left blank, and were filled in at the scene. I think that’s even worse than Ybarra because it shows obvious planning to evade the requirements for probable cause.
I think this is more a case of using thin probable cause.
It is a subtle difference.
I think what you have is one set of circumstances and then they filled in the names and applied them to their phones and vehicles. I don’t know the court looks at an event with a large number of suspects.
I guess its a good thing that bar wasn’t burned to the ground with flamethrowers. —
Hey, can’t go misusing those surplus SWAT MRAPs you know.
We need to be ‘responsible’.
/s/s/s/s/s/ss//s/s
provide them with a password? I’d tell them to stuff it. —
Hmmm.
Make the password =
I invoke my right to silence. Screw You. F(*&)(&^%$.
And then ‘tell’ them the password.
Later, you will have given them the correct password.
That's not possible against a warrant that recites the contents of a statute, but fails to recite the conduct of the detainee.
Then push for suppression of evidence based upon that. I haven’t had a chance to read the whole affidavit yet.
Hahahah. Suppress WHAT evidence? There isn't any! All the government has is suspicion, and that by association. Can't bloody well deny the association.
The claim here is that the government arrested, charged, and held without evidence. The burden is on the government to produce the evidence that justifies it's deprivation of liberty. The quantum of evidence need only be sufficient to support probable cause.
Suppression of evidence comes later, at trial, if it is found the evidence was obtained outside of judicially-allowed parameters (which have some vague resemblance to the fourth amendment).
The source article does mention their complaints about the initial arrest, but the vast majority of the article deals with the warrant on his cell phone.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't help the lawyer refute what is in the warrant (void of description of detainee's conduct), which was the point of my original comment to you.
How about we lock you up and search your stuff, since you use the handle "bandit" you must be a criminal. One million dollars bail. If you can't come up with it, no sweat, you'll get a hearing in a few months.
It's the Waco, Texas way.
Just keep relying on steam and invective. You seem much more suited to it than reason. Plus I wouldn’t get locked up, because if these guys rolled into a restaurant I was in, I would get up and leave. It’s not my crowd.
Like I said before, I was commenting on a specific part of the source article. A SCOTUS case dealing with the results of a search warrant.
Yes. Instead of the Ybarra precedence, he should fight the justification for the warrant. I don’t think the Ybarra precedence fits because it references an incorrect execution of a warrant, not an incorrect application for a warrant.
Well, I certainly agree with that. But that is a different contention from the one you made earlier. I gather from your remarks that you've effectively abandoned "looking for things in the warrant that he can say don't describe his client's actions," while expressly claiming you haven't abandoned it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.