Skip to comments.
In Texas, Search Warrants Can Now Be Based on a "Prediction of a Future Crime"
Dallas Observer ^
| Dec 17, 2013
| Eric Nicholson
Posted on 12/18/2013 1:15:11 PM PST by driftdiver
Police in Parker County had been watching Michael Fred Wehrenberg's home for a month when, late in the summer of 2010, they received a tip from a confidential informant that Wehrenberg and several others were "fixing to" cook meth. Hours later, after midnight, officers walked through the front door, rounded up the people inside, and kept them in handcuffs in the front yard for an hour and a half.
The only potential problem, at least from a constitutional standpoint, was that the cops didn't have a search warrant. They got one later, before they seized the boxes of pseudoephedrine, stripped lithium batteries, and other meth-making materials, while the alleged meth cooks waited around in handcuffs, but by then they'd already waltzed through the home uninvited. They neglected to mention this on their warrant application, identifying a confidential informant as their only source of information.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.dallasobserver.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: constitution; donutwatch; policestate; texas; tyranny; wod; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
Can you say Police State yet?
To: driftdiver
Was their “informant” entirely fictional?
2
posted on
12/18/2013 1:16:48 PM PST
by
GeronL
(Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
To: driftdiver
>>Can you say Police State yet?
No Comrade. But you can whisper it. Say it too loud and a gang of roided-up cops will kill you and your little dog too.
3
posted on
12/18/2013 1:16:52 PM PST
by
Bryanw92
(Sic semper tyrannis)
To: driftdiver
This is why I won’t go to fascist texas.
4
posted on
12/18/2013 1:17:46 PM PST
by
I want the USA back
(Media: completely irresponsible traitors. Complicit in the destruction of our country.)
To: driftdiver
If I were the judge I would throw all the evidence out.
No warrant
Warrants issued after a search = NO WARRANT
5
posted on
12/18/2013 1:19:19 PM PST
by
Bobalu
(White Boy Think A Lot)
To: driftdiver
6
posted on
12/18/2013 1:19:28 PM PST
by
ElkGroveDan
(My tagline is in the shop.)
To: driftdiver
I don’t see a problem here.
Were these drug dealers that were caught? And is that a bad thing?
Look. If a good defense attorney can get charges dropped based on technicalities, then all is good. If not, well then justice is served.
7
posted on
12/18/2013 1:20:49 PM PST
by
Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
To: driftdiver
Is this the same way Obama got his Noble Peace Prize before he was sworn in ?
8
posted on
12/18/2013 1:22:57 PM PST
by
al baby
(Hi MomÂ… I was refereeing to Obama)
To: Responsibility2nd
technicalities such as not having a warrant and lying to a judge
minor technicalities
9
posted on
12/18/2013 1:25:31 PM PST
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: I want the USA back
Re: 4. Oh...Just...Jeeeeezus. Newbie.
10
posted on
12/18/2013 1:26:44 PM PST
by
Safetgiver
( Islam makes barbarism look genteel.)
To: Responsibility2nd
>> I dont see a problem here. Do you believe that "the end justifies the means"?
To: driftdiver
been there done that.. ask Merkel
To: Responsibility2nd
I dont see a problem here.
Were these drug dealers that were caught? And is that a bad thing?
Look. If a good defense attorney can get charges dropped based on technicalities, then all is good. If not, well then justice is served.
The basic problem with your premise is that you start from the position that even though the cops effectively lied, they can be trusted with all the other facets of the process of the arrest. That they can be trusted to act honorably and not make anything else up.
However, by breaking the rules where the warrant is concerned, basically the most important rule is concerned, they have proven they cannot be trusted concerning the rest of the arrest/investigation process as well.
Remember, the founders made it very clear, government was necessary, but it was an evil necessity and it needed to be controlled or it would trample on it's main reason for existing, the protection of our individual liberties and rights.
13
posted on
12/18/2013 1:27:38 PM PST
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: All
“fixing to”
they meant to say “fixin’ to”. I reckon.
To: Bryanw92
15
posted on
12/18/2013 1:28:26 PM PST
by
Vaquero
(Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
To: Responsibility2nd
There's a common sense to this.
If the bank robbers are parked in front of the bank door, you need a warrant??
To: I want the USA back
17
posted on
12/18/2013 1:30:20 PM PST
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: driftdiver
Hey future crimes, that’s the beef with Iraq and Iran.
18
posted on
12/18/2013 1:31:16 PM PST
by
ex-snook
(God is Love)
To: Sacajaweau
“If the bank robbers are parked in front of the bank door, you need a warrant??”
Well if they are parked in front then they aren’t bank robbers yet. They are people parked in front of a bank.
19
posted on
12/18/2013 1:33:19 PM PST
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: ex-snook
wow the craziness is coming out of the wood work today
20
posted on
12/18/2013 1:33:48 PM PST
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson