Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
Posted on 03/15/2014 9:01:05 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Texas prosecutors are applauding a decision by the State Court of Criminal Appeals which provides police officers a second chance to present evidence which has been gathered contrary to Texas law and the 4th Amendment. The ruling literally offers law enforcement a “do-over;” an opportunity to secure a search warrant AFTER a home has been illegally searched and AFTER evidence has been improperly obtained.
In 2010, police in Parker County, Texas received a call from a confidential informant (CI) who claimed that Fred Wehrenberg and a number of associates “were fixin’” to cook meth. Hours after the call–at 12:30 A.M the following day–police entered the Wehrenberg home without a warrant and against the wishes of Wehrenberg. Police handcuffed all of the occupants, held them in the front yard and proceeded to perform what the officers described as a “protective sweep” of the residence. An hour and a half later, after finding no meth being made on the premises, police prepared a...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
>Again, Texas shows the way to fight criminals.
Reminds me of a Robert Vaughn line near the end of The Bridge at Remagen, just before he faces an SS firing squad (adapting):
“But who are the criminals?”
[engines overhead “Ours or theirs?” “Enemy planes.” “But who is the enemy?”]
IMO, that’s you (the SS firing squad).
This is a terribly raw abuse, and should be appealed to the 5th Circuit on three grounds.
1) Unless there is an audio recording of the informant, there is no evidence that the information was not just fabricated by the police.
2) While information received is useful, it should be insufficient *by itself* for a warranted search, much less a search without a warrant. Warrantless searches are an abomination, and should only be used on rare occasions when time is critical. In which circumstances they must be specially justified after the fact. If they cannot be justified after the fact, than those who applied for them should be liable.
3) Seeking a warrant to justify a search based on evidence that was inadmissible should transfer that inadmissibility. The evidence was tainted, so it should remain tainted.
You would think the Libs would be screaming. They love the 5th, but hate all the other amendments.
You never know what a judge will do regardless of who appoints them.
It was a black female Clinton appointee who slapped the feds hard and acquitted the Hutaree of all charges here in Michigan.
I agree that this is terrible—and Texas is my beloved state!
Yeah.
There is a contingent of nutcase leftists who post here in a united front.
They are like the free Mumia people. Same dynamic.
Criminals or not, this is just plain wrong.
Most of the posters on FR have drunk the Kool-Aid.
It’s hard not to when the MSM drowns everyone in it.
I don’t have a problem dropping the exclusionary rule. But then you have to independently and aggressively prosecute official malfeasance.
As for state’s rights, the Constitution guarantees every state will have a republican - small r - form of government, which would not exist if states could abrogate the people’s rights. We did not embrace small tyrannies - until recently that is.
The nutcases want the feds to be involved for internal Texas affairs.
Those folks might as well be frozen. LOL
“But then you have to independently and aggressively prosecute official malfeasance.”
Yes.
I’ve always had a problem with the exclusionary rule. Evidence of guilt is still evidence of guilt. With the exclusionary rule, the wrong doers get a pass, both those on the perpetrator side and the law enforcement side. The one’s harmed are the victims and the general public.
I’d rather see the evidence used and those in law enforcement who violated the constitution punished appropriately. Yeah, I know...like that’s going to happen.
Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
Of course...
Yes, the comments on this thread betray a woeful understanding of the exclusionary rule, invented by Federal judges around, I believe 1920, and initially applicable only to federal cases. There needs to be a way to control law enforcement, and deter them from violating the civil rights of citizens, but that does not necessarily require the exclusion of evidence of guilt. It is just the method that judges chose—performing as legislators in the process.
You and I are on the same page.
Just remember though, Texas is the greatest conservative state in the union. Just ask any Texas FReeper.
DO AWAY WITH WARRANTS!!!
Wasn’t this decision issued back in Dec. 2103? Or is
this something as a followup to that decision?
I sense a disturbance in the farce...
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.