I am beginning to think they are a leftist sleeper cell that infiltrated the site years ago and it has suddenly been activated.
Posted on 03/15/2014 9:01:05 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Or better yet, bring it with them. Plant it and then go get the warrant.
Perfect! Now THAT, sir, is some LAW ENFORCEMENT! After all, just because we didn't catch them THIS time with whatever contraband, doesn't mean they are NOT GUILTY! PLANT IT ON THEM AND THEN SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT! WHOO HOOOOO!!!
God I love this New Murrica.
Expressing an opinion on how the courts are likely to rule is not the same thing as expressing a preference for how they rule.
While it should be an offense, under law, to illegally obtain evidence, and those who do it or allow it should be dealt with, under the law. However, that should be held separate from “the evidence”, as it pertains to any facts in a case; it “the evidence” should not be condemned; it is either germane to a case, or not, as a trial and a jury can determine.
People should not be “not guilty” by reason of good evidence, that might have convicted them, being denied the light of day. Condemn HOW some evidence may have been obtained, and those responsible - not the evidence.
Untrue.
The only time that a federal law can supersede a state law is when it has been made pursuant to the Constitution [for the United States].
Art 6, Para 2The 10th Amendment makes it quite clear that the powers not explicitly delegated remain the purview of the States (or the people).
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The root of the problem is that the police do not play by the rules — for example, imagine a wrong-house, no-knock raid where they drop a bag of marijuana as justification
but also uncover evidence of some federal crime (say having a pond or rainwater collector in your back yard [re: EPA regulations]).
Should those be allowed as evidence in the trial against you?
I am beginning to think they are a leftist sleeper cell that infiltrated the site years ago and it has suddenly been activated.
Ah, then what's the purpose of a search warrant?
After all, if they believe a crime is taking place [possession of a banned firearm or drug], why should a warrant be needed to search your person, papers, and effects for evidence at all?
You haven’t seen that day.
Except perhaps in your drug-addled imagination.
>> I’d rather see the evidence used and those in law enforcement who violated the constitution[sic] punished appropriately.
>
> That was the rule before the 1920’s, which came to us by way of the Common Law; and it doesn’t work.
I’m not entirely sure that’s the case — if grand juries were informed/allowed to use their powers of presentment things would be a lot different.
That’s a good one.
There's a reason I refer to Texas as The Republican[-Party] State
— like the Republican party it's all talk and old reputation and nothing on the action side. Just look at their firearms laws and how they pose as a "gun-friendly" state.
As a prosecuting attorney (1st Assistant County Attorney) once told me “we don’t have to obey the law, we are the law”.
Careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
I don’t trust Texas prosecutors they have a dicey history at best.
This is outrageous
hahahahahahahahaha Really? In our post-constitutional 'republic'? hhahahahahahahaa
This kind of thing is what the "war on drugs" was made for.
Ugggghhhhh.......and this happened in Texas. Not good.
absalom01 I’m posting your reponse. I hope you don’t mind. If so we can asked the mods to pull it.
The following is a post from absalom01 that he posted on an earlier thread from back in Dec. 2013 about this ruling.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3103059/posts?page=90#90
*****************
OK, so much is wrong here...
First off, it’s actually a little bit amusing watching the FReepertarians and Info-Wars refugees getting all worked up over an article in a free, Village Voice owned paper. I generally don’t believe much of what I read in the MSM, let alone an “alternative” source like this, so I suspected that this story might, just maybe, have been spun a tiny bit away from the actual case.
Which, if you do a little bit of Googling, turns out, IMHO, to be the case. My exegesis: the cops in Parker County, Texas had been watching a particular house full of tweakers for a couple of weeks, when they got a tip from a previously reliable informant that he had been inside the house, and had seen a bunch of the stuff you need if you’re going to “shake and bake” meth. He listed those items specifically, i’m just sparing you the boring list.
Anway, the detective on the scene decided to act on the “exigent circumstances” and enter the house to secure it to prevent the destruction of evidence. Now, the FReepertarians at this point will object that this should never be allowed, ever, and that anyone who disagrees is a vile “statist” of the lowest rank. Well, whatever, that’s not the law and never has been. Once that task had been accomplished, the detective then asked for, and obtained, a warrant to search the residence, wherein he found all of the stuff that the informant had told him was there.
On appeal the defendant objected that exigent circumstanced didn’t really exist, and that therefore the initial entry was illegal and that the evidence collected by the subsequent search warrant should not be protected from exclusion under the independent source doctrine argued by the state.
The legal wrangling boiled down to that: the court was asked to rule, basically, on whether the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant had to be excluded if the initial ‘exigent circumstances’ entry was later ruled invalid, and they effectively said, “no, the independent source doctrine is still fine, and we don’t think that we need to apply the exclusionary rule in this case”.
What the court did NOT say was any of the nonsense reported in the Village-voice owned rag linked here about “pre-crime”, or “crimes that were about to occur”: the warrant was based on the statements about specific drug precursors and lab equipment which were in fact found as described inside the house after the search authorized by the warrant.
Now, one could question the judgement of the detective regarding the exigency of the circumstances, and in hindsight it would probably have been wiser to have first obtained the warrant, but that’s a far cry from the breathless claims of a police state run amok from the Alex Jones bedwetters.
end posting.
“Should those be allowed as evidence in the trial against you?”
Another “good question” for which I don’t have an answer right now.
Now for an example and question for you:
Imagine a wrong-house, no-knock raid where they drop a bag of marijuana as “justification” but also unexpectedly find your kid-napped child and a draft ransom note.
Should those be allowed as evidence in the trial against the kid-napper?
Even in those that do, it's highly unlikely that those jurors would ever do other than they're instructed in matters of law.
The current standard is better; it sets clear guidelines for law enforcement and doesn't subject behavior to the discretion of prosecutors or professional jurists. Jurors should try facts, not law or rules of evidence.
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.