Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas court rules that police may introduce illegally gathered evidence at trial
Coach is Right ^ | 3/15/14 | Doug Book

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; evidence; legal; wehrenberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-187 next last
To: jocon307

Or better yet, bring it with them. Plant it and then go get the warrant.


81 posted on 03/15/2014 11:01:15 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: sport
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.

82 posted on 03/15/2014 11:04:19 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan; sagar

Expressing an opinion on how the courts are likely to rule is not the same thing as expressing a preference for how they rule.


83 posted on 03/15/2014 11:11:47 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

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.


84 posted on 03/15/2014 11:33:35 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marcella
Texas law is second to federal law just as every state is.

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 2
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 10th Amendment makes it quite clear that the powers not explicitly delegated remain the purview of the States (or the people).
85 posted on 03/15/2014 11:36:24 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
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.

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?

86 posted on 03/15/2014 11:42:57 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FerociousRabbit; ifinnegan
There is a contingent of nutcase leftists who post here in a united front.

I am beginning to think they are a leftist sleeper cell that infiltrated the site years ago and it has suddenly been activated.


87 posted on 03/15/2014 11:43:11 AM PDT by Old Sarge (TINVOWOOT: There Is No Voting Our Way Out Of This)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: dangus
If police suspect a crime is currently taking place, they do not need a search warrant.

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?

88 posted on 03/15/2014 11:47:22 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

You haven’t seen that day.

Except perhaps in your drug-addled imagination.


89 posted on 03/15/2014 11:52:09 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

>> 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.


90 posted on 03/15/2014 11:52:36 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DaiHuy

That’s a good one.


91 posted on 03/15/2014 11:53:06 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: piroque
Yes,,, and Texas is such a free state. /s

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.

92 posted on 03/15/2014 11:56:29 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

As a prosecuting attorney (1st Assistant County Attorney) once told me “we don’t have to obey the law, we are the law”.


93 posted on 03/15/2014 12:06:53 PM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Careful what you wish for, you might just get it.


94 posted on 03/15/2014 12:09:25 PM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I don’t trust Texas prosecutors they have a dicey history at best.

This is outrageous


95 posted on 03/15/2014 12:14:01 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
I don’t see this ruling surviving federal court scrutiny, under the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

hahahahahahahahaha Really? In our post-constitutional 'republic'? hhahahahahahahaa

This kind of thing is what the "war on drugs" was made for.

 

96 posted on 03/15/2014 12:16:27 PM PDT by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Ugggghhhhh.......and this happened in Texas. Not good.


97 posted on 03/15/2014 12:20:58 PM PDT by Pajamajan (Pray for our nation. Thank the Lord for everything you have. Don't wait. Do it today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: absalom01

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.


98 posted on 03/15/2014 12:27:08 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“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?


99 posted on 03/15/2014 12:29:16 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Twenty-six states do not require grand juries to bring charges.

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.

100 posted on 03/15/2014 12:40:14 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-187 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson