Court backs police in porn sting

The Washington Times ^ | 3-22-06 | Guy Taylor

[JZelle]

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled in favor of police who obtained a search warrant for a man's home in anticipation that he would accept mail delivery of child pornography he ordered as part of a sting operation. The unanimous ruling in the case United States v. Grubbs, said such "anticipatory" warrants obtained by police do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights protecting individuals from unlawful searches and seizures. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said police can obtain such a warrant prior to the actual commission of a crime as long as they have probable cause to believe an individual will commit a crime -- or that illegal material will be at the individual's property when the search is conducted. The case centered on a 2002 child-pornography sting operation in California, in which a U.S. postal inspector posing as an illegal-porn distributor received a $45 cash order from Jeffrey Grubbs, who sought mail delivery of a sexual movie featuring a child.

[JZelle]

9th circus gets slapped down again!

[Publius6961]

You mean the helmet, vest and Mac-10 didn't give the delivery person away?

[Dead Corpse]

Ok... Let me start by saying this: Kiddie porn is an ultimate evil. Anyone doing such things to a child should be killed. Period. No second chances. Possession of kiddie porn, is aiding and abetting a known criminal act and should carry a heavy penalty.

However...

What is to stop a cop from getting an "anticipatory" warrant on YOU then sending you kiddie porn? Whether you wanted it or not?

Call it a paranoid hypothetical, but we've seen government entities do even worse things in the past.

[FormerLib]

Always good to hear the 9th get overturned yet again, I just hope we don't have the usually alarmists march through telling us how this means the end of our Republic.

[dead]

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then reversed the ruling, finding that police are constitutionally required to present a written explanation of such triggering events to any person whose property is being searched before the search is executed.

A consitutional requirement that the only exists in the 9th Circuit’s special magical constitution. It's typed over the spot where the second amendment used to be.

[FormerLib]

What is to stop a cop from getting an "anticipatory" warrant on YOU then sending you kiddie porn? Whether you wanted it or not?

The difference between "probable cause" and "entrapment", that's what.

Dang, missed it by seconds!

[Dead Corpse]

Agreed.

Is it possible for the FedGov to Impeach an entire Circuit? The 9th needs serious housecleaning.

[dead]

What is to stop a cop from getting an "anticipatory" warrant on YOU then sending you kiddie porn? Whether you wanted it or not?

All the perfectly valid laws against entrapment. Or, in your scenario, manufacturing and planting evidence.

This guy's check for the kiddie porn had already cleared.

[nightdriver]

"Call it a paranoid hypothetical, but we've seen government entities do even worse things in the past."

Sounds an awful lot like entrapment to me.

I've seen the po-leese in Looziana stop a motorist, open the trunk of his car and throw in a bag of cocaine.

You really need to look out for some of those "good ol' boys."

[Dead Corpse]

In this case, the "probable cause" was the perp ordering the kiddie porn to begin with.

What is a bit concerning is the whole "anticipatory" thing. I own guns. Can they get an "anticipatory" warrant to search my house just because a gun I own matches a caliber of a gun used in an area crime? No matter how popular the caliber or how many others in the area may own the same caliber arms?

Don't get me wrong, I hope the scum bag caught in the investigation ends up on death row. I just get nervous every time it seems we are handing them another "power" that has more than one cutting edge to it...

[Dead Corpse]

So cops never manufacture or plant evidence and get away with it? Something like this won't make it easier to do?

I'm just tossing ideas around here trying to shake this one out a bit. See what other ramifications such a ruling could possibly have.

[tx_eggman]

What is to stop a cop from getting an "anticipatory" warrant on YOU then sending you kiddie porn? Whether you wanted it or not?

My read on this case was that he wasn't prosecuted for the material that was delivered but for other child porn the subsequent search turned up.

[GrandEagle]

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said police can obtain such a warrant prior to the actual commission of a crime as long as they have probable cause to believe an individual will commit a crime -- or that illegal material will be at the individual's property when the search is conducted.

I will agree that placing an order for child porn could be probable cause for a search warrant to look for other similar "material".
I have STRONG opposition to "as they have probable cause to believe an individual will commit a crime" as being probable cause for anything. That is just anti-American.
The fact that he ordered this stuff could be probable cause to believe that he has already commited the crime before, and I could go with a search warrant to look.

Cordially,
GE

[absolootezer0]

What is a bit concerning is the whole "anticipatory" thing. I own guns. Can they get an "anticipatory" warrant to search my house just because a gun I own matches a caliber of a gun used in an area crime? No matter how popular the caliber or how many others in the area may own the same caliber arms?

how would the cops know what kind of gun you have?

[American_Centurion]

The difference between "probable cause" and "entrapment", that's what.

Yeah, the only problem with entrapment, is that you have to be able to prove that the police did it, all the while the weight and resources of the government are working to send you away to federal pound-you-in-the-#$$ prison. And to top it all off, even if you do prove entrapment, it isn't like the cop will ever face any music for it. He'll get a few weeks of paid vacation most likely.

[dead]

So cops never manufacture or plant evidence and get away with it?

Sure they do. It's a crime.

Something like this won't make it easier to do?

I don't see any way that this facilitates that. He wrote and delivered the check to buy the kiddie porn. The crime was already committed. They were merely waiting for additional evidence to arrive in the mail.

And his argument didn't even involve any of that. It was some arcane argument that he needed to be notified in writing of triggering actions before the search warrant could be executed.

Apparently, that is something that is in the 9th circuit's copy of the constitution, but only theirs.

[Dead Corpse]

4473's. NIC's checks. Credit statements. Telephone intercepts. NRA/GOA membership rolls. Shooting Range records.

You think anything would stop them from finding out?

[FormerLib]

Can they get an "anticipatory" warrant to search my house just because a gun I own matches a caliber of a gun used in an area crime?

No, the "anticipatory" part refers to them having some proof that a crime is going to be committed.

I have no doubt that some leftist judges would issue them a regular warrant based upon the caliber match alone since there's no reason that an innocent man would own any sort of gun (to the leftist way of thinking, anyhow).

[Dead Corpse]

I'm agreeing that the 9th pulled a lib-tard here. "Triggering actions"??? Like he didn't know that ordering kiddie porn was a bad thing?

Like I said, maybe I am just bieing paranoid. It happens...

[FormerLib]

Yeah, the only problem with entrapment, is that you have to be able to prove that the police did it...

Actually, they would have had to manufacture quite a bit of evidence in the first place. If they are willing to go that far, there's nothing you can do about it and this ruling has no impact on that since this would only affect the timing of the presentation (before or after the "crime") of the falsified evidence.