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.

[absolootezer0]

hrm.. used guns, paid cash, never discussed weapons on phone, no memberships, own property to shoot on.
i'm covered.
besides, wouldn't they need individual warrants to pull all that info?

[Sonny M]

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

I'm not sure if your referring to it, but I think that actually happened a couple of years ago.

It was ruled entrapment and tossed.

I'm going to try and dig that up in the archives to get more specs.

[dead]

Happens to us all, but I'm not seeing any constitutional trampling coming from this decision. (I'm talking about the constitution as written, not imagined by California hippy judges.)

[Dead Corpse]

Yeah... that is pretty much how my mind played that scenario out as well. That ownership becomes prima facia "probable cause" despite a lack of intent or action.

Doesn't fit the case in the above as both intent and action are there, but I could see this ruling used as amicus to futher twist it to give "law" enforcement an all to easily corruptable means to targeting an individual.

Most likely, I'm just being paranoid.

[FormerLib]

I have STRONG opposition to "as they have probable cause to believe an individual will commit a crime" as being probable cause for anything.

Huh? Probable cause for "anything" is irrelevant if the "anything" isn't a criminal action.

[Elpasser]

The difference as i understand it is that the porn in this case wasn't merely "sent" to the defendant, he ordered it.

[Dead Corpse]

Depends on if they could trump it in under the PATRIOT Act provisions. They might find a loophole there, but that would be Feds not local law enforcement.

Three of my firearms went through NIC's. 2 pistols and a rifle. I don't actually care who knows what I have. Imprudent on a certain level, but I refuse to cower...

[FormerLib]

That ownership becomes prima facia "probable cause" despite a lack of intent or action.

I think it only works if the mere ownership is a crime, such as is the case with child porn but not with most firearms. Watch out for those places that put your hunting rifle on the list of banned "assault weapons," though!

Most likely, I'm just being paranoid.

As wiser men have said, just 'cause you aren't paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

[Dead Corpse]

Okers. Thanks for being patient. ;-)

[kevkrom]

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?

There's a big difference. You have a perfectly legal right to own a gun -- mere purchase or possession is not a crime in and of itself. In the case of kiddie porn, though, purchase and/or possession is, in and of itself, illegal.

[Dead Corpse]

As FormerLib pointed out, firearms ownership is legal NOW. Places like Maryland and Kalifornistan are working to make legal guns "illegal". Kennedy, Schumer, et al are drooling over the thought of imposing such bans nation wide.

So yeah... I'm a bit concerned.

[L98Fiero]

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

Must have been a nice car they wanted to impound and sell back to the owner. They were bad about that at one time. God forbid they catch you with some cash on you. Bye-bye money.

[GrandEagle]

"anything"
You may insert any crime you wish.
How about, you subscribe to high speed internet service. High speed internet service is used to convey this stuff so that is probable cause to search your home.

[Mathews]

Ya know? I was thinking the same thing. What if you get into a beef with a neighbor and they decided to buy you some kiddie porn... letting the police in on their suspicion that you are a kiddie porn buyer, and pow... off to prison you go when the nondescript package arrives at your door. Only difference is this guy paid cash to an undercover, but still...?

[kevkrom]

As FormerLib pointed out, firearms ownership is legal NOW. Places like Maryland and Kalifornistan are working to make legal guns "illegal". Kennedy, Schumer, et al are drooling over the thought of imposing such bans nation wide. So yeah... I'm a bit concerned.

If guns were illegal, then of course such things would apply. Just take the case above, and replace "child pornography" with "firearm" -- if the purchase and/or possession is illegal, then issuing a warrant under the same circumstances would still apply, and be just as valid.

of course, if guns were illegal, there's a bigger issue than whether an "anticipation" warrant is legitimate or not...

[FormerLib]

High speed internet service is used to convey this stuff so that is probable cause to search your home.

No, that is not probable cause! The fact that this stuff is transported on the Planet Earth and the fact that you also live on the Planet Earth do not combine to equal probable cause.

"Probable" is the operative word here. What you are suggesting doesn't rise to that level. They'd actually have to show some conveyance, as they did in this case since they were able to prove that the order for the child porn had taken place. With that in hand, they knew the crime, i.e. his taking possession of the porn, was going to take place.

Your example is an unreasonable extrapolation unrelated to the facts in this case.

[Doctor Stochastic]

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

Nothing.

[TChris]

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

That's called "entrapment". It's a valid defense against the charges from your example.

[GrandEagle]

Your example is an unreasonable extrapolation unrelated to the facts in this case.
Only because you want it to be.
It is much like the old story of the guy that asked the lady if she would have sex with him for a million dollars. She said "yes". He then asked well, how about $5.00. She was offended and responded "what kind of girl do you think I am?" His response was: "we have already established that, we are just arguing over the price.
Anytime you start legal proceedings because of what someone thinks you might do, the rest is just sliding a subjective bar around.

In the case being discussed, I have no problem issuing a warrant based on the fact that he ordered the child porn. It is reasonable to me that if he ordered the stuff, that he has ordered the stuff in the past and received it. It is probable cause that a crime has already been committed.
My objection is to the clause regarding issuing a warrant based on what you might do in the future. This is especially troubling when coupled with the poke around and see what you find provisions of the "Patriot" act.

Cordially,
GE

[FormerLib]

I like that you attempted to prove your statement had something to do with the facts by telling a story that clearly does not. I stand by my statement.

My objection is to the clause regarding issuing a warrant based on what you might do in the future.

Do you have any evidence that warrants are being issued based solely upon supposition that a crime might be committed?

I ask because this case was clearly built around a warrant being issued based upon the police being able to prove elements existed leading up to a crime. And there is a huge difference between getting a search warrant issued and making an arrest. That is also a fact.