Posted on 03/27/2008 6:29:39 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The lawyer for a man accused of being a major cocaine supplier for the Wichita Crips gang contends that a secret search of the man's house under the Patriot Act was illegal.
In a recent motion to suppress any evidence from the search, defense lawyer Charles O'Hara argued that the Patriot Act was meant for "serious matters involving national security," not drug cases like the one involving his client, Tyrone Andrews.
"I thought that this Patriot Act was something passed to protect us all from these terrorist acts, and it would be used very judiciously," O'Hara said Monday. "This doesn't seem to be one where these secret searches would be used."
Jim Cross, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Wichita, said the office "believes the evidence in this case was legally obtained."
"I think our legal arguments are clearly stated in the documents we have filed," Cross said. He said he couldn't comment further because the case is before a federal court.
A federal grand jury indictment released Dec. 21 accused Andrews, a 38-year-old aircraft plant worker, and seven other Wichita men of 48 counts of drug-related crimes including trafficking and conspiracy. The government seeks a forfeiture of $300,000 from Andrews.
In an affidavit filed in July seeking the search warrant, a federal agent said a secret search was necessary to protect evidence and to prevent suspects from fleeing or from intimidating witnesses.
The affidavit alleged the Crips gang has been involved in cocaine, crack cocaine and marijuana distribution in Wichita for "at least the past 15 years."
"Tyrone Andrews has been supplying various individuals in the gang with cocaine for many years, and is considered to be a major supplier of cocaine to the Crips..." the affidavit alleges.
The affidavit alleges that Andrews lived at one home but used a house on South Ridgewood as a drug "stash" house.
As part of the investigation, agents wanted to check the house to see whether electronic recording devices could be installed, the affidavit said.
Normally, investigators leave a copy of a search warrant and a receipt for items taken once a house is searched. But in the Andrews case, investigators obtained clearance to secretly search the house, which they did July 17, and not notify him until 90 days afterward, O'Hara said.
In the affidavit, the ATF agent contended that earlier disclosure to Andrews could "seriously jeopardize the investigation."
Another court document says that officers secretly entered the house and saw drug trafficking materials.
O'Hara said: "I don't know that I've seen a warrant like this before."
I’m shocked!
” defense lawyer Charles O’Hara argued that the Patriot Act was meant for “serious matters involving national security,” not drug cases like the one involving his client, Tyrone Andrews.”
Wonder is his attitude would change if Tyrone turned his daughter into a crack whore?
IF, not is....
Didn’t see this coming.
As far as I'm concerned, drug trafficers are terrorists. The bring violence to our nation and harm our people, the funds often trace back to terrorist or repressive activities around the world.
Well, at least they will never come for our guns. /s
“Wonder is his attitude would change if Tyrone turned his daughter into a crack whore?”
Probably, does that change his argument though? Either we have rights protected by the Constitution or we don’t. If the govt picks and chooses what rights they allow us to keep and which laws they obey themselves then we are not a free country.
Freedom is more important to me than the life choices somebody else makes for themselves.
To play devil’s advocate, at least they didn’t no-knock it, and kill someone.
If you want to stop the violence and the money flow, decriminalize it. People don’t shoot each other over booze - but they did during Prohibition.
Wonder is his attitude would change if Tyrone turned his daughter into a crack whore?
I think it is the parent's job to best ensure the daughter does not become a crack whore before adulthood.
Your question deviates from the subject and his statement. We do not want this camel to get its nose in the tent.
Drug traffickers are not terrorists but some terrorists do use drugs to finance their activities. To imply otherwise is to open the door wide for complete revocation of all natural rights enjoyed by Americans. We've spent billions on the war on drugs. The only answer law enforcement seems to have is that we have too many rights.
You must remember lawyers have two roles. If it turned his daughter then he would be a father and someone else would have to defend the criminal. It is all about money,common sense and justice plays not part into a lawyers livelyhood
or so called profession.The Criminal Justice System in America is a farce.
So are people who own guns. Ask any federal prosecutor who wants to take a run at a gun owner under the Patriot Act.
Like we all didn’t see this coming, eh?
How silly.
“As far as I’m concerned, drug trafficers are terrorists. The bring violence to our nation and harm our people, the funds often trace back to terrorist or repressive activities around the world.”
Nonsense. You apply this to drug traffickers, you start the slippery slope. Who’s next? Where will a president like Hillary Clinton or Hussein Obama apply this? The Patriot Act was intended to stop true terrorist acts like 9/11.
I have already seen some of these laws be used to go after things outside of terrorism. Once again, my libertarian streak proves itself right. The government should not be trusted with too much authority.
The Crips gang distributing drugs? Rev. Wright says it’s our government doing it.
Heh heh heh.
Would your attitude about the Constitutionality of the Second Amendment change if your daughter were shot?
The Constitution is evidently a "living document" when it suits you.
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.