Living In a Police State

The Oakland Press online ^ | April 24, 2002 | JOHN WISELY and STEPHEN W. HUBER

[Just another Joe]

Now, these were republicans that did this.
Are they conservatives?
Is this even constitutional?

If this has been posted I apologize. I searched several different ways and found nothing.

[Jeff Head]

Time to run 'em out on a rail. Or as Andrew Jackson said, "route the vipers out"

FYI ... here's a very worthy anti-terrorist and pro-2nd amendment cause for everyone's consideration.

SIGN THIS PETITION NOW

THE "ARM OUR PILOTS NOW" PETITION!
PASS THE WORD ALONG TO ALL YOU KNOW

[Deguello]

Very vague Law. Does not even give the state in which it is enforced.

[Just another Joe]

This is only in Michigan as far as I know.
The state legislature is the enacter of this.

[Noumenon]

Entering my house or my land without my permission will get you dead, no matter who you are. That's the bottom line.

[spunkets]

Really a sad day when they keep legal papers like this from the public.

[DH]

I don't know what all of the fuss is about. When we lost our rights under the 1st Amendment no one seemed upset and now we are free of "hate speech" and "hate crimes."

When a full attack was pressed against our 4th Amendment rights the women and feminized males were gleeful that we were doing away with crime by eleminating bad guns.

Now, that the 4th Amendment is user siege we should be happy that secret police tactics are going to be a part of our life now. We can all expect that horrible knock on the door late at night.

Ah! Thanks to our liberal friends, the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton and marxist friends, we can now share the experiences of the Jews in Germany and bask in the early days of the Russian revolution.

[DH]

Sorry------2nd Amendment for guns!!!!!!!!

[Eagle Eye]

I assumed that this was in California. That's their next step, isn't it?

[freeeee]

Thanks to our liberal friends, the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton and marxist friends

Check out the bill's sponsors:

"The chief sponsor of the bill in the state senate was Shirley Johnson (R-Royal Oak) while Bill Bullard (R-Highland Township) was a cosponsor. In the state House, Nancy Cassis (R-Novi) was among 20 sponsors."

I suppose we'll have to count them among the "marxist friends".

[ssterns]

Gorcyca said the procedure for obtaining a search warrant didn't change, nor did the rights of the defendant to challenge a bad warrant or the ill-gotten gains of an illegal search. "It doesn't mean you can circumvent the judicial process. All we're doing is suppressing the contents of the affidavit. It does prevent the public and the media from obtaining information during the investigation but it doesn't prevent the defendant and the defense attorney from challenging the search warrant."

What is this? The Kafka/Orwell Memorial Search Warrant Suppression Bill? Let's see: They're not changing any procedures and the warrant can still be challenged...how would that go?

Innocent Citizen: "You must have the wrong address on the warrant"

Jack-Booted Agent of the State: "You're free to challenge the validity of the warrant. Which part do you think is incorrect?"

IC: "Uh...I dunno. I'd have to read it first to tell you what parts are wrong"

JBAOTS: "You can't read it...it's sealed by law. So if you can't point out what part of the warrant is flawed, it must be correct, and if it's correct, you must be guilty. Take him away, boys!"

IC: "Wait...what about my rights? Nooooo......"

JBAOTS: "Rights? BWWWAAAAAHAAHAAAHAAHAA....Just where do you think you are, bub? This is America!"

I think I'll have to go back and read "The Trial" again just so's I can get a glimpse of where this country's heading.

Cheers.

[EODGUY]

"Pontiac defense attorney Elbert Hatchett said the move is an expansion of a dubious process of sealing warrants. "Unfortunately, that's been the case for some time," Hatchett said. "The officer asks for a search warrant and then asks the judge for a suppression order citing an on-going investigation. It's almost automatic. These courts and these legislators have always exalted the rights of police over the rights of the accused."

At least as far as the State of Wisconsin is concerned, Mr. Hatchett is dead wrong. The correct terminology is indeed, to seek to have the contents of a search warrant "sealed", not suppressed, usually for a specific length of time or until the investigation has concluded. It is not automatically granted and on occasion requires an "in camera" (private) meeting with the judge and the informant or undercover police officer whose life would be risked if they were identified before the conspirators could be arrested.

I've requested that the contents of a search warrant and the search warrant return (the report identifying all items removed for evidentiary purposes) be sealed on limited occasions. In every case, however, it involved the protection of an undercover officer's or informant's life.

Is there a possiblity for misuse and abuse of this investigative/protective tool.......of course, just as there is the possiblity of a defense attorney supplying his client with cocaine while his client is in jail. I've personally investigated the latter, but not the former.

It is our responsibility as citizens to ensure that the people elected to judicial, district attorney, chief of police, etc. positions have been put through the most intense screening process possible and are monitored throughout their tenure in office. The same holds true for screening potential law enforcement officers.

I have conducted investigations of corrupt police agencies outside my department and am proud to say the agencies were completely gutted and the guilty parties were imprisoned.

Just a comment for potential flamers...."No one hates and I mean hates a crooked cop more than an honest one and I was an honest one!"

EODGUY

[Just another Joe]

I've requested that the contents of a search warrant and the search warrant return (the report identifying all items removed for evidentiary purposes) be sealed on limited occasions.

I wouldn't argue that this needs to be done at times. I DON'T think it should be an automatic proess.

[thrcanbonly1]

Entering my house or my land without my permission will get you dead, no matter who you are. That's the bottom line.

Same here!

[EODGUY]

I agree completely, Joe. We had to provide convincing evidence/arguement to have a warrant or warrant return sealed and I am in total agreement with maintaining that practice.

[VA Advogado]

If he's got nothing to hid, the 'innocent citizen' has plenty of time to fix the glitches after they search. If he does have something to hide, well, that's a different story.

[VA Advogado]

Just a comment for potential flamers...."No one hates and I mean hates a crooked cop more than an honest one and I was an honest one!"

Former LEO? I thank you for your service to our country. You're in good company here if you stay away from the knuckleheads. You'll see them show up as lumps on this thread.

[VA Advogado]

Entering my house or my land without my permission will get you dead, no matter who you are. That's the bottom line.

You better be wearing body armor when they 'knock' on/down your door - otherwise, two taps and you'll be simply another lump on the rug.

[EODGUY]

I appreciate your sincerity and your comments.

God Bless,

EODGUY