Posted on 04/25/2002 1:52:14 PM PDT by Just another Joe
The old "if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" has always been a bull***t argument. Constitutional rights shouldn't rest on whether you've got something or nothing to hide. Try telling that to someone who's just had their house torn apart by state agents and all their financial records, computers, etc. carted away.
The main point here is that if the state can hide the underlying reasons for getting a warrant in the first place, the standard of probable cause can very easily be diluted to "a cop's suspicion or hunch". Not that this doesn't already happen quite frequently, but if warrants and their supporting material are kept secret, it makes accountability harder and misapplication for warrants much easier.
As others have said above, if police can convince the judge that a warrant should be sealed to protect a sensitive on-going investigation, as is the current law, that may be appropriate, but an automatic, blanket extension of this to all warrants is indeed a large step toward a police state.
The Patriot Act allows federal agents, upon application to and approval by the judge, to not even inform you if your house, car, business is searched (for 6 months, which can be renewed every 6 months indefinitely). They don't have to tell you what they take or copy, or that they've been there at all. It's all to fight terror...and then drug dealers...and then it may be too time-consuming to get the judge's approval, so let's just make all warrants no-notice warrants, since it will allow law enforcement to act quickly to stop terrorists....then drug dealers...then gun owners...then people who post on conservative web sites....
It is indeed a slippery slope. But then, you've got nothing to hide...do you?
Cheers.
No, he doesn't. He's one of the carrion-eaters perched on the carcass of the American Dream.
He's with the thugs. ;^)
Better to not even be there. Better to take them from a distance. They're used to siege tactics, not someone who'll turn the game around on them.
I wish I knew about it earlier, since I talked to my state senator already today.
Sec. 4. (1) A search warrant shall be directed to the sheriff or any peace officer, commanding the sheriff or peace officer to search the house, building, or other location or place, where any property or other thing for which the sheriff or peace officer is required to search is believed to be concealed. Each warrant shall designate and describe the house or building or other location or place to be searched and the property or thing to be seized.
(2) The warrant shall either state the grounds or the probable or reasonable cause for its issuance or shall have attached to it a copy of the affidavit.
(3) Upon a showing that it is necessary to protect an ongoing investigation or the privacy or safety of a victim or witness, the magistrate may order that the affidavit be suppressed and not be given to the person whose property was seized or whose premises were searched until that person is charged with a crime or named as a claimant in a civil forfeiture proceeding involving evidence seized as a result of the search.
History: 1966, Act 189, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;--Am. 2002, Act 112, Eff. Apr. 22, 2002 . ------------
780.655 Property seized upon search; tabulation; filing; custody; restoration to owner; disposition of other property.
Sec. 5. (1) When an officer in the execution of a search warrant finds any property or seizes any of the other things for which a search warrant is allowed by this act, the officer, in the presence of the person from whose possession or premises the property or thing was taken, if present, or in the presence of at least 1 other person, shall make a complete and accurate tabulation of the property and things that were seized. The officer taking property or other things under the warrant shall give to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken a copy of the warrant and shall give to the person a copy of the tabulation upon completion, or shall leave a copy of the warrant and tabulation at the place from which the property or thing was taken. The officer is not required to give a copy of the affidavit to that person or to leave a copy of the affidavit at the place from which the property or thing was taken.
(2) The officer shall file the tabulation promptly with the court or magistrate. The tabulation may be suppressed by order of the court until the final disposition of the case unless otherwise ordered. The property and things that were seized shall be safely kept by the officer so long as necessary for the purpose of being produced or used as evidence in any trial.
(3) As soon as practicable, stolen or embezzled property shall be restored to the owner of the property. Other things seized under the warrant shall be disposed of under direction of the court or magistrate, except that money and other useful property shall be turned over to the state, county or municipality, the officers of which seized the property under the warrant. Money turned over to the state, county, or municipality shall be credited to the general fund of the state, county, or municipality.
History: 1966, Act 189, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;--Am. 2002, Act 112, Eff. Apr. 22, 2002 .
Nope, not at all.
"Believe me, if there were to occur abuse of this, I'm sure it would be relooked," Cassis said."
This reminds me of my bro, who changes lanes then turns and looks. LOL!
In my opinion, such an occurrence is not only rare, but is always the result of poor intelligence, poor tactical planning, pressure from department hierarchy or just pathetic detective work. None of these are acceptable.
All I can tell you is that I was involved in over 300 search warrants and never entered the wrong home/apartment.
EODGUY
I don't care for this law that much, but it's not a patriot act either.
Public Act 112:...CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; Search and seizure; search warrant affidavits; revise procedures.
(Sen. S. Johnson)
Public Act 128:...CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; Search and seizure; search warrant affidavits; declare to be nonpublic information.
(Rep. S. Caul)
And whatever it means they were both "tie bar"
Have you ever heard of law enforcement officers following the law to the letter? I have and did.
As I've said previously, incompetent, intentionally criminal abuse of power or process by law enforcement should be dealt with swiftly and severely.
I won't waste bandwidth on an explanation of the seizure/forfeiture process, unless someone who wants to know the truth inquires.
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.