Replies

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"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

780.654 Search warrant; direction of warrant; contents; order to suppress affidavit.

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 .

An acquaintance of mine is seriously thinking of leaving the US for the reason of "personal freedom." She's unhappy about the tax burdon, the misuse of tax $$, and the fact (as she says) that she wants control over her body: Her profession is a prostitute, and she wants to be able to legally use marijuana, due to severe back pain that would otherwise require much more powerful drugs, like percocet or vicodin. So she's going to visit Amsterdam and possibly look into moving there permanently. I told her that if she's upset about the taxes in the US, then wait until she gets to Europe. As far as the other things, well, there isn't much to say... She does what she does, at least while she's trying to finish school. She has called the US a police state, and until recently, I disagreed with her. I see that the US is moving in that direction...

Mark