In Texas, Search Warrants Can Now Be Based on a "Prediction of a Future Crime"

Dallas Observer ^ | Dec 17, 2013 | Eric Nicholson

[driftdiver]

Police in Parker County had been watching Michael Fred Wehrenberg's home for a month when, late in the summer of 2010, they received a tip from a confidential informant that Wehrenberg and several others were "fixing to" cook meth. Hours later, after midnight, officers walked through the front door, rounded up the people inside, and kept them in handcuffs in the front yard for an hour and a half.

The only potential problem, at least from a constitutional standpoint, was that the cops didn't have a search warrant. They got one later, before they seized the boxes of pseudoephedrine, stripped lithium batteries, and other meth-making materials, while the alleged meth cooks waited around in handcuffs, but by then they'd already waltzed through the home uninvited. They neglected to mention this on their warrant application, identifying a confidential informant as their only source of information.

[driftdiver]

Can you say Police State yet?

[GeronL]

Was their “informant” entirely fictional?

[Bryanw92]

>>Can you say Police State yet?

No Comrade. But you can whisper it. Say it too loud and a gang of roided-up cops will kill you and your little dog too.

[I want the USA back]

This is why I won’t go to fascist texas.

[Bobalu]

If I were the judge I would throw all the evidence out.

No warrant

Warrants issued after a search = NO WARRANT

[ElkGroveDan]

Minority Report

[Responsibility2nd]

I don’t see a problem here.

Were these drug dealers that were caught? And is that a bad thing?

Look. If a good defense attorney can get charges dropped based on technicalities, then all is good. If not, well then justice is served.

[al baby]

Is this the same way Obama got his Noble Peace Prize before he was sworn in ?

[driftdiver]

technicalities such as not having a warrant and lying to a judge

minor technicalities

[Safetgiver]

Re: 4. Oh...Just...Jeeeeezus. Newbie.

[NorthMountain]

>> I don’t see a problem here.

Do you believe that "the end justifies the means"?

[NormsRevenge]

been there done that.. ask Merkel

[SoConPubbie]

I don’t see a problem here.

Were these drug dealers that were caught? And is that a bad thing?

Look. If a good defense attorney can get charges dropped based on technicalities, then all is good. If not, well then justice is served.

The basic problem with your premise is that you start from the position that even though the cops effectively lied, they can be trusted with all the other facets of the process of the arrest. That they can be trusted to act honorably and not make anything else up.

However, by breaking the rules where the warrant is concerned, basically the most important rule is concerned, they have proven they cannot be trusted concerning the rest of the arrest/investigation process as well.

Remember, the founders made it very clear, government was necessary, but it was an evil necessity and it needed to be controlled or it would trample on it's main reason for existing, the protection of our individual liberties and rights.

[willywill]

“fixing to”

they meant to say “fixin’ to”. I reckon.

[Vaquero]

[Sacajaweau]

There's a common sense to this.

If the bank robbers are parked in front of the bank door, you need a warrant??

[driftdiver]

fascist texas?

really?

[ex-snook]

Hey future crimes, that’s the beef with Iraq and Iran.

[driftdiver]

“If the bank robbers are parked in front of the bank door, you need a warrant??”

Well if they are parked in front then they aren’t bank robbers yet. They are people parked in front of a bank.

[driftdiver]

wow the craziness is coming out of the wood work today