Posted on 12/18/2013 1:15:11 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.dallasobserver.com ...
Perhaps I’m just denser than usual because of the Christmas season rush but how does this happen in Texas? Isn’t that supposed to be a fairly rationale state?
And I’m not being sarcastic….what am I missing?
Shoot, I was just about ready to write a precog comment and saw that you beat me to it.
O.o
I do see a problem here.
What was the urgency? Was there a risk of flight? Then tail them until a proper warrant is had and the evidence is found, then arrest them.
A judge was available to provide a proper search warrant. It should have been done first. Period.
I don’t like drug dealers any more than the next guy, but the need to pick and choose whose rights are observed is just wrong.
Justice may be served for the criminals if they cannot get off, but the jack booted thugs enforcing laws will learn they can do whatever they want in which case America as a whole is the loser.
Those cops need to be reigned in, stripped of all authority and heavily penalized if they cannot reasonably justify their actions with proof.
Maybe their “informant” was the NSA/KGB.
I was thinking it might be a federal court, but no these are elected judges. Then I thought it was an overstatement of the ruling.
The “Prediction of a Future Crime” statement came from the dissenting judge.
In short I don’t see it either but its scary.
Nearly every time I see your comments, you're supporting big controlling government and their unconstitutional actions.
What's up with that?
good point
Were these drug dealers tea partiers 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.
I'll prefer to stick to the Constitution.
“I don’t see a problem here.”
Since you have such contempt for the Constitution, and fail to grasp its significance, I wonder why you are on Free Republic.
“Hey future crimes, that’s the beef with Iraq and Iran.”
Iran and Iran are not subject to the Constitution.
Yes, it is a bad thing.
If police can fraudulently get a warrant, they can fraudulently plant evidence.
The police should not only have the case thrown out, the officers should be prosecuted for perjury.
If drugs were legal, it would thin out the herd quite nicely.
DEA exists to keep the drug cartel’s markup high, and to prevent competition from people who don’t pay off the DEA.
Iraq and Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. In violation of it, they are subject to enforcement actions.
Then you'd really do yourself a favor by reading the Constitution.
I checked mine and nowhere did it say that if people end up doing something illegal, then it's perfectly justified for the cops to tie them up on the floor in advance.
The end does not justify the means.
Don’t you love how the biggest drug warriors on stories like this are usually the same type of people who were outraged when prosecutors were after limbaugh for doctor shopping and his synthetic heroin habit?
How true. If someone travels with their prescription pills in one of those daily dispensers and don't have the bottles associated with the pills with them, that person will likely go to jail.
Cops don't give a darn about common sense any more. Laws are designed by lawyers to make work for themselves and the system they work within. It is not about preserving individual liberties.
Not me! Are you being sarcastic?
I'll feel safer when I know my individual liberties are protected from nosy busybodies, corrupt politicians and police, gun grabbers, and do-gooders of every stripe who think they know what's best for me and mine!
I think you missed the sarcasm literally flowing from the posting.
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.