4 ms·

and found is in quotes for a good reason, as the drugs “found” near me were “found” in the execution of a warrant for computers only For what it's worth, the

and found is in quotes for a good reason, as the drugs “found” near me were “found” in the execution of a warrant for computers only For what it's worth, the Fourth Amendment protects against 'unreasonable' searches and seizures. Anything found in the reasonable execution of a search warrant is admissible. I don't know where the myth came from that only evidence related to the probable cause of the warrant is admissible. This is an on-face absurd interpretation: by that logic, if the police entered a house to search for evidence of felony tax evasion and stumbled upon a murder in progress, that wouldn't be admissible because the police weren't in the house searching for a murderer. There is plenty of case law establishing limits on reasonability. For instance, in the execution of a lawful search of an apartment looking for weapons, officers saw a stereo that 'didn't fit the furnishings'. They lifted up the bottom of the stereo to take down serial numbers, and the person was arrested for having stolen the stereo. The problem, of course, is that weapons aren't stored under the bottom of a flat-bottomed stereo, and certainly the serial numbers weren't a reasonable part of the search for weapons. But having drugs out in the middle of the room in 'plain view' is clearly reasonable. Even from weev's own post, the drug evidence passes the Horton test.

cschep 16y ago
If you don't know what a Horton test is, like I didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine
sp332 16y ago
His point is that the original warrant had no probable cause. So any evidence collected in its execution should be inadmissible.
- edanm 16y ago
  Is that really the case? If the police is executing an illegal warrant, but comes across someone, say, murdering someone else, is that not considered evidence? (This might very well be the case, considering the "Fruit of the Poisonous tree" doctrine).
  - Zak 16y ago
    It is, but there's a loophole: the prosecution can argue that the police inevitably would have discovered the evidence eventually. It's fairly easy to claim for something like a murder because hiding a body permanently tends to be fairly difficult, and arguing that the murderer would have successfully hidden the body is very close to an admission of guilt. Edit: if the police interrupt and prevent a murder, the testimony of the murder victim is also admissible. I don't think the argument "if the police hadn't illegally searched the area, the victim would be dead and unable to testify" works.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- boredguy8 16y ago
  The argument that there was no probable cause is very unlikely to hold up in practice. The law is very lenient to the issuance and execution of warrants. Warrants are favored in the law and utilization of them will not be thwarted by a hypertechnical reading of the supporting affidavit and supporting testimony. For the same reason, reviewing courts will accept evidence of a less "judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant." Courts will sustain the determination of probable cause so long as "there was substantial basis for [the magistrate] to conclude that" there was probable cause. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/..., citing United States v. Ventresca, Jones v. United States, and Aguilar v. Texas. If you're interested in some of the intricacies of 4th Ammendment jurisprudence, http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1994Fourth.pdf http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1994Fourth.pdf is a phenomenal article.
  - invisible 16y ago
    Shouldn't the person the warrant applies to be served and/or notified of the warrant and given a copy? I was under the impression that a warrant was a way to give police rights that they do not typically have according to civil rights. It's a civil contract that they will not exceed the rights they are given, so I'd assume he should be given a copy with an explanation of why his rights are being lessened temporarily.
thwarted 16y ago
if the police entered a house to search for evidence of felony tax evasion and stumbled upon a murder in progress, that wouldn't be admissible because the police weren't in the house searching for a murderer. But they couldn't cite the murder as admissible evidence of felony tax evasion, it would need to be separate charges, wouldn't it? Well, at least you were able to dodge the tax evasion charge by distraction/misdirection. Now, about this little murder thing...

cschep 16y ago

If you don't know what a Horton test is, like I didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine

sp332 16y ago

His point is that the original warrant had no probable cause. So any evidence collected in its execution should be inadmissible.

edanm 16y ago
Is that really the case? If the police is executing an illegal warrant, but comes across someone, say, murdering someone else, is that not considered evidence? (This might very well be the case, considering the "Fruit of the Poisonous tree" doctrine).
- Zak 16y ago
  It is, but there's a loophole: the prosecution can argue that the police inevitably would have discovered the evidence eventually. It's fairly easy to claim for something like a murder because hiding a body permanently tends to be fairly difficult, and arguing that the murderer would have successfully hidden the body is very close to an admission of guilt. Edit: if the police interrupt and prevent a murder, the testimony of the murder victim is also admissible. I don't think the argument "if the police hadn't illegally searched the area, the victim would be dead and unable to testify" works.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
boredguy8 16y ago
The argument that there was no probable cause is very unlikely to hold up in practice. The law is very lenient to the issuance and execution of warrants. Warrants are favored in the law and utilization of them will not be thwarted by a hypertechnical reading of the supporting affidavit and supporting testimony. For the same reason, reviewing courts will accept evidence of a less "judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant." Courts will sustain the determination of probable cause so long as "there was substantial basis for [the magistrate] to conclude that" there was probable cause. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/..., citing United States v. Ventresca, Jones v. United States, and Aguilar v. Texas. If you're interested in some of the intricacies of 4th Ammendment jurisprudence, http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1994Fourth.pdf http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1994Fourth.pdf is a phenomenal article.
- invisible 16y ago
  Shouldn't the person the warrant applies to be served and/or notified of the warrant and given a copy? I was under the impression that a warrant was a way to give police rights that they do not typically have according to civil rights. It's a civil contract that they will not exceed the rights they are given, so I'd assume he should be given a copy with an explanation of why his rights are being lessened temporarily.

thwarted 16y ago

if the police entered a house to search for evidence of felony tax evasion and stumbled upon a murder in progress, that wouldn't be admissible because the police weren't in the house searching for a murderer. But they couldn't cite the murder as admissible evidence of felony tax evasion, it would need to be separate charges, wouldn't it? Well, at least you were able to dodge the tax evasion charge by distraction/misdirection. Now, about this little murder thing...