4 ms·

> The police seem to have done what they could. We don’t want to live in a country where that would be enough evidence to invade and search his property without

by Kina 6y ago

> The police seem to have done what they could. We don’t want to live in a country where that would be enough evidence to invade and search his property without consent. We need accountability. We are entitled to it. We are entitled to asking law enforcement to demonstrate the actual need for the tools they are given and the latitude we allow them, not a landgrab during a moral panic. Currently, we seem to have none of that. Search warrants are not intended to be difficult to obtain, but there must be some reasonable basis for the search. A close associate of the person in question with information regarding illicit activity on the property in question is probably sufficient cause, but IANAL. It is likely the police treated this as a frivolous complaint. There have been cases that were clearly bunk that were followed up with excessive zeal because of questionable reasons and just as many valid ones have probably been ignored. > (incidentally, I believe this is the first time I have encountered the name “Throckmorton” in real life) Weakly related fact: Throckmorton St. is a major thoroughfare in Fort Worth, Texas named for James Webb Throckmorton and 100 Throckmorton St. was once headquarters for Tandy Corporation -- Radio Shack.

creato 6y ago
> Search warrants are not intended to be difficult to obtain, but there must be some reasonable basis for the search. A close associate of the person in question with information regarding illicit activity on the property in question is probably sufficient cause, but IANAL. You can't be serious. Think about this for 2 seconds. Tips to the police from "close associates" are probably the ones that are in most need of corroboration prior to a search, to ensure that police powers aren't being abused.
- Kina 6y ago
  > Tips to the police from "close associates" are probably the ones that are in most need of corroboration prior to a search, to ensure that police powers aren't being abused. It is clear neither of us are interested in search warrants being issued on glorified hearsay. Let me be more explicit that it is the responsibility of law enforcement to ascertain the trustworthiness of an unsubstantiated claim and to determine whether or not it is worth going forward or if they need to gather more evidence, or if the entire thing is just nonsense. No judge in their right mind should be approving search warrants on the basis of hearsay and the evidence gathered would almost certainly be ejected at trial as originating from an invalid search if the sole evidence presented for the warrant was, "This person who claimed that they were so-and-so's girlfriend said he was building bombs." See: Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964). In this specific situation, the woman's attorney reached out to law enforcement after being alarmed at statements she had made to him. Local law enforcement met with both the woman and the attorney at various times and both appear to have expressed strong concerns about what the terrorist was doing. At one point the woman appears to have explicitly stated that bombs were being made. The attorney is on the report as having stated that the terrorist, "knows what he is doing and is capable of making a bomb." This attorney seems to have extensive local connections and had also represented the terrorist in a previous civil matter. I think this is sufficient grounds for a search warrant, if the local authorities really wanted the warrant. This isn't a criminal trial nor a writ of assistance, we only need a preponderance of the evidence here and it could and should have been narrowly tailored to only target the RV. I think that local law enforcement thought this was a nothingburger. They did their basic due diligence -- they ran some background checks and they came up clean. They tried to establish contact with the terrorist on a voluntary basis and were rebuffed. They then basically seem to have dropped the matter. The attorney seems to imply as such: > He disputes that he told police they couldn't search the RV. > "I have no memory of that whatsoever," Throckmorton said of MNPD's claim that said they could not inspect the RV. "I didn’t represent him anymore. He wasn’t an active client. I'm not a criminal defense attorney." Either the authorities are lying or he is.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
trianglem 6y ago
Yeah I don’t want to live in the country you’re describing. It’s better to have the odd bomb go off than the police snooping around based on mere allegations.
- ric2b 6y ago
  Except they're already snooping around, but apparently for other reasons than to actually stop terrorist attacks.

by Kina 6y ago

creato 6y ago

> Search warrants are not intended to be difficult to obtain, but there must be some reasonable basis for the search. A close associate of the person in question with information regarding illicit activity on the property in question is probably sufficient cause, but IANAL. You can't be serious. Think about this for 2 seconds. Tips to the police from "close associates" are probably the ones that are in most need of corroboration prior to a search, to ensure that police powers aren't being abused.

Kina 6y ago
> Tips to the police from "close associates" are probably the ones that are in most need of corroboration prior to a search, to ensure that police powers aren't being abused. It is clear neither of us are interested in search warrants being issued on glorified hearsay. Let me be more explicit that it is the responsibility of law enforcement to ascertain the trustworthiness of an unsubstantiated claim and to determine whether or not it is worth going forward or if they need to gather more evidence, or if the entire thing is just nonsense. No judge in their right mind should be approving search warrants on the basis of hearsay and the evidence gathered would almost certainly be ejected at trial as originating from an invalid search if the sole evidence presented for the warrant was, "This person who claimed that they were so-and-so's girlfriend said he was building bombs." See: Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964). In this specific situation, the woman's attorney reached out to law enforcement after being alarmed at statements she had made to him. Local law enforcement met with both the woman and the attorney at various times and both appear to have expressed strong concerns about what the terrorist was doing. At one point the woman appears to have explicitly stated that bombs were being made. The attorney is on the report as having stated that the terrorist, "knows what he is doing and is capable of making a bomb." This attorney seems to have extensive local connections and had also represented the terrorist in a previous civil matter. I think this is sufficient grounds for a search warrant, if the local authorities really wanted the warrant. This isn't a criminal trial nor a writ of assistance, we only need a preponderance of the evidence here and it could and should have been narrowly tailored to only target the RV. I think that local law enforcement thought this was a nothingburger. They did their basic due diligence -- they ran some background checks and they came up clean. They tried to establish contact with the terrorist on a voluntary basis and were rebuffed. They then basically seem to have dropped the matter. The attorney seems to imply as such: > He disputes that he told police they couldn't search the RV. > "I have no memory of that whatsoever," Throckmorton said of MNPD's claim that said they could not inspect the RV. "I didn’t represent him anymore. He wasn’t an active client. I'm not a criminal defense attorney." Either the authorities are lying or he is.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

trianglem 6y ago

Yeah I don’t want to live in the country you’re describing. It’s better to have the odd bomb go off than the police snooping around based on mere allegations.

ric2b 6y ago
Except they're already snooping around, but apparently for other reasons than to actually stop terrorist attacks.