4 ms·

So, if the officer _had_ gotten a warrant (which I assume would be more limited in scope than 'everyone'), and had come across similar information, it would be

So, if the officer _had_ gotten a warrant (which I assume would be more limited in scope than 'everyone'), and had come across similar information, it would be completely reasonable that he investigate it, right? I'm also curious if they caught the original perpetrator. Tampering with narcotics would be tough to pull off in our agency... To get access to the narcs you have to swipe a ProxCard and enter a pin to access a safe (logging a timestamp attached to your identify), which gets you to a locked metal box and a numbered seal (which is checked twice daily). Any tampering would be caught within ~12 hours, and would be easily traced back to the card and pin number of the person who accessed it.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
andrewpi 12y ago
The officer never would have had probable cause for a warrant for this individuals information though, since he didn't even work at the sites that had the missing/tampered drugs.
- JshWright 12y ago
  Sure, obviously the warrant would likely be far more limited in scope (i.e. only people that had access to the drugs at the time), but the same scenario is certainly still possible.
blackguardx 12y ago
I think in most states, when you obtain a warrant you can't collect evidence for an unrelated crime and use that for future prosecution.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I think in most states, when you obtain a warrant you can't collect evidence for an unrelated crime and use that for future prosecution. As I understand it, generally: If, in the course of executing a warrant, you find items that meet the description in the warrant but which provide evidence of a different crime than the one that motivated the warrant, you can seize them and use them for future prosecution. If, in the course of executing a warrant, you discover items that are not what is described in the warrant but which would provide evidence of another crime, you generally, IIRC, cannot seize them, but your discovery of them during the execution of the warrant can support an affidavit for a new warrant identifying them.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

andrewpi 12y ago

The officer never would have had probable cause for a warrant for this individuals information though, since he didn't even work at the sites that had the missing/tampered drugs.

JshWright 12y ago
Sure, obviously the warrant would likely be far more limited in scope (i.e. only people that had access to the drugs at the time), but the same scenario is certainly still possible.

blackguardx 12y ago

I think in most states, when you obtain a warrant you can't collect evidence for an unrelated crime and use that for future prosecution.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I think in most states, when you obtain a warrant you can't collect evidence for an unrelated crime and use that for future prosecution. As I understand it, generally: If, in the course of executing a warrant, you find items that meet the description in the warrant but which provide evidence of a different crime than the one that motivated the warrant, you can seize them and use them for future prosecution. If, in the course of executing a warrant, you discover items that are not what is described in the warrant but which would provide evidence of another crime, you generally, IIRC, cannot seize them, but your discovery of them during the execution of the warrant can support an affidavit for a new warrant identifying them.