User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 11:28:54 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 11:31:46 AM EDT
[#2]
Read the case. Alot of the court’s justification was REALLY stretching SCOTUS rulings
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 11:31:58 AM EDT
[#3]
Wow.
That shit should be excluded. They were planning on apply for a warrant but did the raid prior to getting it? If none of the already numerous exemptions to the 4th Amendment applied there is no way the fruit of that search should be admissible. Interestingly enough, in the book I'm reading, there was a discussion about the line of cases during the Warren Court (Gideon, Miranda, Terry) and how a number of conservatives hated those decisions and over time they're getting watered down, to the point where they eventually might become meaningless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 11:35:29 AM EDT
[#4]
Yeah that’s some fucked up shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 11:36:58 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I heard it was because the OP was drinking. https://i.imgur.com/o87jT2a.png PDF of court decision: https://tinylink.net/ibwnB Justia Opinion Summary "Arrested on drug conspiracy charges, Hardy led DEA agents to his drugs and guns and provided information that Hardy purchased methamphetamine from Huskisson six times over the preceding five months, for $8,000 per pound, at Huskisson’s house and at his car lot. Huskisson had stated that Huskisson’s source expected a shipment of methamphetamine the next day. Hardy called Huskisson. Agents recorded that conversation. Huskisson agreed to deliver 10-12 pounds of methamphetamine. The next day, the two agreed during additional recorded calls that the deal was to occur at Huskisson’s home that night. Agent Cline followed Hardy to Huskisson’s house; watched Hardy enter, with an entry team on standby; and saw a car pull into the driveway. Two men exited the car with a cooler and entered the house. Minutes later, Hardy walked outside and gave a prearranged signal to indicate he had seen methamphetamine in the house. No search warrant had yet been issued. The entry team entered the house and arrested Huskisson, who refused to consent to a search of his residence, and the other men. Officers saw in plain sight an open cooler with 10 saran-wrapped packages of a substance which field tested positive for methamphetamine. DEA agents then filed the warrant application, which stated: “The law enforcement officers observed an open cooler with ten saran wrapped packages that contained suspected methamphetamine. The suspected methamphetamine later field tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine.” The warrant issued four hours after the initial entry. The Seventh Circuit upheld denial of a motion to suppress. The entry was unlawful. Ordinarily, the evidence would be excluded but because the government had so much other evidence of probable cause, and had already planned to apply for a warrant, the evidence is admissible. Though the government should not profit from its bad behavior, neither should it be placed in a worse position." https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1335/18-1335-2019-06-05.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 11:39:53 AM EDT
[#6]
I would hope that the decision would be overturned on appeal. As I read the original post, it was a circuit judge that made the decision, so there should be a higher court that the case could be appealed to.
If the precedent that "we were going to apply for a warrant" becomes acceptable, it could be applied to things like "I was going to apply for a drivers license", "I was going to apply for a building permit", "I was going to pay for it", "I was going to turn those drugs in to the police", etc, etc. The precedent of "I was going to" would be devastating to all sorts of other cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 11:46:33 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 11:51:53 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would hope that the decision would be overturned on appeal. As I read the original post, it was a circuit judge that made the decision, so there should be a higher court that the case could be appealed to. If the precedent that "we were going to apply for a warrant" becomes acceptable, it could be applied to things like "I was going to apply for a drivers license", "I was going to apply for a building permit", "I was going to pay for it", "I was going to turn those drugs in to the police", etc, etc. The precedent of "I was going to" would be devastating to all sorts of other cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 11:53:05 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would hope that the decision would be overturned on appeal. As I read the original post, it was a circuit judge that made the decision, so there should be a higher court that the case could be appealed to. If the precedent that "we were going to apply for a warrant" becomes acceptable, it could be applied to things like "I was going to apply for a drivers license", "I was going to apply for a building permit", "I was going to pay for it", "I was going to turn those drugs in to the police", etc, etc. The precedent of "I was going to" would be devastating to all sorts of other cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:09:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm betting the phrase "inevitable discovery" is in that decision somewhere. They had more than enough to get a warrant prior to going in. Nothing from the search changed that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:12:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two hours if you take the time to warm up the ol' IBM Selectric typewriter. eWarrants or telephone calls can handle that process within minutes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree. Depending on how fast the detective can type and how good their go-by is (and if the judge is awake) it should've taken about two hours from start to finish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:13:00 PM EDT
[#12]
I quit reading after "On this point, Detective Kinney gave conflicting testimony..."
...and will never be prosecuted for perjury. Quoted: If they had probable cause why not get a warrant? The full story is the police acted illegally and are rewarded for it. This is where police should be sent to jail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:24:59 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Arrested on drug conspiracy charges, Hardy led DEA agents to his drugs and guns and provided information that Hardy purchased methamphetamine from Huskisson six times over the preceding five months, for $8,000 per pound, at Huskisson’s house and at his car lot. Huskisson had stated that Huskisson’s source expected a shipment of methamphetamine the next day. Hardy called Huskisson. Agents recorded that conversation. Huskisson agreed to deliver 10-12 pounds of methamphetamine. The next day, the two agreed during additional recorded calls that the deal was to occur at Huskisson’s home that night. Agent Cline followed Hardy to Huskisson’s house; watched Hardy enter, with an entry team on standby; and saw a car pull into the driveway. Two men exited the car with a cooler and entered the house. Minutes later, Hardy walked outside and gave a prearranged signal to indicate he had seen methamphetamine in the house. No search warrant had yet been issued. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1335/18-1335-2019-06-05.html The CI went in, saw drugs, didn't buy them, but everybody saw guys going in with an empty cooler to fill it with the drugs, so they made an exigent circumstances raid to seize the drugs before they were removed from the building? Why doesn't this fall under existing exemptions to the warrant requirement? Would it have been exempt if they had actually given the money to the CI to complete the deal and he walked out with drugs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:28:00 PM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:28:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if they did an undercover buy in his front yard and when the deal was made and they tried to arrest him he then got away and ran back in his house and locked the door? Would your opinion change if they chased him in the house and happened to see a pile of meth on his table while arresting him? I could be way off base but I hope I’m not because if so, this is pretty bad. And I haven’t read the fine print so who knows. I’m just saying I think there’s more to the story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well what’s the fucking point of having laws then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:34:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, they set up a controlled buy with their newly minted CI. The CI went in, saw drugs, didn't buy them, but everybody saw guys going in with an empty cooler to fill it with the drugs, so they made an exigent circumstances raid to seize the drugs before they were removed from the building? Why doesn't this fall under existing exemptions to the warrant requirement? Would it have been exempt if they had actually given the money to the CI to complete the deal and he walked out with drugs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Arrested on drug conspiracy charges, Hardy led DEA agents to his drugs and guns and provided information that Hardy purchased methamphetamine from Huskisson six times over the preceding five months, for $8,000 per pound, at Huskisson's house and at his car lot. Huskisson had stated that Huskisson's source expected a shipment of methamphetamine the next day. Hardy called Huskisson. Agents recorded that conversation. Huskisson agreed to deliver 10-12 pounds of methamphetamine. The next day, the two agreed during additional recorded calls that the deal was to occur at Huskisson's home that night. Agent Cline followed Hardy to Huskisson's house; watched Hardy enter, with an entry team on standby; and saw a car pull into the driveway. Two men exited the car with a cooler and entered the house. Minutes later, Hardy walked outside and gave a prearranged signal to indicate he had seen methamphetamine in the house. No search warrant had yet been issued. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1335/18-1335-2019-06-05.html The CI went in, saw drugs, didn't buy them, but everybody saw guys going in with an empty cooler to fill it with the drugs, so they made an exigent circumstances raid to seize the drugs before they were removed from the building? Why doesn't this fall under existing exemptions to the warrant requirement? Would it have been exempt if they had actually given the money to the CI to complete the deal and he walked out with drugs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:47:33 PM EDT
[#17]
First, for the love of this country, second, as a retired Police Detective, I'm praying this gets overturned, that this decision, this wrong, gets righted.
And I pray the/those judges get tossed as well, the sooner the better. We are doomed otherwise if this becomes standard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:56:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Funny how the men we task with upholding the rule of law are constantly tearing it down themselves. Why do we as a society constantly have to restrain our police forces through the courts, when the very role we delegate to them is to maintain the rule of law? Frankly the criminal behavior of the police is far more dangerous to the rule of law and our freedoms than the criminals they arrest, except for certain criminals in government who also use their power to undermine the rule of law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 12:59:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Funny how the men we task with upholding the rule of law are constantly tearing it down themselves. Why do we as a society constantly have to restrain our police forces through the courts, when the very role we delegate to them is to maintain the rule of law? Frankly the criminal behavior of the police is far more dangerous to the rule of law and our freedoms than the criminals they arrest, except for certain criminals in government who also use their power to undermine the rule of law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 1:29:47 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 2:20:34 PM EDT
[#21]
This is nothing new, and has been going on for decades. From the decision:
Relevant here is the independent source doctrine, which holds that illegally obtained evidence is admissible if the government also obtains that evidence via an independent legal source, like a warrant. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988) (allowing the admission of evidence found in plain sight during an illegal entry that was later ob-tained legally); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 814 (1984) (allowing the admission of evidence found in a home that was first entered illegally, but later entered based on a search war-rant “wholly unconnected” to the initial, illegal entry). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 2:22:49 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’d need more info before developing an opinion |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 2:24:44 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a big nope for me dog. You either obey the law or don't. When you don't you don't get to profit from breaking the law. Judge is wrong and needs to be hung. He's the absolute worst kind of government functionary, one that will fuck you so the government wins, even when it's wrong. That judge is shitting on all of us. I hope he gets cancer and it hurts a lot till he dies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 2:26:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is nothing new, and has been going on for decades. From the decision: Relevant here is the independent source doctrine, which holds that illegally obtained evidence is admissible if the government also obtains that evidence via an independent legal source, like a warrant. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988) (allowing the admission of evidence found in plain sight during an illegal entry that was later ob-tained legally); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 814 (1984) (allowing the admission of evidence found in a home that was first entered illegally, but later entered based on a search war-rant “wholly unconnected” to the initial, illegal entry). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 2:27:37 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are either a land of laws or we are not. Which is it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 2:29:33 PM EDT
[#26]
Getting ready to start no knock gun owners hoping to round up all those deadly bump stocks that are now illegal
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 2:32:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://i.imgur.com/nerhTwY.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 2:33:29 PM EDT
[#28]
They did not mean to violate your rights so it is ok. Just like HRC and her ilk did not mean to undermine the law of this nation about protecting and maintaining classified information, they were just unsophisticated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 2:34:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
National security? If not, very disturbing...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 4:00:23 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is nothing new, and has been going on for decades. From the decision: Relevant here is the independent source doctrine, which holds that illegally obtained evidence is admissible if the government also obtains that evidence via an independent legal source, like a warrant. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988) (allowing the admission of evidence found in plain sight during an illegal entry that was later ob-tained legally); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 814 (1984) (allowing the admission of evidence found in a home that was first entered illegally, but later entered based on a search war-rant “wholly unconnected” to the initial, illegal entry). 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 4:05:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Th War on
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 4:13:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For what it's worth, two of the three judges that made this unanimous ruling were Trump appointees. Many, if not most, putative conservatives are 100% fine with this way of doing things (force entry, get warrant later) because drugs, and because gotta trust the police. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 4:22:56 PM EDT
[#33]
the judge, le, and anyone involved should lose their jobs over this
bs!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 4:25:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is nothing new, and has been going on for decades. From the decision: Relevant here is the independent source doctrine, which holds that illegally obtained evidence is admissible if the government also obtains that evidence via an independent legal source, like a warrant. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988) (allowing the admission of evidence found in plain sight during an illegal entry that was later ob-tained legally); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 814 (1984) (allowing the admission of evidence found in a home that was first entered illegally, but later entered based on a search war-rant “wholly unconnected” to the initial, illegal entry). Yeah that’s perfectly fine, because a court said so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 4:29:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that is the only question that matters. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We are either a land of laws or we are not. Which is it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 4:34:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That’s bullshit |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 4:45:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the most retarded thing I've read in this thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm betting the phrase "inevitable discovery" is in that decision somewhere. They had more than enough to get a warrant prior to going in. Nothing from the search changed that.
That's the most retarded thing I've read in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 4:48:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The case name is USA v. Paul Huskisson The decision was based on Supreme Court precedence and the independent source doctrine. Which is a type of inevitable discovery 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 5:05:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You didn't know? This is the New 4th Amendment: It's a better practice that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Void if I don't think I can hit the "I believe" button that the DEA ever did actually intend to apply for that warrant. Until they were called out on the lack of one of course. This one should go back to the trial court, with the evidence illegally obtained evidence excluded. If the gov wins again without it on the strength of the alleged PC, then fine, but it needs to be put back in front of a fresh jury, not a thought exercise for a couple judges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 5:08:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holy shit that’s some juicy fruit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 5:18:27 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://i.imgur.com/6czn5Cn.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 5:20:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Wow..........................
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 5:21:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Th War on |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 5:26:11 PM EDT
[#44]
The defending attorney could turn this whole thing on its head by arguing that "my clients actions involving the manufacture of drugs were illegal but admissible your honor, per the precedent set forth by the DEA and the judge who issued the eventual warrant".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 5:26:49 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't. No warrant at the time of raid. That's all that matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 5:32:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Is there going to be an appeal to scotus?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 5:43:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, you are just like the DEA! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Laws no longer matter. We're in a post-Constutional period now. We're essentially at the point where Wiley-E-Coyote has run off the cliff, is hanging in mid-air, and is holding the "help" sign, right before he plummets into the abyss. Laws that violate the 2nd are willingly enforced daily. Judges and presidents and senators thinking they can ban shit willy-nilly... and not only does NOTHING happen to them, they fucking get re-elected. I know right from wrong. I also understand the Constitution and what the FF meant by it. I follow the laws i agree with, and ignore those i don't. Im about to commit multiple breaches of the law when i step off this morning, like i do every morning. Eat a dick: illegal laws, those that create said laws, those that enforce them, and those that abide by them. You're not American. Get the fuck out of my country. The concept of ruling by consent of the governed is a myth. Overwhelming violence is the only power that contemporary American govt has over the people, hence why it has been accelerating its concentration in that area. Because that's what banana republics do. Quoted:
Is this some kind of fucking joke!!??  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 6:03:23 PM EDT
[#48]
Honk Honk!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 8:17:52 PM EDT
[#49]
So armed thugs enter your home with no legal reason and later it's decided that's OK because they could have had a reason. Anyone who defends themselves.. which they rightfully should.. what do you think the outcome will be?
It'll be treated just like the validity of the evidence in this case. You'll be treated like you murdered innocent law enforcement conducting a legitimate action. They don't believe in an individuals right to protect themselves. You are expected to yield and submit to all home invaders just in case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 8:21:57 PM EDT
[#50]
Technically, this ruling is correct so long as nothing discovered during the unlawful entry was used to procure the warrant.
The other side of that is that the agents should all be charged criminally for Criminal Trespass and the suspect should sue the DEA. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File