User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 12:37:18 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/520/073/eb9.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 2:22:23 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 8:21:07 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The decision clearly indicates the evidence obtained w/o warrant would be admitted. This is exactly the kind of conduct every court should be condemning. If the SC ever gets this case via cert, it should be reversed with prejudice. It represents epic bias towards an outcome favorable to the accuser. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 11:00:42 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Technically, this ruling is correct so long as nothing discovered during the unlawful entry was used to procure the warrant. One of the key issues is that the main cop at the trial said, under cross examination, that they weren't even going to apply for a warrant unless they found drugs. At a different time he said they would have applied for the warrant either way. The original court decided to go with the one where he said they would have, and this court stated they couldn't second guess the original court's decision on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 11:02:34 AM EDT
[#5]
Yeah that isn’t how this works that’s not how any of this works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 11:14:30 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was going to pay for a tax stamp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 11:21:25 AM EDT
[#7]
A warrant is a finding of probable cause. Nothing more.
In order to conduct a search, you don't need a warrant, you need probable cause. This opinion is stating that the PC existed independently of the warrant, so there is no need to suppress any of the evidence. It does look bizarre though that they went back afterwards and obtained one. People don't think search & seizure be like it is but it do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 11:30:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A warrant is a finding of probable cause. Nothing more. In order to conduct a search, you don't need a warrant, you need probable cause. This opinion is stating that the PC existed independently of the warrant, so there is no need to suppress any of the evidence. It does look bizarre though that they went back afterwards and obtained one. People don't think search & seizure be like it is but it do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 11:34:59 AM EDT
[#9]
Thats fucked up.
Judge: “So what do you want a search warrant for?” Police: “Well all of the stuff we found, DUH!!!” |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 11:37:12 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thats fucked up. Judge: “So what do you want a search warrant for?” Police: “Well all of the stuff we found, DUH!!!” |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 12:53:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With all the "metadata" they collect using the internet and cell phones I am fairly certain they can retroactively come up with probable cause for anyone at any time they might want to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 3:14:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not whether it was admitted. It clearly was. My point is that if there was probable cause for the warrant prior to their unlawful entry, then the search stands. I'm not advocating for law enforcement malfeasance, but, according to the article, there was overwhelming evidence for the warrant prior to the unlawful entry. Therefore, the unlawful entry and admissibility of the evidence are two separate issues. That's why the evidence should be allowed and the officers should be criminally charged with trespassing for forcibly entering his property without consent. The DEA should also be writing the suspect a very large check. No excuses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 5:58:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then get a warrant. There is no exigence argument presented here. They cheated, & were given a pass instead of being excoriated. No excuses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not whether it was admitted. It clearly was. My point is that if there was probable cause for the warrant prior to their unlawful entry, then the search stands. I'm not advocating for law enforcement malfeasance, but, according to the article, there was overwhelming evidence for the warrant prior to the unlawful entry. Therefore, the unlawful entry and admissibility of the evidence are two separate issues. That's why the evidence should be allowed and the officers should be criminally charged with trespassing for forcibly entering his property without consent. The DEA should also be writing the suspect a very large check. No excuses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 8:39:53 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then get a warrant. There is no exigence argument presented here. They cheated, & were given a pass instead of being excoriated. No excuses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2019 8:49:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:[/ 
I don't disagree; however, provided that there was sufficient evidence for the warrant absent what was found during the illegal search, the evidence standing is correct. Like I've said though, the agents involved should be disciplined at a minimum and preferably charged. What I have done on numerous occasions is to "freeze the scene" by getting everyone out of the house and securing it while I get my warrant without risk of evidence destruction. Quote HistoryQuoted:[/
[b]Quoted: Then get a warrant. There is no exigence argument presented here. They cheated, & were given a pass instead of being excoriated. No excuses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2019 5:42:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's fucking insane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2019 5:45:00 PM EDT
[#17]
So the police wanted to follow correct procedure.
Oh, that makes it fine. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2019 5:47:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't have drugs Or throw out your used tea leaves. Or have kitty litter in your car. Or Tide. Or cotton candy. Or donut glaze. I'm sure there's others I have forgotten. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2019 5:55:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Just remember, Top Men
|
|
|
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.
