Gun-toting student protests house search - no search warrant - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Gun-toting student protests house search - no search warrant (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:21:55 AM EDT

[#1]

Just one more example of JBT's wiping their asses with the Constitution and due process.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:22:22 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
There was a recent case (IIRC) where a man's car was searched when an officer received (what later proved to be incorrect) information that the man was wanted.

Some records glitch resulted in the dispatcher reporting that a warrant was open, when it had actually been withdrawn.

The court ruled that because the responding officer searched in good faith, and the dispatcher's mistake was not malicious, the results of the search were allowed.

How does this case differ (or how off is my recollection)?

Both are troubling to me.

You are correct in the court case, it happened in AL.

This is different, they needed a warrant and did not get one.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:22:47 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
If they have you under arrest, aren't police allowed to search your residence without a need for a warrant?

Not usually - it's not like the abode will abscond with the evidence to a different state.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:24:14 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
They didn't seem to have any grounds for a warrant, other than that "seizure for self protection" law. I suspect that a legal battle might ensue if illegal items were found in a search pursuan to that law, as it does not require probable cause of an offense.

Armed without a CCW permit, making statements about wanting to harm and kill people, a receipt in his wallet for another firearm, good PC for a warrant.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:24:30 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they have you under arrest, aren't police allowed to search your residence without a need for a warrant?

Absolutely not.

Well maybe if they arrested you for kidnapping and has reason to believe the kidnapped party was locked in a box, with only 15 minutes of air left.

As with all things law - not usually, but there are some exceptions

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:26:24 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Just one more example of JBT's wiping their asses with the Constitution and due process.

I disagree, they consulted with the states attorneys office and were told to make entry.

It would however seem to me one of them would have wanted to obtain a warrant first.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:27:24 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Should have gotten a warrant. I'll bet also that, as soon as the charges are dropped etc., they refuse to return his firearms.

On what grounds, pray tell?

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:28:34 AM EDT

[#8]

Instead of suing the cities for idiot cops like these, I think they should just be personally bankrupted, lose their homes and jobs.

That way, everyone wins.

Terrible cops are off the street, the taxpayers don't foot the bill for these idiots, and the person who got fucked over gets paid.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:28:58 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Just one more example of JBT's wiping their asses with the Constitution and due process.

No, it's really not.

The officers were told to go ahead with their search by an "expert" from the New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office and did the search. I would guess that they were not doing anything "evil", but just were mistaken on whether they could legally search. Too bad they didn't call me, as I could have given them better advice.

But they made a mistake on the search and now the evidence will be thrown out and charges will be dropped.

The Constitution is still in tact, no one "wiped their asses" with it. It is still the law and it will be used to get this case straightened out.

Bad state laws are not the responsibility of the "JBTs". Those laws are the responsibility of the state legislators and, ultimately, of the voters that sent them to the Legislature.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:29:16 AM EDT

[#10]

New Hampshire has an assault weapons ban?

Sorry, saw NHPD and thought New Hampshire

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:30:52 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Police decided to visit Remington’s home because they were alarmed by his “angry and delusional rants,” Forte said. Police also found receipts for a sniper rifle in his wallet, she added. When police arrived at the house on Mechanic Street, a sergeant contacted Lawlor, who said that a warrantless search would be fine because of the “public safety concern,” according to Forte’s report.

There's so much WTF in that quote alone I don't know where to start.

So if he had a receipt for a batlleship, they'd look in the house too?

"public safety concern" is not an exigent circumstance I am aware of; add to that the fact he was already in the can, a non-lawyer giving advice, and you get a whole big pile of WTF

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:35:49 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Police decided to visit Remington’s home because they were alarmed by his “angry and delusional rants,” Forte said. Police also found receipts for a sniper rifle in his wallet, she added. When police arrived at the house on Mechanic Street, a sergeant contacted Lawlor, who said that a warrantless search would be fine because of the “public safety concern,” according to Forte’s report.

There's so much WTF in that quote alone I don't know where to start.

So if he had a receipt for a batlleship, they'd look in the house too?

"public safety concern" is not an exigent circumstance I am aware of; add to that the fact he was already in the can, a non-lawyer giving advice, and you get a whole big pile of WTF

No, because a battleship cannot fit in the house.

A warrant will only allow you to look for certain named items and these items must be in areas where they will fit.

For instance, a warrant could be issued for the police to search your home for a large screen TV that was stolen. If an officer finds some dope in a small box, 3 inches by 3 inches in size, that dope cannot be used as evidence, as a big screen TV will not fit in a 3 X 3 inch box. So, he could not have been looking for the named and described TV.

Case law about this has long been settled in Federal Courts.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:41:23 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Instead of suing the cities for idiot cops like these, I think they should just be personally bankrupted, lose their homes and jobs.

That way, everyone wins.

Terrible cops are off the street, the taxpayers don't foot the bill for these idiots, and the person who got fucked over gets paid.

Actually it's cases like this which will keep QI firmly in place.

They went by the states attorneys advice.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:41:39 AM EDT

[#14]

Ahh.."public safety concern". Well that's just........fine.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:44:16 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Should have gotten a warrant. I'll bet also that, as soon as the charges are dropped etc., they refuse to return his firearms.

On what grounds, pray tell?

On the grounds that the man often doesn't like to give guns back to people after they've taken them
In some cases you may get your guns back, but you'll spend years fighting them and deplete your life's savings to do so.

Don't pretend for a moment that all police departments in this country are upfront, honest, ethical, and pro-2nd Amendment.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:44:58 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they have you under arrest, aren't police allowed to search your residence without a need for a warrant?

Only if the arrest is in the house, and then it is only the area in "lunge" distance, however if he is secured they should "freeze" the area and go get a warrant. He was arrested at another location, this is a illegal warrant less search. There is no excuse for this warrant less search. He was not a danger if he is under arrest and secured. They had all the time in the world. Charges based off the search should be dropped by any DA/CA with half a brain and intregity. They may have had more than enough PC for a warrant but screwed it by taking a short cut. I have seen what would have been good cases destroyed by LEO taking short cuts. Taking advice from a non atny is a big FAIL.

From the article:

Without a warrant, NHPD officers searched the apartment of Robert Remington on Sunday night after arresting him at Dolci Piano Lounge at 932 State St earlier that night.

He was not in the house when arrested.

Get a warrant, or no search.

THATS WHAT I SAID> I was answering a general question. They did not have a warrant. They needed a warrant.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:46:17 AM EDT

[#17]

bad search= inadmissible evidence = no case. if they proceed, he will win and have double jeopardy protection for his AWs.

I'd like to see a prosecutor attach themselves to this disaster of legal justice

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:51:47 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should have gotten a warrant. I'll bet also that, as soon as the charges are dropped etc., they refuse to return his firearms.

On what grounds, pray tell?

On the grounds that the man often doesn't like to give guns back to people after they've taken them

In some cases you may get your guns back, but you'll spend years fighting them and deplete your life's savings to do so.

Don't pretend for a moment that all police departments in this country are upfront, honest, ethical, and pro-2nd Amendment.

If the weapons are contraband even though it's a bad search he won't get them back.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:56:44 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

THATS WHAT I SAID> I was answering a general question. They did not have a warrant. They needed a warrant.

I know. I was just re-emphasizing what you said.

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:58:14 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
found the receipt for a "sniper rifle" in his wallet??

I guess that is probable cause now

This whole situation stinks of rights violations!

Posted: 9/17/2009 8:58:22 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
found the receipt for a "sniper rifle" in his wallet??

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9655/receet.jpg

Posted: 9/17/2009 9:00:56 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Instead of suing the cities for idiot cops like these, I think they should just be personally bankrupted, lose their homes and jobs.

That way, everyone wins.

Terrible cops are off the street, the taxpayers don't foot the bill for these idiots, and the person who got fucked over gets paid.

Actually it's cases like this which will keep QI firmly in place.

They went by the states attorneys advice.

Cops did the right thing and were lead astray by the attorney's office (even though they should have known enough to question that). The person offering the bad legal advise should be the one held accountable.

Posted: 9/17/2009 9:03:35 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
found the receipt for a "sniper rifle" in his wallet??

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9655/receet.jpg

Right click. Save as.

Posted: 9/17/2009 9:06:03 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

THATS WHAT I SAID> I was answering a general question. They did not have a warrant. They needed a warrant.

I know. I was just re-emphasizing what you said.

Sorry, just cranky, posting from hospital. Wife just gave birth to twin girls last niight. Rough couple of weeks. Last two weeks I was involved in 3 death investigations(as a training officer with a new officer i answer up for all "hot/death/shooting/strange/ect.." calls) one involved two month old child.(last week) now I sit in the hospital holding my little ones. Im taking off the next month to help m wife and be with the kids....sorry for the hijack.

Posted: 9/17/2009 9:09:09 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There was a recent case (IIRC) where a man's car was searched when an officer received (what later proved to be incorrect) information that the man was wanted.

Some records glitch resulted in the dispatcher reporting that a warrant was open, when it had actually been withdrawn.

The court ruled that because the responding officer searched in good faith, and the dispatcher's mistake was not malicious, the results of the search were allowed.

How does this case differ (or how off is my recollection)?

Both are troubling to me.

You are correct in the court case, it happened in AL.

This is different, they needed a warrant and did not get one.

What I was wondering was... since in both cases the officers searched in good faith (which later proved erroneous), why would the fruits of the search be treated differently?

Case 1, no warrant sought because the RO was advised by dispatch of an outstanding warrant (that had been rescinded)
Case 2, no warrant sought under the advisement of the state's attorney's office

Was it the fact that case 1 was search incident to a (false) arrest and case 2 was a search (warrant-less) incident to a valid arrest - and/or some mix of state law?

Since reading about the 1st case I've been wondering where else that judicial test might apply.

Posted: 9/17/2009 9:28:11 AM EDT

[#26]

The issue is two fold for this guy. First he's in a bar apparently drunk, with a handgun, without a permit, displays handgun to others, making possible violent threats. He gets arrested. So far nothing out of the ordinary there. The second issue is the search of his house. According to Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others the police are supposed to obtain a warrant before seizing the firearms. Details of this law at the end of this post.

He most likely will loose his firearms (either handguns, and possibly long guns) if he is convicted and that conviction is listed as a Firearms Prohibitors list as detailed in section 1 and 2 of this link, or as detailed in section 3 of the preceding link that indicates if one has been ".. discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect; or has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities (as defined in section 17a-495) within the preceding twelve months by order of a probate court; or is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 18 of public act 99-129 after notice and an opportunity to be heard have been provided to such person..."

Here's the actual wording of the CT seizure law. It doesn't appear to give the police the legal ability to enter and seize firearms without a warrant.

Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others. (a) Upon complaint on oath by any state's attorney or assistant state's attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state's attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer's custody any and all firearms. Such state's attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state's attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

(b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms. A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.

(c) The applicant for the warrant shall file a copy of the application for the warrant and all affidavits upon which the warrant is based with the clerk of the court for the geographical area within which the search will be conducted no later than the next business day following the execution of the warrant. Prior to the execution and return of the warrant, the clerk of the court shall not disclose any information pertaining to the application for the warrant or any affidavits upon which the warrant is based. The warrant shall be executed and returned with reasonable promptness consistent with due process of law and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of all firearms seized.

(d) Not later than fourteen days after the execution of a warrant under this section, the court for the geographical area where the person named in the warrant resides shall hold a hearing to determine whether the seized firearms should be returned to the person named in the warrant or should continue to be held by the state. At such hearing the state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If, after such hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it may order that the firearm or firearms seized pursuant to the warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section continue to be held by the state for a period not to exceed one year, otherwise the court shall order the seized firearm or firearms to be returned to the person named in the warrant. If the court finds that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it shall give notice to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services which may take such action pursuant to chapter 319i as it deems appropriate.

(e) Any person whose firearm or firearms have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or such person's legal representative, may transfer such firearm or firearms in accordance with the provisions of section 29-33 or other applicable state or federal law, to any person eligible to possess such firearm or firearms. Upon notification in writing by such person, or such person's legal representative, and the transferee, the head of the state agency holding such seized firearm or firearms shall within ten days deliver such firearm or firearms to the transferee.

Posted: 9/17/2009 9:42:53 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There was a recent case (IIRC) where a man's car was searched when an officer received (what later proved to be incorrect) information that the man was wanted.

Some records glitch resulted in the dispatcher reporting that a warrant was open, when it had actually been withdrawn.

The court ruled that because the responding officer searched in good faith, and the dispatcher's mistake was not malicious, the results of the search were allowed.

How does this case differ (or how off is my recollection)?

Both are troubling to me.

You are correct in the court case, it happened in AL.

This is different, they needed a warrant and did not get one.

What I was wondering was... since in both cases the officers searched in good faith (which later proved erroneous), why would the fruits of the search be treated differently?

Case 1, no warrant sought because the RO was advised by dispatch of an outstanding warrant (that had been rescinded)
Case 2, no warrant sought under the advisement of the state's attorney's office

Was it the fact that case 1 was search incident to a (false) arrest and case 2 was a search (warrant-less) incident to a valid arrest - and/or some mix of state law?

Since reading about the 1st case I've been wondering where else that judicial test might apply.

Case 1, Good Faith Exception

Case 2, No hurry to conduct a search since the person was arrested, they could wait and get a warrant. He was not a threat to the public since he was locked up.

Posted: 9/17/2009 9:47:22 AM EDT

[#28]

All sorts of stupidity in this one.

Cops entering and searching a house without a warrant - they should have learned that this is against the law in their first class to be a LEO.

However,

A drunken idiot yelling about he loves violence and wants to kill people doesn't help our cause very much either. Thanks for giving gun owners such a positive image.

Fail.

Posted: 9/17/2009 9:49:51 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There was a recent case (IIRC) where a man's car was searched when an officer received (what later proved to be incorrect) information that the man was wanted.

Some records glitch resulted in the dispatcher reporting that a warrant was open, when it had actually been withdrawn.

The court ruled that because the responding officer searched in good faith, and the dispatcher's mistake was not malicious, the results of the search were allowed.

How does this case differ (or how off is my recollection)?

Both are troubling to me.

You are correct in the court case, it happened in AL.

This is different, they needed a warrant and did not get one.

What I was wondering was... since in both cases the officers searched in good faith (which later proved erroneous), why would the fruits of the search be treated differently?

Case 1, no warrant sought because the RO was advised by dispatch of an outstanding warrant (that had been rescinded)
Case 2, no warrant sought under the advisement of the state's attorney's office

Was it the fact that case 1 was search incident to a (false) arrest and case 2 was a search (warrant-less) incident to a valid arrest - and/or some mix of state law?

Since reading about the 1st case I've been wondering where else that judicial test might apply.

Case 1, Good Faith Exception

Case 2, No hurry to conduct a search since the person was arrested, they could wait and get a warrant. He was not a threat to the public since he was locked up.

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Posted: 9/17/2009 9:51:28 AM EDT

[#30]

"a public safety concern" does not make exigent circumstances

The popo screwed this one up

Posted: 9/17/2009 4:53:53 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Cops screwed the pooch. It would have taken a matter of minutes to get a search warrant.

Who hacked Bama-Shooter's account and crossed the thin blue line?

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:06:13 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There was a recent case (IIRC) where a man's car was searched when an officer received (what later proved to be incorrect) information that the man was wanted.

Some records glitch resulted in the dispatcher reporting that a warrant was open, when it had actually been withdrawn.

The court ruled that because the responding officer searched in good faith, and the dispatcher's mistake was not malicious, the results of the search were allowed.

How does this case differ (or how off is my recollection)?

Both are troubling to me.

You are correct in the court case, it happened in AL.

This is different, they needed a warrant and did not get one.

What I was wondering was... since in both cases the officers searched in good faith (which later proved erroneous), why would the fruits of the search be treated differently?

Case 1, no warrant sought because the RO was advised by dispatch of an outstanding warrant (that had been rescinded)
Case 2, no warrant sought under the advisement of the state's attorney's office

Was it the fact that case 1 was search incident to a (false) arrest and case 2 was a search (warrant-less) incident to a valid arrest - and/or some mix of state law?

Since reading about the 1st case I've been wondering where else that judicial test might apply.

Case 1, Good Faith Exception

Case 2, No hurry to conduct a search since the person was arrested, they could wait and get a warrant. He was not a threat to the public since he was locked up.

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm still confused. In both cases the officers were told by somebody that a reasonable person would assume had better information that a search could proceed. The only thing that I see is that anybody that has watch Law & Order knows that they couldn't but I still see the good faith as a possibility.

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:17:45 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There was a recent case (IIRC) where a man's car was searched when an officer received (what later proved to be incorrect) information that the man was wanted.

Some records glitch resulted in the dispatcher reporting that a warrant was open, when it had actually been withdrawn.

The court ruled that because the responding officer searched in good faith, and the dispatcher's mistake was not malicious, the results of the search were allowed.

How does this case differ (or how off is my recollection)?

Both are troubling to me.

You are correct in the court case, it happened in AL.

This is different, they needed a warrant and did not get one.

What I was wondering was... since in both cases the officers searched in good faith (which later proved erroneous), why would the fruits of the search be treated differently?

Case 1, no warrant sought because the RO was advised by dispatch of an outstanding warrant (that had been rescinded)
Case 2, no warrant sought under the advisement of the state's attorney's office

Was it the fact that case 1 was search incident to a (false) arrest and case 2 was a search (warrant-less) incident to a valid arrest - and/or some mix of state law?

Since reading about the 1st case I've been wondering where else that judicial test might apply.

Case 1, Good Faith Exception

Case 2, No hurry to conduct a search since the person was arrested, they could wait and get a warrant. He was not a threat to the public since he was locked up.

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm still confused. In both cases the officers were told by somebody that a reasonable person would assume had better information that a search could proceed. The only thing that I see is that anybody that has watch Law & Order knows that they couldn't but I still see the good faith as a possibility.

Case 1: I'm told via the radio an active warrant is out for this person. I stop him, make arrest, find dope. whoops no warrant.

Case2: Trained LEO who knows, despite the attorneys office telling them different, he needs a warrant. This is 101, guy is locked up, he is not going to get the weapons and kill everyone at the mall. Get a warrant.

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:20:00 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

found the receipt for a "sniper rifle" in his wallet??

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9655/receet.jpg

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:22:25 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm still confused. In both cases the officers were told by somebody that a reasonable person would assume had better information that a search could proceed. The only thing that I see is that anybody that has watch Law & Order knows that they couldn't but I still see the good faith as a possibility.

Case 1: I'm told via the radio an active warrant is out for this person. I stop him, make arrest, find dope. whoops no warrant.

Case2: Trained LEO who knows, despite the attorneys office telling them different, he needs a warrant. This is 101, guy is locked up, he is not going to get the weapons and kill everyone at the mall. Get a warrant.

OK, so the expected intelligence of the officer should over-rule that.

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:22:57 PM EDT

[#36]

That state is just like Cali and NY, bunch of left wing libtard homos.

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:23:26 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they have you under arrest, aren't police allowed to search your residence without a need for a warrant?

Only if they arrest you in your house. And even then they can't turn the place inside out. "Reachable area" type search.

Yep

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:25:59 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm still confused. In both cases the officers were told by somebody that a reasonable person would assume had better information that a search could proceed. The only thing that I see is that anybody that has watch Law & Order knows that they couldn't but I still see the good faith as a possibility.

Case 1: I'm told via the radio an active warrant is out for this person. I stop him, make arrest, find dope. whoops no warrant.

Case2: Trained LEO who knows, despite the attorneys office telling them different, he needs a warrant. This is 101, guy is locked up, he is not going to get the weapons and kill everyone at the mall. Get a warrant.

OK, so the expected intelligence of the officer should over-rule that.

Over rule what?

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:27:53 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Just one more example of JBT's wiping their asses with the Constitution and due process.

The JBT's sought advice from the State AG office........

Brian

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:32:17 PM EDT

[#40]

"Savior"? How is one a "Savior" of death?

Posted: 9/17/2009 5:33:24 PM EDT

[#41]

Cops should have known better than to enter w/o a warrant despite what the guy at the AG's office said - as folks have said, there is no exigency and I don't think it would be hard to justify a search warrant in this case.

OTOH, anybody willing to bet that the items found during the search aren't suppresed? The cops would have been able to get a warrant to search the guys apartment and ultimately they would have found the weapons. It will be interesting to hear both sides of the suppression hearing.

Brian

Posted: 9/17/2009 6:59:35 PM EDT

[#42]

Was the guy arrested or EP'd?

Posted: 9/17/2009 7:22:53 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
"Savior"? How is one a "Savior" of death?

I was wondering that myself.

Posted: 9/17/2009 7:28:19 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Bad job on the search by the police. I can't believe they get advice from this guy:

Williams added that the state’s attorney’s office adviser, inspector Robert Lawlor, did not have a law degree.

And I hate it when our rights ride on a case where the arrested guy is obviously a nut case. I know he "still has rights", but a "poisoned" case like this can do us harm.

I agree with you OP, but my experience is that the most agregious rights cases do involve folks I wouldn't necessarily associate with - but defending the right is more important than my personal feelings about the people involved. My $.02

Posted: 9/17/2009 7:36:04 PM EDT

[#45]

If you think you have a real nut job like this, don't screw it up by failing to get a search warrant, from the sound of it they wouldn't have had any problem getting a judge to sign it. They screwed it up, and now they have to live with that "fruit of the poisoned tree"* stuff.
*If you don't know what that mean, basically it means anything they found can't be used as evidence, nor anything that could be traced back to the illegal search. That kind of thing really screws up cases.