Search Warrents based on Perdiction of Future Crimes

[Maddox]

In Texas, Search Warrants Can Now Be Based on a "Prediction of a Future Crime"

LINK

[Artos]

biting tounge...thanks for the link amigo.

[El Coyote]

Where's Tom Cruise and pre-crime

[Lungbustr]

Ridiculous, unreasonable, unconstitutional search and seizure.

[PondPopper]

Now that's an over reach!!!!!

[BigFoot]

Yay! More infringements on our rights!

[Lungbustr]

Where's Tom Cruise and pre-crime

First thing I thought, Minority Report.

[BigWes]

That needs to get appealed all the way up the chain. There are lots of things in all of our houses that could be used to commit future crimes and if some nosey neighbor that you make mad calls the cops because they "think you are fixing to" do something illegal, we could all be in a heap of trouble if this goes unchecked. If the simple act of possession of any one of those items was a crime, then they had reason to search, but if not, that is a clear violation. This is way over the line.

[dragonsdaddy]

i am happy i won't have to deal with these meth heads and their clients in my ber.

[Shinesintx]

I agree with the OP...and the title made me furious that this could be true. I have an odd feeling that the cops already had run ins with these meth dealers.

[tvc184]

Like many articles, the title is misleading.

The guy was not convicted of a future crime. He was convicted of a crime that he had been committing and was in the process of committing when the police arrived. There was no "pre-crime" (one that has not yet happened) as claimed.

The only issue is whether the police reasonably entered without a warrant believing that evidence might be destroyed if delayed (which is legal) or whether they had the chance to get a warrant and there wasn't a reasonable belief that the evidence might be gone if they took time to get a warrant.

In this case they did get the warrant but entered to keep the evidence from disappearing and then went out to get a warrant, which again, is perfectly legal. A trial judge will later render a decision if the officers had a reasonable belief. In this case the highest TX criminal court (supreme court for criminal cases) agreed with the trial judge that under the circumstances the officers needed to enter and secure the scene.

The idea of a pre-crime is nothing but a spin for political purposes. If someone disagrees with the trial judge and the Court of Criminal appeals, great. That is open for debate but I think the debate should be on the real scenario and not the science fiction future crimes stuff.

[Maddox]

Your getting stuck on the meth head in the story and not thinking about the precedent the ruling makes.

[tvc184]

I could care less about the meth head.

I am looking at the law and the ruling, not the spin of "predicting crime".

A warrant or any probable cause is based on information that is known that is more likely than not (50+%) to show that a crime is being or has been committed. If a reliable informant says that they are "about to cook" some meth meaning that they have the items gathered to commit the crime, that is based on current information, not some speculation. In fact criminal conspiracy would be more of a future crimes issue as it means nothing more than planning a felony however it still takes an overt act. Merely discussing a crime is not conspiracy.

In this case, even reading the spin from the article, the cops got information that someone was about to cook some meth. To cook meth they had to have the product to distribute and in fact that is exactly what the cops found. There was no pre-crime. The guy was guilty when the cops walked in.

The only issue the court addressed is exigent circumstances in order to enter before a warrant was issued to secure the scene but not make a search. That can be a legal action based on current case law. It depends on the facts that are known in each independent case (totality of circumstances) and is made by a trial judge who is basically an umpire calling balls and strikes. In this case the judge was asked by the defense attorney to call a ball for not having exigent circumstances but the judge called a strike. The appeals court overruled the trial court and changed it to a ball. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals changed it back to a strike. The batter is out.

While we can agree or disagree with the call by the ump, it is still his call. The one dissenting judge makes the argument that it is a future crime as "fixing to" cook an illegal substance is tantamount to a future crime. Well judge, how are you going to cook it if you don't have the product? That is like saying that we have evidence that someone on TBH is about to cook chili in their house right now but that it is not a reasonable belief that there is any meat or spices in the house. Well how are you going to cook the chili with no meat or spices? I guess if you asked me to come over right now and drink some beers, this judge would say that I should have no belief that you actually have any beer.

I disagree with the judge on that statement as it only takes more than 50% belief for probable cause and if you ask me to come over to have some brewskies, I am going to say that the average person (what PC is based on) would believe that you actually have some beverages.

[ReDNeQ]

I still worry that something of the line; A disgruntled friend or neighbor calls the police and says "He has a gun, ammo, and I know he is going to kill us" would cause the same behavior? Have we become that society that proves guilt first, not your innocent?

It's just like that kid in Austin right now who dumbly enough said he was going to shoot up a school. Well he didnt, never planned on it, was just making a sarcastic comment. Was it wrong yes, but ****.....

[tvc184]

I still worry that something of the line; A disgruntled friend or neighbor calls the police and says "He has a gun, ammo, and I know he is going to kill us" would cause the same behavior? Have we become that society that proves guilt first, not your innocent?

It's just like that kid in Austin right now who dumbly enough said he was going to shoot up a school. Well he didnt, never planned on it, was just making a sarcastic comment. Was it wrong yes, but ****.....

We get those kinds of calls all the time. "I am afraid of _______ (fill in the blank)".

Having guns and/or ammo is not a crime so even if a person has a fear, it is no reason for a warrant. That is also if the fear is reasonable.

Warrants prove neither guilt or innocence. They are a lawful means to gather evidence, if any exists.