Search Warrents based on Perdiction of Future Crimes

[tvc184]

In the case on this thread, the tip was about an illegal act in progress.

[Atfulldraw]

I knew you were going to say "exigent".....

I don't like it.

There is an interesting article on the concept and why it is wrong written by one of the Supremes.

lemme look around for it, it's a good read

[tvc184]

I knew you were going to say "exigent".....

I don't like it.

There is an interesting article on the concept and why it is wrong written by one of the Supremes.

lemme look around for it, it's a good read

I would rather emergency but the people that write the laws and rule in case laws like exigent for some reason.

I have some issues with the officer's actions in this case and think that maybe they just didn't want to go through the warrant process until they felt that there would be some results. I would be interested if these officers have done that before.

But..... the concept and case law on stopping evidence from being destroyed before a warrant is issued not something new or earth shattering. The article tries to make it look like this is a game changer or some ground breaking way to get warrants and that simply is not true. The further idea of future crime is ridiculous.

I think this may eventually end up like Belton v. NY where the police had routinely been able to search a vehicle incident to arrest no matter the criminal charge. If the police arrested a guy for not using a turn signal, his entire car could have been searched. After some police were stretching Belton, the SCOTUS threw out most of it in Gant v. Arizona (2009) which made it only available to search a car after arrest if the officer felt there was a reasonable belief that evidence of the arrest might be found in the car. So if you arrest a guy for a turn signal, there is nothing to search for in the car as nothing in the car can prove that case.

[Daniel75]

I would rather emergency but the people that write the laws and rule in case laws like exigent for some reason.

I have some issues with the officer's actions in this case and think that maybe they just didn't want to go through the warrant process until they felt that there would be some results. I would be interested if these officers have done that before.

But..... the concept and case law on stopping evidence from being destroyed before a warrant is issued not something new or earth shattering. The article tries to make it look like this is a game changer or some ground breaking way to get warrants and that simply is not true. The further idea of future crime is ridiculous.

I think this may eventually end up like Belton v. NY where the police had routinely been able to search a vehicle incident to arrest no matter the criminal charge. If the police arrested a guy for not using a turn signal, his entire car could have been searched. After some police were stretching Belton, the SCOTUS threw out most of it in Gant v. Arizona (2009) which made it only available to search a car after arrest if the officer felt there was a reasonable belief that evidence of the arrest might be found in the car. So if you arrest a guy for a turn signal, there is nothing to search for in the car as nothing in the car can prove that case.

Yep^^^ but you can inventory the vehicle and if you found something in the vehicle and didn't overstep what a normal inventory would be like, you can charge them with whatever you find, in most cases.

[mesquitecountry]

In the eyes of the right (meaning wrong) police officer. Normal folks like us gun guys and hunters could get labeled as a terrorist. Let's walk through a scenario.

It is July 15th, A police officer either gets a call or fakes a call that Jim is building bombs in his garage. And he's one of those conservative tea party terrorists and officer Scott is a liberal and despises him.

Well the police officer drives up and Jim is in his garage loading some bullets for his .270. The officer sees all the components and freaks out. Detains Jim, takes pictures of a keg of powder, some PVC pipe that jim had from fixing a broken pipe last week, and some nails, and a box of mortar sky burst fireworks Jim didn't get to pop a week ago.


Boom, intent to manufacture pipe bombs.

It's that simple, jim is now under arrest and labeled as a terrorist.


You say that's not possible? Well, i can explain it for you but can't make you understand.

[tvc184]

In the eyes of the right (meaning wrong) police officer. Normal folks like us gun guys and hunters could get labeled as a terrorist. Let's walk through a scenario.

It is July 15th, A police officer either gets a call or fakes a call that Jim is building bombs in his garage. And he's one of those conservative tea party terrorists and officer Scott is a liberal and despises him.

Well the police officer drives up and Jim is in his garage loading some bullets for his .270. The officer sees all the components and freaks out. Detains Jim, takes pictures of a keg of powder, some PVC pipe that jim had from fixing a broken pipe last week, and some nails, and a box of mortar sky burst fireworks Jim didn't get to pop a week ago.


Boom, intent to manufacture pipe bombs.

It's that simple, jim is now under arrest and labeled as a terrorist.


You say that's not possible? Well, i can explain it for you but can't make you understand.

Which has what to do with this claimed "future" crimes case?

I can make up a lot of scenarios where a police officer commits a crime himself as you suggest and fakes a call or makes up evidence. That is a crooked cop and does not invalidate the case before the TCCA.