Search Warrants

[MasterBrewer]

Im calling bullshit

I give two sh*ts what you think man.

Who would have thought a few yars ago that investigators would have gotton access to Hushmail ect, ect.

Everybody always thinks they have all these fing rights and the cops have to do this and that by the book. Truth is 99% percent of time it's their word as a duly swore officer against yours. If you want you can always post up a thread for Rick and ask him how many b*llsh*t search warrants he's seen.

 

[1500]

FACTS



On March 13,2003, a warrant was issued to search xxxxxx residence at 5119 N. Oakland in xxxxxxxx. xxxxxxx County Sheriff's Detective xxxxx prepared the supporting affidavit. As noted below, the affiant averred a reliable



No. xxxxxxx

State v. xxxx



confidential informant (C.I.) reported xxxx's methamphetamine manufacturing activity at his residence. However, the affidavit was unclear as to the CI's basis of knowledge. Thus, the facts focus on whether the other affidavit contents supply corroborating facts to satisfy the necessary basis of knowledge requirements.


The issue is whether, considering C.I. reliability is unchallenged, the trial court
erred in concluding the affidavit facts sufficiently corroborated the C.I.'s basis of
knowledge and supplied probable cause for search warrant issuance.

A search warrant affidavit must raise reasonable inferences that the defendant is
involved in criminal activity and that evidence of that activity will be found in the place
to be searched. State v. Cole, 128 Wn.2d 262, 287-88, 906 P.2d 925 (1995).

"Issuance of a search warrant is a matter of judicial discretion and is reviewed only for
abuse of that discretion." State v. Dobyns, 55 Wn. App. 609, 620, 779 P.2d 746 (1989)
(citing State v. Smith, 93 Wn.2d 329, 610 P.2d 869 (1980)). "The affidavit must be
accepted on its face and any doubts should be resolved in favor of the warrant." Id.
(citing State v. Fisher, 96 Wn.2d 962, 639 P.2d 743 (1982)).

Generally, when the probable cause affidavit is based on an informant's
hearsay, it must show informant reliability and the basis of the informant's knowledge. Aguilar-Spinelli.1 The Aguilar-Spinelli test is two-pronged, (1) credibility/reliability and (2) basis of knowledge. The credibility prong may be satisfied by an informant's track record, if any, or by showing the informant was acting against his penal interest. State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432, 437, 688 P.2d 136 (1984). The basis of knowledge prong may be satisfied if the informant has personally witnessed the facts asserted.

For the search warrant to be valid. the CI must be reliable, as stated above. Ususally through other information that has proven reliable and resulted in arrests in the past. This can also be proven by the informant giving many facts about Person A's activities which would be confirmed by LE. If the informant is not deemed reliable a search warrant should not be issued. That would be at the discretion of the magistrate or other judge depending on juridictional boundaries. But still faces the reality of being supressed during a suprression hearing if indeed the informant is deemed unreliable. Just because a warrant was issued and susupect was arrested, doesnt mean he/she will be found guilty.

If an officer has the balls to lie on a search warrant and claim that the informant is relaible through past dealings then a warrant could ve attained. But then the officer risks big big reprecussions if this is ever uncovered. You get caught lying a an search warrant affaidavit, YOU ARE FUCKED!!!!!

 

[MasterBrewer]

The offficer does not have to lie, just has to state what the informant said they saw.


True the warrant was bullshit, and cops didnt give to shits about the tren (this was in '00). They just asked what it was, he didnt say shit. They search the place, no lab, no drugs. The original question was basicaly what is needed to get a warrant, answer not much.

 

[1500]

The offficer does not have to lie, just has to state what the informant said they saw.


True the warrant was bullshit, and cops didnt give to shits about the tren (this was in '00). They just asked what it was, he didnt say shit. They search the place, no lab, no drugs. The original question was basicaly what is needed to get a warrant, answer not much.

If he didnt lie, then she proved to be reliable in some other ways which is a possibility. Or the warrant got suppressed if the lawyer was good.

 

[MrWicked09]

If you called the police and said your ex-boyfriend had a meth lab in his apartment, the police cannot raid a house simply on suspicion, they have no grounds... as well as the fact that the ex-girlfriend is the caller...

And ONTOP of that any of the evidence that was seized during the raid will be dismissed in court because of the fact it was an unlawful search held solely on a call in by some crazy ex-girlfriend who is most likely a drug addict herself..

I know that it would violate Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Any property found or seized by means of a violation of section 8 can be excluded as evidence in a trial

I would assume that the US has something along this lines as well.

And to get a warrant you need alot more then a simple phone call by some ex girlfriend.

 

[chisoxfan]

I give two sh*ts what you think man.

Who would have thought a few yars ago that investigators would have gotton access to Hushmail ect, ect.

Everybody always thinks they have all these fing rights and the cops have to do this and that by the book. Truth is 99% percent of time it's their word as a duly swore officer against yours. If you want you can always post up a thread for Rick and ask him how many b*llsh*t search warrants he's seen.

I have to say I agree that your story is not true

And to ur comment about hushmail, they got warrants and if you didnt think all the busts were going to happen then your just stupid and ignorant! Everything was just way 2 out in the open!

 

[MichaelScott]

Believe what you want, Meth labs in an apartment = a big freaking hazard.

Think cops are never lazy and jump the gun?

Trust me one fucking phone call is all it takes when you say meth lab to lazy cops.

All of the info came out after the fact, via his attorney. If you doubt it and you live in an area with an extremely high concentration of meth labs. Call your local P.D. tell them you have seen the meth lab in operation, who runs it (name), address and they have product on hand. Just wait and see how long the door stays on the fing hinges. PC is a big freaking grey area. And I feel really sorry for you if you think it takes more.

feel sorry for me then i still think it takes more, at least some sort of surveillance

 

[chisoxfan]

feel sorry for me then i still think it takes more, at least some sort of surveillance

exactly, there has to be some sort of surveillance

 

[chewyxrage]

It's obviously happened to him. I believe it.

 

[Blane]

even if it hasent happened to him. even if its not true at all. smart to keep the girlfriend/wife out of the know.