Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
what does it take to get a warrant
- Thread starter nice6pac
- Start date
You need to show a judge you have very good reasons to get it. Actually it's a "case by case" situation, meaning for some busts the requirements will be higher than for others.
But in real life it's mostly about if the judge know you pretty well. The first time you for a warrant, he'll ask you a shitload of questions. But after 5-6 times he'll not even bother you with a miserable question....
But in real life it's mostly about if the judge know you pretty well. The first time you for a warrant, he'll ask you a shitload of questions. But after 5-6 times he'll not even bother you with a miserable question....
C
Citruscide
Guest
Well... to go a little further... with it. You should probably specify whether you are talking about an arrest or search warrant.
I'm assuming a search warrant. you'd need probable cause to believe that what you are searching for (illegal goods, contraband, a felon, etc) is on the premsis to be searched. Also, you only need a warrant where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are tons of exceptions to the warrant requirement, I won't get into them here...
But as a general guideline... the police... can't just speculate on if you have goods at your house. Prior arrests, packages, etc, will not generate this probable cause.
Manny is correct in that it is a case by case analysis... there is no other way for it to be.
There are many, many levels on the 4th amendment protections... It'd take me an hour or so to list and explain them all here... most likely
C-ditty
I'm assuming a search warrant. you'd need probable cause to believe that what you are searching for (illegal goods, contraband, a felon, etc) is on the premsis to be searched. Also, you only need a warrant where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are tons of exceptions to the warrant requirement, I won't get into them here...
But as a general guideline... the police... can't just speculate on if you have goods at your house. Prior arrests, packages, etc, will not generate this probable cause.
Manny is correct in that it is a case by case analysis... there is no other way for it to be.
There are many, many levels on the 4th amendment protections... It'd take me an hour or so to list and explain them all here... most likely
C-ditty
c-ditty is correct in that he gives u the accurate const grounds, but in practice--it's like manny says, imo. its more about the relationship the po po has with the respective judge. it honestly doesnt take much to procure a warrant. i know that doesnt sound great for our system, but that's the difference btwn theory and practice. not to get you too paranoid, but the 4th A in practice affords much less protection than you may think. just be prudent and smart--and if the hammer drops, a competent atty will be able to help you out of it.
C
Citruscide
Guest
ClenAche said:
I can dig that.
C-ditty
well i figured i would look my self its 50% or greater chance that incriminating evidence is on the property based on other evidence already obtained so unless they can prove that illegal activity is occuring as in present tense for instance they cannot raid your home without proof that you presently have items correct?? this is via illinios vs gates however they can search for evidence that a crime has occured as long as the evidence is most likley, 50% or greater to be presently at said location if this is correct wouldn;t a simpel address change deem a warrant invalid ?
C
Citruscide
Guest
nice6pac said:
50% or greater chance? No. That would preponderance of the evidence... a much higher standard than probable cause... which is what is necessary for a warrant.
I'm not sure what you are talking about a simple change of address... though...
C-ditty
i am quoting my text book and i quote "probable cause for a search exists when there is a reasonable belief that the person,property, or evidence sought is located in the place or on the person to be searched ."Reasonable belief" means more likley than not (over 50 percent liklihood)
C
Citruscide
Guest
nice6pac said:
Dude. 50% or higher liklihood is a prepon of the evidence standard. Reasonable belief = probable cause.
Probable Cause -- Law.Com legal dictionary
"sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime. While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming "help"), actions "typical" of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt "written across their faces," are more difficult to categorize. "Probable cause" is often subjective, but if the police officer's belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure"
Probable Cause *Black's LAW dictionary"
- a requisite element of a valid search and seizure or arrest, consisting of the existence of facts and circumstances within one's knowledge and of which one has reasonably trustworthy information, sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been committed (in context of an arrest) or that property subject to seizure is at a designated location (in context of a search/seizure). The issue of whether probable cause to search exists must be determined on the basis of the independant judgement of a "detached magistrate"; it must be based on affidavits, in support of a request for a search warrant; or if the police officer conducts a warrantless search, the issue of probable cause may be later determined by a judge at a hearing if a motion is filed to suppress the evidence as illegally obtained.
Probable can be established in many ways. It may be established on the basis of the cumulative knowledge of the investigating officers. See 380 U.S. 102, 111. However, probable cause cannot be based on facts which are completely innocent in themselves. See 393 U.S. 410. Furthermore, the fact that the suspect has been previously involved in similar crimes is not of important value. See 393 U.S. 410. Probable Cause must be based upon particular facts in the affidavit and not upon mere conclusions. See 378 U.S. 108. Particularly difficult problems in determining probable cause arise when an informer's tip standing alone does not create probable cause. It must be corroborated by the informer's reliability or by the cumulative effect of other information and observations made by the police. See 393 U.S. 410. A "totality of circumstances" test is applied. An affidavit must provide the magistrate with a "substantial basis" for determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. 103 S. Ct. 2317. Probable cause is required at the time of the arrest or search, see 287 U.S. 206, and may not be created by the fruits of the search or arrest.
-----
Needless to say, if the liklihood is greater than 50% that the property in question is at Address X, then, it is very probable that a search warrant will be issued by a judge "neutral magistrate" -- one who is not party to the investigation. But the likelihood need not be as high as 50%... from the definition... it merely must be reasonble... which is LOWER than the standard preponderance of the evidence... which is 50% or greater.
C-ditty
Citrus, I agree with you, but how and who determines if there is RPG? It's very subjective to say the least. For example I know a guy who got busted for growing grass. The warrent was based on that facts that the windows were covered with blinds & the Watt-meter was showing high consumption of power.
Why do those things make it more probable?
On top of that I know people that got shit seixed during warrent searches when they did not have a warrent for that item in that place, i.e. warrent for house searched but found stuff in the car and got a warrent later.
Pigs & dirty pigs.
Why do those things make it more probable?
On top of that I know people that got shit seixed during warrent searches when they did not have a warrent for that item in that place, i.e. warrent for house searched but found stuff in the car and got a warrent later.
Pigs & dirty pigs.
C
Citruscide
Guest
Dr. JK said:
Well... that's the thing. The police might have had "more" to go on than just the blinds and Watt-meter... I'm not sure exactly what are tell-tale signs of MJ growth... that doesn't sound like alot to me... but maybe it was?
If the police have a warrant to search for drugs... they can search anywhere in the house that drugs could be... if they open a desk drawer, and find a gun... they can seize that too... even though it isn't in the warrant. Now... if the police are searching for a missing bazooka... and they start taking apart your electronics and find drugs... then, while it would have been seized, it will probably be excluded... most likely because it is unreasonable to find a bazooka in a sterio.
I've read of police getting a warrant post-search... the determination of probable cause can be found later... if the car is in the garage... I think it can be searched... Not sure if the car is on the street... there might be an exception or rule for that...
C-ditty
1-The warrent for searching guy with MJ farm, was based solely on the blinds & Watt-meter. This was determined at Preliminary hearing and at the time of Disclosure
2-Now the guy with his car searched, the car was in a parking lot near his appartment, i.e. public area. Pigs did not have any right to search the car without a warrent. They are only allowed to search what is on the premises of on the warrent.
But pigs take short cuts and what do they care. If they find something, great. If they don't they don't lose anything.
Hey Citrus, maybe you can help me with my post on "cops credibility at trial". There seems to be a lot of grey area in what they can or cannot do. But ultimately there has to be a line that they cannot cross, since they will put under oath..
Thanks
Keep the peace & good behavour boyz
2-Now the guy with his car searched, the car was in a parking lot near his appartment, i.e. public area. Pigs did not have any right to search the car without a warrent. They are only allowed to search what is on the premises of on the warrent.
But pigs take short cuts and what do they care. If they find something, great. If they don't they don't lose anything.
Hey Citrus, maybe you can help me with my post on "cops credibility at trial". There seems to be a lot of grey area in what they can or cannot do. But ultimately there has to be a line that they cannot cross, since they will put under oath..
Thanks
Keep the peace & good behavour boyz
Dr. JK,
dont know if this helps or not, i realize your location says toronto, but i have read recent case law here in fla about an analogous situation. it was a situation where the s warrant was for the home, where nothing was found, but drugs were found in the occupants car in the driveway after a search. the court later justified the search, as they often do after the fact when there is a particular conclusion they wish to acheive, by saying that if a valid s warrant exists to the home (where the highest expectation of privacy exists), then the warrant is valid to all that is on that real property, and that includes the car in the driveway (where less const protection is afforded). i know that's a little scary, but that's how it goes sometimes. sorry, been a while and i've forgotten cites--way too much info, anyways--must dump sometimes!!
dont know if this helps or not, i realize your location says toronto, but i have read recent case law here in fla about an analogous situation. it was a situation where the s warrant was for the home, where nothing was found, but drugs were found in the occupants car in the driveway after a search. the court later justified the search, as they often do after the fact when there is a particular conclusion they wish to acheive, by saying that if a valid s warrant exists to the home (where the highest expectation of privacy exists), then the warrant is valid to all that is on that real property, and that includes the car in the driveway (where less const protection is afforded). i know that's a little scary, but that's how it goes sometimes. sorry, been a while and i've forgotten cites--way too much info, anyways--must dump sometimes!!
I can't understand the car search. Everyone knows you need a signed warrent to search the trunk of a car. If the car is not within the presisses of the search warrent how can it be justified after the fact?
That's like if you are standing outside your appartment and the pigs search you even though the warrent is for the appartment only. That cannot hold.
I know pigs can get away with a lot, but there has to be some kind of guideline that cannot breach.
Another question:
Can the pigs use anything they find in the area of the search against you, or is it resticted to what RPG's were all about?
Meaning, they search your place for guns, but find juice. Can they use that against you?
Where is Citrus?
That's like if you are standing outside your appartment and the pigs search you even though the warrent is for the appartment only. That cannot hold.
I know pigs can get away with a lot, but there has to be some kind of guideline that cannot breach.
Another question:
Can the pigs use anything they find in the area of the search against you, or is it resticted to what RPG's were all about?
Meaning, they search your place for guns, but find juice. Can they use that against you?
Where is Citrus?
I can't understand the car search. Everyone knows you need a signed warrent to search the trunk of a car. If the car is not within the presisses of the search warrent how can it be justified after the fact?
That's like if you are standing outside your appartment and the pigs search you even though the warrent is for the appartment only. That cannot hold.
I know pigs can get away with a lot, but there has to be some kind of guideline that cannot breach.
Another question:
Can the pigs use anything they find in the area of the search against you, or is it resticted to what RPG's were all about?
Meaning, they search your place for guns, but find juice. Can they use that against you?
Where is our defence attorney Citrus?
That's like if you are standing outside your appartment and the pigs search you even though the warrent is for the appartment only. That cannot hold.
I know pigs can get away with a lot, but there has to be some kind of guideline that cannot breach.
Another question:
Can the pigs use anything they find in the area of the search against you, or is it resticted to what RPG's were all about?
Meaning, they search your place for guns, but find juice. Can they use that against you?
Where is our defence attorney Citrus?
sorry Dr. Jk, dont always need a warrant for the trunk here in usa. cars, in general, are one of the big exeptions to the warrant requirement. if probable cause exists to the vehicle, then a search of the trunk is permissable. see U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982). it was further expanded in Califonia v. Acevedo, 111 S.Ct 1982 (1981) and in enumerable other opinions.
As to your next question, if they search your place for guns and instead, find juice, can they use that against you?
yes, assumming the s warrant was properly issued and they searched in the appropriate places that c-ditty outlined (i.e. in a place guns could be found (that usually means size/area)) you're screwed! hope that helps! love your querys. keep questioning the system.
As to your next question, if they search your place for guns and instead, find juice, can they use that against you?
yes, assumming the s warrant was properly issued and they searched in the appropriate places that c-ditty outlined (i.e. in a place guns could be found (that usually means size/area)) you're screwed! hope that helps! love your querys. keep questioning the system.
steve_n_houston
New member
In the US with regard to cars, cops can generally search in any
of four cases: (1) they have consent, (2) they have PC to believe there is "contraband" in the vehicle; (3) they have a warrant
or (4) they are arresting you (ie, inventory search).
Consent is always the easiest for the cops because once you
consent, no PC is needed. The shakiest grounds are when the
cop makes the call on PC at the scene. That's the case most subject to error. Therefore, if it's a high profile case and the cops want to make absolutely sure there are no errors, and they also are sure the suspect isn't going anywhere, they will sometimes obtain a warrant anyway, just to cross their t's and dot their i's, so to speak.
of four cases: (1) they have consent, (2) they have PC to believe there is "contraband" in the vehicle; (3) they have a warrant
or (4) they are arresting you (ie, inventory search).
Consent is always the easiest for the cops because once you
consent, no PC is needed. The shakiest grounds are when the
cop makes the call on PC at the scene. That's the case most subject to error. Therefore, if it's a high profile case and the cops want to make absolutely sure there are no errors, and they also are sure the suspect isn't going anywhere, they will sometimes obtain a warrant anyway, just to cross their t's and dot their i's, so to speak.
H
HULKSTER
Guest
Bros, just rent out a fuckin' space at a private storage facility. You get one for like $30 a month, they are secure, private and GATED. Thus, the police can not just roll on into a private, gated space storage facility without a warrant (unless they actually see a crime being committed on the premises). Furthermore, most of these storage facilities are now climate-controlled, so there are no worries about what will happen to your "legal supplements" if it gets too hot or too cold. Also, you can always find a storage facility somewhere where the operators are willing to "turn a blind eye" for some form of "compensation". Most importantly, this shit WILL NOT be in your home whatsoever if those morons decide to raid it anyway. Plus, a storage facility is better than just keeping it out of your house, but letting someone else you SUPPOSEDLY trust house it for you. That way, you eliminate one or more people who know about your storage of "legal supplements" from the equation. And as always, I would suggest investing in a small, hand-held metallic detecting device to check any incoming packages for transmittors. And the no-brainer is to NEVER discuss this shit over the phone, fax, cell-phone, etc. and only use secure, encrypted email---from a public library if possible. And although it shouldn't need to be said---NEVER SIGN FOR ANYTHING, WHETHER AT YOUR HOME OR P.O. Box. I think I've covered just about everything, and I still haven't received my copy of Rick Collins' book yet. Holy shit, when I do get to combine his knowledge with my, "cross all my t's and dot my i's" hardcore paranoia, I will have reached "JUICE ZEN".
To keep it simple 2 controlled buys in a house or were the package came from the house and the judge signs. By the way the buy does not have to be done by the cop. It can be done by an informant.
As for cars it is illegal to search a car with the intention of inventoring it.
As far as storage facility if you are seen going in and out it is yours.
As for cars it is illegal to search a car with the intention of inventoring it.
As far as storage facility if you are seen going in and out it is yours.
H
HULKSTER
Guest
Sergeant said:
First: Why is a law enforcement agent helping us? Are you just a regular cop, a detective or a Fed agent of some sort?
Secondly:You say two buys have to be completed by a cop or informant for a bust to be done and the judge signs. What about packages that are being sent to a P.O. Box? If a controlled delivery is done, do they immediately "bum rush" the guy as he leaves the Post Office, or do they go to the Judge first and get a search warrant to break down the door?
I am not helping you break the law as I don't recommend anyone to break the law. I am educating you about the law. If I asked you a training question would you answer if you knew the answer?
If you accept delivery of a package which law enforcement knows is illegal they can arrest you at anytime. You have done an illegal act. The fact that you are in public or in your house does not change the illegal act.
If you accept delivery of a package which law enforcement knows is illegal they can arrest you at anytime. You have done an illegal act. The fact that you are in public or in your house does not change the illegal act.
H
HULKSTER
Guest
Sergeant said:
Okay, sorry about that. One other question. If someone uses multiple P.O. Boxes and only has ONE delivery ever made to that box, can the judge still get a warrant since a maximum of only one controlled delivery can be done to each P.O. Box address? They couldn't tell who the person is by the name on the packages, since most people just write "BOXHOLDER".
collegiateLifter
New member
as i understand it a single anonymous tip is enough to get a search warrant
A single anonymous tip is not enough to get a warrant. A tip that is detailed in nature, predicting future events that are verified, showing a level of intimate knowledge could be enough to get a warrant. If you have one confirmed illegal package (verified) and one acceptance of the package then you have enough for an arrest. Mind you an arrest is not a conviction.
Sergeant,
Thanks for clearing things up. However I have a question for you:
If I accept a package and did not open it, how can I be charged when I don't know what's in it?
Even if there is confirmation of 1 previous delivery, without me knowing what's in the package, how can I be charged with any kind of posession?
For all I know, I could have thrown the previous package into the garbage when I discovered it contained an illegal substance.
I just want to understand the logic behind the grounds for search/arrest
Thanks
Thanks for clearing things up. However I have a question for you:
If I accept a package and did not open it, how can I be charged when I don't know what's in it?
Even if there is confirmation of 1 previous delivery, without me knowing what's in the package, how can I be charged with any kind of posession?
For all I know, I could have thrown the previous package into the garbage when I discovered it contained an illegal substance.
I just want to understand the logic behind the grounds for search/arrest
Thanks
Dr. Jk if you accept delivery then you have accepted responsibility of the package. Even if it can be proven that you had no intention of receiving any illegal substances, and threw the illegal substances away you can still be charged with a crime. (You would need Cohran for this mind you.) I would guess that all states has a statue that makes it a crime for not making proper disposition of illegal substances. Basically they are all going to read that you knew you had an illegal substance and you did not call the police as is required by law. This will then lead to possesion and then the amount to possesion with the intent to distribute. As far as to searches once they can confirm that an illegal package is in a home a warrant to search the home for that package is easy. If they find anything else while searching for the original package then that will also be admissable as long as were they searched could concievably hold the original intent of the search warrant. This means if say they were looking for an illegal shotgun they cannot search in a small jewlery case as it could not possibly hold a shotgun the intent of the search warrant.
H
HULKSTER
Guest
Sergeant said:
Except Alaska and Vermont! Both states DO NOT LIST ANABOLIC STEROIDS ON THEIR SCHEDULE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. But federal law still applies, and for huge cases, those States' Attorney Offices MAY hand them over to the DEA, etc. But most likely, whether you possess or are dealing even significant quantities of anabolics and the police find out, they can't do jack shit, since both those states have absolutely no laws against/regulating them.
Hmmmmmnnn, Sergeant. Very good posts, and i agree with you on almost everything except "the accepting delivery means you accept responsibility of the package" thing. Now, this is a query i've had for a long time, and fla law gives no help, as far as i can find, since there are no cases regarding aas in the appellate or supr. ct arenas (i stick to what i know, so i don't profess to know federal, therefore i welcome mods to chime in if they can clear it up). as u allude to, crimes are all about state of mind, therefore u must prove the intent element of the crime, which means the various forms of knowledge (i.e knowledge that u are posessing a controlled subst.). i know of no statutes that mandate proper disposal of illegal substances, as affirmative citizen "law enforcement" is frowned upon (although i've not researched it here in fla, and certainly not fed). if i am mistaken, then please, someone correct me, but i can't see the situation where simply receiving some package containing X makes u criminaly liable (if so i could send A,B, or C to my greatest enemies in a reg letter, and as long as they opened it, and i placed a call, then things would, well, lets say not too great)?
Lets say little old 94 grandmother gets 20 sustanon shots in the mail. Accepts delivery and upon opening them she calls someone who will end up calling the post office. Nothing will happen. Know lets take 250lb 6% bodyfat 5'8 bodybuilder. He gets 20 sustanon shots, accepts delivery but then notifies someone. Nothing could happen to him either as culpability has been taken away. Now if the bodybuilder kept quite it would be pretty hard to claim innocence to possession.
Remember guys you just see 20 sustanon shots most law enforcement look at the 20 sustanon shots the same as cocaine.
Also most smart law enforcement will want to document more than one delivery so that you could not claim innocence to the contents of the package.
If you want more clarification let me know.
Remember guys you just see 20 sustanon shots most law enforcement look at the 20 sustanon shots the same as cocaine.
Also most smart law enforcement will want to document more than one delivery so that you could not claim innocence to the contents of the package.
If you want more clarification let me know.
Immortal Juicer
Well-known member
nice6pac said:
Thats the best post yet. If you dont believe it, you better hope you never have to find out its the truth.
%90 of whether or not you get convicted depends on the first 10-15 min of your arrest/raid and how you handle the situtation. The best way to handle it: Dont talk to law enforcement, no matter what!, without talking to your attorney, never consent to a search, be respectful.
One of the top reasons people get stuck is for inconsitsent statements they gave to police thinkink off the top of their head when they were fucked up as hell at 4am and scared shitless, and what they claim really happened after consulting an attorney.
As far a probable cause and reasonable suspicion - probablie cause means there is a %51 perecent change there is something illegal in the car and that if searched, the likliehood of finding something illegal is greater than not.
Reasonable suspicion means dont say another word except ask if you are free to leave because the more you say, the more likely you are to bury yourself.
To get a warrant, there have to be several corroborating statemnts from reliable sources (rats) as well as police surveilence that coorberates the stories.
One way to avoid that, keep a clean house and your mouth shut
Immortal Juicer, very true. but, be careful w/ PC. it's not 51%. there has never been any clear guidlines by any court as to a number. u may be confusing it w/ preponderance of the evidence--the civil burden of proof (as well as certain other legal areas), but not in criminal which is beyond a reas. doubt. and even w/ preponderance, it's not necessarily 51%, it could be 50.0000000001%, it just means more likely than not. no one knows what PC is, there's no percentage #, and its always subjective. my crim law professor in law school said "think of it like its about 35-40% likely that criminal activity is afoot--but there's no real #, it's just a way to conceptualize it. all we really know is that probable cause is less than preponderance of the evidence (greater than 50%), and reasonable suspicion is slightly less than PC. I know that's not very concrete, but nothing in law is.
C
Citruscide
Guest
Yeah... ClenAche is probably right... although, I wouldn't go so far as to say 35-40%... although, it is probably as laymen as you can get... as the area is very grey...
for the search warrant... they would need the PC to show that the contraband was THERE... if they were looking for it... and it would have to be specifically listed on the warrant.
But Clen... you are really thinking along the correct track... it is much less than 50%
C-ditty
for the search warrant... they would need the PC to show that the contraband was THERE... if they were looking for it... and it would have to be specifically listed on the warrant.
But Clen... you are really thinking along the correct track... it is much less than 50%
C-ditty
yep. to reciprocate, c-ditty--i can dig that! i'm a big nerd here in fla concerning PC in the appellate arena with many published opinions, so i'm open to those who need help with the 4th A. it is for that reason why i'm not the most lucrative lawyer, b/c i like to help people out with valid advice rather than rain make. anyway, i'm here to help out---and learn.
