So How Many Search Warrants Do They Need?
David / Amicus
evidence was found in a car.
The search warrant was for the house. The detectives also searched the
detached garage.
The defense attorney objected to the garage search saying it wasn't the
house. When the judge wouldn't go for that the defense attorney then
objected to the car search. The judge agreed with that and ruled out
the car search anf thus the evidence.
The judge said that the detectives ought to have gotten another search
warrant for the car!
David Johnston
wrote:
Or a search warrant that included vehicles in the first place.
Ray O'Hara
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4069-4B3A...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
You have hit on my main peeve.
the judges always throw out the evidence.
it happens so often that in real life they'd fire the cops for their
constant screw ups.
Michael Black
That's the point of a search warrant. It prevents random searches. So
the cops have to go to a judge and convince them that there is some good
reason to do a search.
The search warrant isn't a "season pass", it derives from that probable
cause, so the cops need to be specific in what they are looking for,
but where they might be looking. It's up to them to give some thought
before going to the judge. If they can't think of a good reason why
the car should be included in the search, then such a search would be a
violation of the owner's rights. The search warrant is about getting
around those rights, but they can't be a random trampling of rights.
If the search of the home doesn't turn up what they want to find,
then they have to go back to a judge and convince them there is a good
reason to be able to search the car. Likewise, if the search of the house
turns up some bit of evidence that points to something else, they need
to get a warrant for that something else, though finding some evidence
at the initial search location is more likely to get a second search
warrant than if the cops find nothing and then say "well, maybe it's in
the car, we need to search that", which then starts to be nearly random
searching, since they seem to have only a vague 'belief" that the owner
is guilty, and they are then going through the motions to find something
to pin it on them.
Michael
bo...@boston.quik.com
gimmick too often. Most warrants in these shows are for contraband,
drugs, weapons, money or other items relating to a homicide or
robbery. Why wouldn't a search warrant properly cover "said property,
including outbuildings, garages, vehicles controlled by the subject
party either on or adjacent to the premises."
I mean - if a garage and the car in it are located at 75 Main Street,
and that is the address given in the warrant, then they can be part of
the search. They certainly aren't at 76 Main Street, are they?
***
Ray O'Hara
<bo...@boston.quik.com> wrote in message
news:f734bf2c-5076-4e9c...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>I think the various L&O shows (and other police procedurals) use this
> gimmick too often. Most warrants in these shows are for contraband,
> drugs, weapons, money or other items relating to a homicide or
> robbery. Why wouldn't a search warrant properly cover "said property,
> including outbuildings, garages, vehicles controlled by the subject
> party either on or adjacent to the premises."
>
> I mean - if a garage and the car in it are located at 75 Main Street,
> and that is the address given in the warrant, then they can be part of
> the search. They certainly aren't at 76 Main Street, are they?
>
> ***
it renders the first half of the show moot.
the cops develope a lead, follow it and then everything gets thrown out and
the lawyers instead build a case on a completely different tack and save the
day.
the cops only are shown testifying so the defense atty can show them up.
they'd get fired if they were consistantly that bad.
D.F. Manno
<f734bf2c-5076-4e9c...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"bo...@boston.quik.com" <bo...@boston.quik.com> wrote:
> I think the various L&O shows (and other police procedurals) use this
> gimmick too often. Most warrants in these shows are for contraband,
> drugs, weapons, money or other items relating to a homicide or
> robbery. Why wouldn't a search warrant properly cover "said property,
> including outbuildings, garages, vehicles controlled by the subject
> party either on or adjacent to the premises."
Because it's overbroad and thus invalid.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would
have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His
existence. (Bertrand Russell)
David Johnston
Would you prefer how they did it early in the series, where the cops
simply weren't catching the right people?