-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Search Warrant Question
- Thread starter Rlandry
- Start date
What's listed, but if other fruits of a crime/crimes are to be found they can lock the place down, get another warrant, and bingo, there ya go.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,703
- 20,406
Is this the precursor to you having a search warrant served? Being all your guns that weren’t used in the “crime” to me for safekeeping
And, alternatively, if the OG warrant is found to be unsupported by lack of probable cause or other defects, then anything found is "fruit from a poisoned tree" and is also not admissible.
Last edited:
No, I'm not anticipating being searched. I don't have any contraband at least that I know of. But then, there is always the risk of being burned with a throw-down, but that risk is also there during a routine traffic stop.
"In a pickle take the nickle." (Shut up and take the 5th.)
That is the slippery slope of chatting and/or letting them put eyes on - it can and will be used against you ultimately.
guess that would depend on what you think is contraband and what the new world order thinks is contraband . and if they even have a warrant maybe it will be a no knock raid without a warrant .
Last edited:
Todays circus is about removing the Fifth.
Congress person saying Trumps unwillingness to testify should be weighted to mean he is guilty of the charges.
WTF?
For Lois Lerner it was inviolable that after giving a dissertation claiming her innocence but refusing to answer questions about that expressed innocence.
You either shut all the fuck up or you answer questions.
Under Trump attorney client privilege became a joke when Cohens office was raided and they took his computers.
Remember Hillary appointing anyone involved in her server mess a lawyer to shield them from scrutiny.
The risk of getting evidence planted is extremely slim. I'd bet the odds of you doing something illegal and getting caught are higher than getting evidence planted.
Anyway, to address your original question you're "asking for a friend", if your friend is having his residence searched for a whatever the cops are looking for, and they happen to find other contraband in the areas where they were looking for that original thing, now the cops have evidence of additional crimes.
For example, I obtain a warrant for your friend's residence because I arrested him for selling drugs. Well, I tell the judge there's a high likelihood your friend has more drugs at his flop-house apartment, and those things have been known to be hidden in false food containers in refrigerators, false cleaning containers under the sink, in shoe boxes, within pillows and blankets in closets, behind HVAC grates, within couches, false containers in garages....
Guess where I get to search? Yep. All them places because I can show additional cases and examples of drugs being hidden in those places.
So, Judge agrees the search of those places at that residence aren't unreasonable, and issues a warrant in accordance with the 4th Amendment and relevant case law.
I go to your friends house, gain entry and detain the occupants whilst I do the search. Yay. Even though I'm looking for drugs in a shoe box under your friends bed....I find a stolen pistol... guess what?
Now, I get to throw another piece of spaghetti at the wall of him being in possession of a stolen firearm (felony) because during the lawful search, in his bedroom at his residence, in a place where drugs are commonly hidden, was a stolen firearm.
There's more details, but this is a general gist of how your friend now has more issues to deal with because he's stupid.
Oh, and a little piece of life advice: if your friend has a genuine fear of being searched by the po-po... a logical solution to that problem would be to stop doing the shit that he thinks or does catch the attention of law enforcement.
I know... very difficult and complex way of thinking.
Last edited:
Yeah-the fuckery abounds. But I haven't seen it collapse yet. I am a Constitutional fool and suspect that will be unchanged till I'm an ex-parrot.
And yes, I agree, it seems it is all or none. Talk or don't talk. I'm simply saying, nothing good comes from yapping with cops. That is why we have lawyers. The system is set up for (to protect rights of) the accused. If'n YOU are the accused... the best advise I could ever suggest is, shut up and request a lawyer who (if competent) will listen for stupid things that can be used against you out of context.
My .02 anyhoo.
Look, in about 3-4 months I'm gonna be able to talk about whatnive been going through since last march with the army.
It hasn't been fun.
Doc
It hasn't been fun.
Doc
I don't work in that part of the house so this advice is worth what you are paying for it. The warrant has to be specific as to what the police are looking for (drugs, guns, stolen automobiles, etc.). Any illegal stuff (unrelated to the warrant) that is in plain view when the warrant is executed is going to get you busted. Any illegal stuff that is discovered during the search might get you busted unless the illegal stuff wouldn't have been found if the police did not exceed the scope of the warrant.
Example of exceeding the scope of the warrant - If the warrant is for stolen cars the police can't search your silverware drawer because a car won't fit in there. Also, there are all kinds of special rules and exceptions to this.
Basically if you get busted for illegal stuff (unrelated to the warrant) found during a valid search you have a long uphill battle ahead of you.
Example of exceeding the scope of the warrant - If the warrant is for stolen cars the police can't search your silverware drawer because a car won't fit in there. Also, there are all kinds of special rules and exceptions to this.
Basically if you get busted for illegal stuff (unrelated to the warrant) found during a valid search you have a long uphill battle ahead of you.
Does a warrant cover doin weird shit with midgets , chickens and jumper cables . Askin for Rlandy , um I mean a friend .
For any and all questions on search warrants and evidence get ahold of hunter Biden or his attorneys they know their shit........
What are the tissues and lotion for?
Hey, it was in plain view, just asking.
That's the look muh boss gives me right before he asks "what the fuck is wrong with you " ?
This. Search any where the evidence may be found within the parameters of the warrant.
Last edited:
Here is an article I read awhile ago.
What if you've just been arrested for something which shouldn't be a crime? For instance, if a burglar breaks into your home, attacks your children and you shoot him. Should you talk to the police? In a word, "No". Shut up, call the best lawyer you can find, and then continue to shut up. If you talk to the police, you will only make things worse for yourself.
Sociologist Richard Leo has written several articles which detail the deliberately deceptive techniques which police use to extract a confession.
First of all, since 1966 the Unites States Supreme Court has required that all persons under arrest be given the Miranda warnings, so that they will know that they have a right to remain silent, and the right to a lawyer. So how do police convince a suspect to talk, even after the Miranda warning?
Professor Leo explains that "police routinely deliver Miranda warnings in a perfunctory tone of voice and ritualistic behavioral manner, effectively conveying that these warnings are little more than a bureaucratic triviality." Of course, the Miranda warnings are not trivial; your liberty may hinge on heeding those warnings.
No matter how strong the other evidence against you, a confession will make things much worse. A confession often makes the major difference in the district attorney's willingness to prosecute the case, and his willingness to accept a plea bargain. If your confession gets before a jury, your prospects of acquittal are virtually nil.
If you are foolish enough to reject the Miranda warnings, simply put, the police interrogators will attempt to deceive you into confessing. As a result of increased judicial supervision of the police, deception, rather than coercion ("the third degree") has become the norm for interrogation.
First of all, you will be kept in a physical environment designed to make you want to waive your rights and talk. You will most likely be kept in isolation, in a small, soundproof area. By isolating you, the interrogator attempts to instill feelings of anxiety, restlessness and self-doubt on your part. Left alone for long periods, you may think you are being ignored, and will therefore be happy to see the interrogator return.
Ideally, from the interrogator's viewpoint, you will begin to develop the "Stockholm syndrome," in which persons held captive under total control begin to identify and empathize with their captors. This can occur after as few as ten minutes of isolation in captivity.
While increasing your dependence, the interrogator works to build your trust by pretending that he cares about you, that he wants to hear your story, and that he understands how difficult it may be for you to talk. The interrogator works to become your only source of social reinforcement.
There is no law against outright lies or other deceptions on the part of police during an interrogation. Almost certainly, you will be told that the prosecutor and the judge will be more lenient if you confess. This is a complete lie. The district attorney will be more lenient if you don't confess and he can't make a strong case against you, and therefore has to settle for a plea bargain. Nothing the police promise in the interrogation room is binding on the police, much less on the district attorney.
There are five "techniques of neutralization" which the interrogator may use in order to make you feel that the crime really wasn't so bad, and that it is therefore all right for you to confess. Of course the interrogator's pretense that he doesn't think the crime was serious will last only as long as necessary to obtain the confession.
The first technique is called "denial of responsibility," allowing the subject to blame someone else for the offense. For example, "it was really the burglar's fault for breaking in; he's the one to blame for getting shot." (That's true, but it's you, after all, that the police are interrogating.)
Another technique is "denial of injury." For example, "The burglar wasn't really hurt; he walked out of the hospital two hours ago." Maybe true, maybe not. In truth, the burglar could be in intensive care and the interrogator could be laying the groundwork for a murder case against you.
In the "denial of the victim" technique, the interrogator will suggest that the victim deserved what he got.
"Condemnation of the condemners" is always popular. For instance, "the real problem is all those anti-gun nuts, who let criminals run loose, but don't want guys like you to defend themselves." True enough, but when the policeman saying this is holding you prisoner, take his sincere expression with a large grain of salt.
Finally, there's the "appeal to higher loyalties" such as "What you did is a common sense thing. Regardless of some legal technicality, the most important thing is for you to protect your family. Your family
comes first, right?" True again, but the man saying this wants you to confess to violating the legal technicality, so you can be prosecuted for it.
A close cousin to the denial strategies are the "normalizing" techniques, in which the interrogator claims to understand that the crime was not typical behavior for the subject; "I can see that you're not a violent person. You're not a criminal. You're a tax-paying, home owning, regular kind of guy. What happened tonight was really unusual for you, wasn't it?"
You have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by talking. You are not going to outsmart the interrogator. Even if you don't end up producing a full confession, you may reveal details which will help build a case against you.
Most violent criminals are too stupid to read, and too lazy to pursue a time-consuming, high-precision hobby like handloading. So I'm not worried that a violent criminal will read this column, and avoid confessing to a serious crime. Too often in America, good citizens are arrested for victimless "crimes," including unjustifiable (and unconstitutional) gun regulations. The routine use of deception in order to trick good citizens into confessions is something that deserves more scrutiny than it has thus far received.
In the long run, routine deception by the police tears at our social fabric, and undermines the law enforcement system. The more police lie, the more skeptical juries are going to be, even when police are telling the truth.
Moreover, there are about 6,000 false confessions for felonies every year in the United States. (Huff et al., "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," Crime & Delinquency, vol. 32, pages 518-44, 1986). False confessions are one of the major reasons for the conviction of innocent persons.
Sources: Richard Leo, "Police Interrogation and Social Control," Social and Legal Studies, vol. 3, pages 93-120 (1994); "From Coercion to Deception: The Changing Nature of Police Interrogation in America," Law and Social Change, vol. 18, pages 35-39 (1992); Jerome Skolnick and Richard Leo, "The Ethics of Deceptive Interrogation," Criminal Justice Ethics, vol. 11, pages 3-12 (1992).
JUST SAY NO
What if you've just been arrested for something which shouldn't be a crime? For instance, if a burglar breaks into your home, attacks your children and you shoot him. Should you talk to the police? In a word, "No". Shut up, call the best lawyer you can find, and then continue to shut up. If you talk to the police, you will only make things worse for yourself.
Sociologist Richard Leo has written several articles which detail the deliberately deceptive techniques which police use to extract a confession.
First of all, since 1966 the Unites States Supreme Court has required that all persons under arrest be given the Miranda warnings, so that they will know that they have a right to remain silent, and the right to a lawyer. So how do police convince a suspect to talk, even after the Miranda warning?
Professor Leo explains that "police routinely deliver Miranda warnings in a perfunctory tone of voice and ritualistic behavioral manner, effectively conveying that these warnings are little more than a bureaucratic triviality." Of course, the Miranda warnings are not trivial; your liberty may hinge on heeding those warnings.
No matter how strong the other evidence against you, a confession will make things much worse. A confession often makes the major difference in the district attorney's willingness to prosecute the case, and his willingness to accept a plea bargain. If your confession gets before a jury, your prospects of acquittal are virtually nil.
If you are foolish enough to reject the Miranda warnings, simply put, the police interrogators will attempt to deceive you into confessing. As a result of increased judicial supervision of the police, deception, rather than coercion ("the third degree") has become the norm for interrogation.
First of all, you will be kept in a physical environment designed to make you want to waive your rights and talk. You will most likely be kept in isolation, in a small, soundproof area. By isolating you, the interrogator attempts to instill feelings of anxiety, restlessness and self-doubt on your part. Left alone for long periods, you may think you are being ignored, and will therefore be happy to see the interrogator return.
Ideally, from the interrogator's viewpoint, you will begin to develop the "Stockholm syndrome," in which persons held captive under total control begin to identify and empathize with their captors. This can occur after as few as ten minutes of isolation in captivity.
While increasing your dependence, the interrogator works to build your trust by pretending that he cares about you, that he wants to hear your story, and that he understands how difficult it may be for you to talk. The interrogator works to become your only source of social reinforcement.
There is no law against outright lies or other deceptions on the part of police during an interrogation. Almost certainly, you will be told that the prosecutor and the judge will be more lenient if you confess. This is a complete lie. The district attorney will be more lenient if you don't confess and he can't make a strong case against you, and therefore has to settle for a plea bargain. Nothing the police promise in the interrogation room is binding on the police, much less on the district attorney.
There are five "techniques of neutralization" which the interrogator may use in order to make you feel that the crime really wasn't so bad, and that it is therefore all right for you to confess. Of course the interrogator's pretense that he doesn't think the crime was serious will last only as long as necessary to obtain the confession.
The first technique is called "denial of responsibility," allowing the subject to blame someone else for the offense. For example, "it was really the burglar's fault for breaking in; he's the one to blame for getting shot." (That's true, but it's you, after all, that the police are interrogating.)
Another technique is "denial of injury." For example, "The burglar wasn't really hurt; he walked out of the hospital two hours ago." Maybe true, maybe not. In truth, the burglar could be in intensive care and the interrogator could be laying the groundwork for a murder case against you.
In the "denial of the victim" technique, the interrogator will suggest that the victim deserved what he got.
"Condemnation of the condemners" is always popular. For instance, "the real problem is all those anti-gun nuts, who let criminals run loose, but don't want guys like you to defend themselves." True enough, but when the policeman saying this is holding you prisoner, take his sincere expression with a large grain of salt.
Finally, there's the "appeal to higher loyalties" such as "What you did is a common sense thing. Regardless of some legal technicality, the most important thing is for you to protect your family. Your family
comes first, right?" True again, but the man saying this wants you to confess to violating the legal technicality, so you can be prosecuted for it.
A close cousin to the denial strategies are the "normalizing" techniques, in which the interrogator claims to understand that the crime was not typical behavior for the subject; "I can see that you're not a violent person. You're not a criminal. You're a tax-paying, home owning, regular kind of guy. What happened tonight was really unusual for you, wasn't it?"
You have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by talking. You are not going to outsmart the interrogator. Even if you don't end up producing a full confession, you may reveal details which will help build a case against you.
Most violent criminals are too stupid to read, and too lazy to pursue a time-consuming, high-precision hobby like handloading. So I'm not worried that a violent criminal will read this column, and avoid confessing to a serious crime. Too often in America, good citizens are arrested for victimless "crimes," including unjustifiable (and unconstitutional) gun regulations. The routine use of deception in order to trick good citizens into confessions is something that deserves more scrutiny than it has thus far received.
In the long run, routine deception by the police tears at our social fabric, and undermines the law enforcement system. The more police lie, the more skeptical juries are going to be, even when police are telling the truth.
Moreover, there are about 6,000 false confessions for felonies every year in the United States. (Huff et al., "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," Crime & Delinquency, vol. 32, pages 518-44, 1986). False confessions are one of the major reasons for the conviction of innocent persons.
Sources: Richard Leo, "Police Interrogation and Social Control," Social and Legal Studies, vol. 3, pages 93-120 (1994); "From Coercion to Deception: The Changing Nature of Police Interrogation in America," Law and Social Change, vol. 18, pages 35-39 (1992); Jerome Skolnick and Richard Leo, "The Ethics of Deceptive Interrogation," Criminal Justice Ethics, vol. 11, pages 3-12 (1992).
We have the same hairdo.
LOL - this is why I didn't call out the lotion and Kleenex. I assume we have the same barber.
Look, to be clear... I grew up with many good Cops in the neighborhood. Generally speaking... I like Cops. They are like us Gov't Suckers that serve(d).
But what it comes down to these days (and always in fact) is, laws were written to protect folks FROM the Gov't over-reach. Our Constitution.
I date a lawyer (even after a vicious divorce; crazy as SHIT I know, I'm a weirdo)... besides the Cops I like, her side is FULL of them... Italian and Irish. Shocking as shit! Priests too. Crazy, right?
All that said:
In a pickle, take the nickle. THAT will NEVER be wrong for you. If you need to yap in hearings-your lawyer will tell you so and why.
That.
Period. Do not think you are "helping" anyone by yapping. You are not. Least of all-yourselves.
Believe in the Constitution. Let folks trained to intervene in dumb shit do so. I am squeaky clean and have folks on speed-dial for "general shit," divorce, criminal and 2A related. Too damn easy.
Pickle Rick, yo.
Go home and enjoy your freedoms, as it was intended. That Rittenhouse kid is prime, example #1 of what Soros funded Commie prosecutors will do to try and erode our rights. Fuck them. Constitutionally and splendidly. Same for the Pols.
They WILL fail (one way or the other) and we are watching it play out right now IMO.
I see what you did there. But you already know. The tissues are for all the Crocodile Tears and the lotion? Well, you know.
I'm sorry.
Oh, and a little piece of life advice: if your friend has a genuine fear of being searched by the po-po... a logical solution to that problem would be to stop doing the shit that he thinks or does catch the attention of law enforcement.
I know... very difficult and complex way of thinking.
This may be too much common sense for just one person to grasp. Settle down with that shit
Last edited:
He basically just said if your a suspect of something don’t talk to the cops (probably good advice) and then quoted a bunch of stuff from various publishings from the 90’s. A little of it was accurate but a good portion of it was not.
This is a situation where “elephant in a matchbox“ applies. If the evidence the warrant states officers are to search for can fit where other evidence is located then it is good. For example, you can’t look in a desk drawer for a 65” stolen TV. Now, most warrants are written to cover “documents” in the search, and that means they can look anywhere a piece of paper could fit.
Cut a deal first then tell'em you have been dealing for your neighbor , he does time you do a few hours of community service while banging his wife.
LOLLL it's amazing, really.This may be too much common sense for just one person to grasp. Settle down with that shit
Remember, I didn't say stop doing illegal stuff. I said stop doing shit that attracts law enforcement
nowadays cops have it easy with social media and people thinking everyone, everywhere needs to know what they are doing all the time, forever. People vomit criminal actions all over their social media for "likes".
Shut your mouth, invoke the 5th and demand to be questioned in front of YOUR lawyer.
Been in law enforcement for damn near 20 years now. If the police are at your door serving a search warrant they already know that you have broken the law and they know for a fact you have illegal items or evidence in your home.
Again use your neighbors shed for illegal contraband.
If during the execution of a valid search warrant evidence of additional illegal goods or activities are found, those goods may be seized (will) and you can/will be charged with additional crimes. Generally speaking, only those areas that conform to the physical dimensions of the illegal goods sought can be searched. However, the point can be made that areas smaller than the subject areas may be searched if the warrant is written to include parts or associated items used with or by the warrant subject area.
This legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it - zero. If you have a legal question ask a lawyer, they are the only ones qualified to give a legal opinion.
This legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it - zero. If you have a legal question ask a lawyer, they are the only ones qualified to give a legal opinion.
Similar threads
