Tweet
Who's to say the media didn't bend this a little? The could very well be gaining access to a backyard.
-
-
Lol @ casual bong.
"oh hai, a bong"
320rwhp. 7.67 @ 90mph 1.7 60'
DD: 2004 GMC Sierra VHO 6.0 LQ9 324whp 350wtrqComment
-
Blah, blah, blah...
They might not use it against you in court, but they damn sure will seize it!
I protect my property period.
Originally posted by Osiris View PostYou do realize I am a police officer, right? Evidence found during a warrantless search where a warrant is needed is not admissible in court. I had never heard of a single case during any of my arrest, search, and seizure classes where what you said was true.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is as well.
Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[2] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The discovery of a witness is not evidence in itself because the witness is attenuated by separate interviews, in-court testimony and his or her own statements.
The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:
it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant not based on probable cause was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good faith exception).
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine stems from the 1920 case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.[3]Comment
-
Originally posted by Osiris View PostYou do realize I am a police officer, right? Evidence found during a warrantless search where a warrant is needed is not admissible in court. I had never heard of a single case during any of my arrest, search, and seizure classes where what you said was true.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is as well.
Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[2] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The discovery of a witness is not evidence in itself because the witness is attenuated by separate interviews, in-court testimony and his or her own statements.
The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:
it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant not based on probable cause was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good faith exception).
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine stems from the 1920 case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.[3]
I do know that you are a police officer. I have a close friend doing a 175 month sentence in the fed because of evidence obtained during a warrant-less search. Since I have forked over nearly 100k in attorneys fees trying to get him out of prison I have become intimately familiar with how the courts view this sort of thing. The PD has admitted that they had no PC to enter his home and just did so because an FBI agent told them to do so without any explanation or warrant. The FBI claims that they were just observing the PDs actions and had nothing to do with the search or entry. The first trial court ruled the evidence inadmissible but the US attorneys office appealed the ruling and won. They won specifically because the law allows ANY evidence to be used no mater what laws were broken to get it. The use of the evidence has withstood every challenge since.Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.Comment
-
A locksmith? Were their armored cars and chains broken?Comment
-
-
Seriously, I would be very grateful if the cops came around and protected my home from potential disaster. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing police should be doing rather than, say, popping people for dime sacks of weed?Comment
-
I saw cops do that on "campus pd". They were called to a house party, went to the neighbor when the party wouldn't open the door. When they walked past the front window, they saw a pipe and bong. Then arrested the homeowner and cited tickets to the others.Originally posted by 91CoupeMike View Post
Cops always stop fun/law breaking, WTF?DedComment
-
if they "smell gas," they can and will enter your house. then bust all your shit with an ax.
have you people not watched sons of anarchy?Comment
-
-
If this story had read "During evacuation home checking, police discovered a 4 year old kidnap victim chained up in a basement, forced to live in their own urine a feces", there would be a different type of reaction.sigpicComment
-
who the hell leaves automatic weapons and drug paraphernalia laying around their house when they aren't home anyway?Comment
-
Well no shit, its in plain view through a window. Same thing applies to garbage on the curb being admissible in court.Originally posted by vadertt View Post
And I agree with Matt, who the fuck leaves shit like that lying around your house anyways??Comment
-
-
Comment