User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: "Your door's open."

  1. #11

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 78,170, Level: 68
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 1,880
    Overall activity: 50.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    169593
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    19,048
    Points
    78,170
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    6,542
    Thanked 14,855x in 8,519 Posts
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helena View Post
    "The state must establish"... when? After the warrantless entry? Couldn't be before because that would waste time when all they "need" is the above excuse.

    The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. ... unless EXIGENCIES!
    Well, they have to justify it to use the evidence during a motion to suppress hearing. If the evidence is deemed improperly seized through an improper search, then they face a lawsuit. If the prosecutor determines or believes there’s probable cause to charge, then a prosecutor can charge. We have a process for that in the United States.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  2. #12

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 78,170, Level: 68
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 1,880
    Overall activity: 50.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    169593
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    19,048
    Points
    78,170
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    6,542
    Thanked 14,855x in 8,519 Posts
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Xl View Post
    Why does it start and stop with a lawsuit and never a criminal prosecution?
    It may start with a criminal prosecution. I have seen it start with a criminal prosecution. It typically starts, however, with a civil lawsuit.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  3. #13
    Original Ranter
    Points: 529,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    427125
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    159,010
    Points
    529,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    93,470
    Thanked 78,102x in 52,726 Posts
    Mentioned
    2220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    I don't know enough about this circumstance to know whether it was or wasn't justified, however, for educational purposes: One of the recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances exception, where “the exigencies of [a] situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393–394, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). The exigent circumstances exception justifies a warrantless entry into a residence in certain situations, including when “immediate entry is necessary to stop the imminent loss, removal, or destruction of evidence or contraband.” State v. Karle, 144 Ohio App.3d 125, 131, 759 N.E.2d 815 (1st Dist.2001), citing Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 39–40, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). “For the exigent circumstances exception to apply, the state must establish both probable cause and ‘some real likelihood that the evidence is in danger of being moved or destroyed in the time that it would take to get a warrant.’ ” State v. Christopher, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2009–08–041, 2010-Ohio-1816, 2010 WL 1660489, 32, quoting State v. Hatfield, 4th Dist. Ross No. 98CA2426, 1999 WL 158472, *5 (Mar. 11, 1999).

    I do not do criminal law and I can't imagine the justification for arresting the minor but I'm curious what probable cause existed to believe that there was evidence or the girl in the house at the time. My guess is none. It sounds like a lawsuit is coming.
    I tried several courts-martial that had that evidentiary issue. But because we worked with our law enforcement elements we gave then classes all the time on how to do it correctly. And I was called at all hours about advice as to whether they had probable cause. And after that was a military magistrate and got to handle the next phase of the criminal process: tossing crap cases; holding people in pre-trail confinement' etc.
    Last edited by Peter1469; 09-05-2019 at 06:55 PM.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  4. #14
    Points: 9,829, Level: 23
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 221
    Overall activity: 49.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger Second Class5000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Helena's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1596
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,328
    Points
    9,829
    Level
    23
    Thanks Given
    2,171
    Thanked 1,587x in 996 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Well, they have to justify it to use the evidence during a motion to suppress hearing. If the evidence is deemed improperly seized through an improper search, then they face a lawsuit. If the prosecutor determines or believes there’s probable cause to charge, then a prosecutor can charge. We have a process for that in the United States.
    That's lawyer speak for "The $y$tem work$."
    Last edited by Helena; 09-05-2019 at 09:27 PM.
    Tickling censorship with a feather.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Helena For This Useful Post:

    stjames1_53 (09-09-2019)

  6. #15
    Points: 51,897, Level: 55
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 653
    Overall activity: 38.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second Class50000 Experience Points
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    7933
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    24,360
    Points
    51,897
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    41,497
    Thanked 7,937x in 6,375 Posts
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helena View Post
    "The state must establish"... when? After the warrantless entry? Couldn't be before because that would waste time when all they "need" is the above excuse.

    The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. ... unless EXIGENCIES!
    Cops can't do anything wrong in your eyes so...
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our freedom and our society and our morals.

  7. #16
    Points: 9,829, Level: 23
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 221
    Overall activity: 49.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger Second Class5000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Helena's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1596
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,328
    Points
    9,829
    Level
    23
    Thanks Given
    2,171
    Thanked 1,587x in 996 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    Cops can't do anything wrong in your eyes so...
    Did you forget this is in the serious section?
    Tickling censorship with a feather.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO