Libertarians, moderates, liberals and ...
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, February 9, 2006 15:20
VIEWED: 6399
PAGE 8 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Doe has frequent visitors that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and many attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons.
This application seeks permission to search all occupants of the residence and their belongings to prevent the removal, concealment, or destruction of any evidence requested in this warrant. It is the experience of your co-affiants that drug dealers often attempt to do so when faced with impending apprehension and may give such evidence to persons who do not acutally reside or own/rent the premises...
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
The affidavit requests a warrant to search "All the occupants of the residence" at least twice. The issue here is basically that whoever typed up the warrant didn't reference the affidavit in the "who is to be searched" box on the warrant, like they did elsewhere. It was a clerical error.
Sort of a moot point anyway, since Judge Alito has been confirmed. I'm not too comfortable on how he might rule on abortion or gay rights, but in the Doe v. Groody case, I can't help but agreee with him. The police acted in good faith based on what they thought the warrant specified.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahhh Geezer,
ever the Nazi. The rationale - explained at length, in full sentences, three seperate times in the affidavit - was to be able to search VISITORS who might conceal drugs.
Have you ever considered that it wasn't a typo? That the judge meant to limit the search?
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ahhh Geezer,
ever the Nazi.
Let's see, where was that quote? Ahh.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is the other lesson that (s)he learned: when the facts don't go your way, just engage in ad hominem attacks.
Now back to polite discourse.
Quote:
The rationale - explained at length, in full sentences, three seperate times in the affidavit - was to be able to search VISITORS who might conceal drugs.
Interesting rationale, but a request to search "all occupants" was also included several times. No rationale needed to figure out that "all occupants" means "all occupants".
Quote:
Have you ever considered that it wasn't a typo? That the judge meant to limit the search?
No. There's no indication either way in the decision of what the judge who issued the warrant thought, and no indication he was ever asked about it. Wonder why, since whether he intended to limit the search or intended to incorporate the affidavit in the warrant is pretty much what the decision and dissent turn on? Maybe a little coverup of judicial error? Hang the cops out to dry and let the taxpayers foot the bill rather than point out a fellow judge's goof?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME