Warrants

[Der Übermensch]

A question, if a warrant is issued based on a sworn affidavit, and results in seizure of contraband, would that seizure be inadmissible in court if it was later established that the affidavit was a false statement?

[PerpetualBurn]

I'd imagine that for things like search warrants the authorities need to establish reasonable grounds for the search at the time they request the warrant. And that the statement turned out to be false didn't mean anything.

Otherwise I imagine they'd be screwed every time they searched and didn't find anything.

Obviously, you're not deemed guilty at the time of the search, they just have reason to be suspicious.

[griftadan]

yeah it's not whether or not you were actually guilty it's whether or not the authorities had good reason to think you were at the time of the search, if you can prove that there really wasn't any good reason to search you that's a whole other matter.

[Charlie Daniels]

There was a case where a the was a suspected child pornograher who they couldn't get a search warrant for, but then a rogue police officer did something like post him an envelope of baking soda designed so the envelope burst in the post office and then the police were able to get a warrant to search the place for drugs, and during the search uncovered all his pornographer equipment and images.

Even the substance turned out to be baking powder.

And even though a policeman 'set him up' to look suspicious.

The police officer got in trouble but so did the criminal.

[HomoDegerous]

I think it is the same principle as mistrials. I do not know the legal jargon or any proof of the matter I can just say that logically it would be inadmissible for purely logical purposes but I have no proof of this. If the sworn affidavit were determined to contain untruths then any resulting action from this supposedly legitimate affidavit would become null and void. This is a legal question not logical as the system is not always logical but speaking purely in terms of logic then yes the contraband would be inadmissible in court.

[Der Übermensch]

Pretty much what I feel, but can't find confirmation. It is basically a matter for if a warrant is nullified post facto, was it considered a legal warrant up until that point, or is it now considered to never have been a warrant.

[italic zero]

Don't know much law but seems to me that it would only be inadmissible if it involved state misconduct, which doesn't seem to be the case unless the person who lied in the affidavit was forced into doing so.

[Reaganista]

u have to have probable cause not ironclad proof

[HomoDegerous]

u have to have probable cause not ironclad proof

He is saying what if probable cause turns out to be improbable, basically anyway.

[Reaganista]

no he's not he's saying what if it turns out to be false
which is not relevant

[HomoDegerous]

no he's not he's saying what if it turns out to be false
which is not relevant

He is saying "what if probable cause becomes improbable?" It is that simple.

[Der Übermensch]

no he's not he's saying what if it turns out to be false
which is not relevant

Well I was more meaning that the warrant was off of an intentionally false statement (Purgery) then merely something someone thought to be right and turned out not to be.

[Reaganista]

He is saying "what if probable cause becomes improbable?" It is that simple.
stfu
Well I was more meaning that the warrant was off of an intentionally false statement (Purgery) then merely something someone thought to be right and turned out not to be.
what italic zero said

[HomoDegerous]

stfu


This forum is for serious and enlightened discussion only. You have been spamming here for years and it is high time you clean up your act before you are done away with altogether.

[Reaganista]

stop trolling
go away

[Der Übermensch]

Not really... He said unless the person who lied was forced to lie. I'm saying what if he intentionally lied.

stop trolling
go away
I agree with this post more then any other of yours ever 8-)

[Reaganista]

i was saying the answer to your question is what italic zero said

[HomoDegerous]

I agree with this post more then any other of yours ever 8-)

This sentence is wrong on so many levels. And I appreciate the thanks considering my post was one of two in this entire thread that was actually on topic.

Oh and you need to learn the difference between then and than.

[Der Übermensch]

You pointed that out before, and I really don't care. I do know the difference, I just don't bother editing after I type the wrong one as anyone who can't still garner the meaning of the post is more retarded than you!

I think I'll take odds on how long it takes before you are banned this time... starting 5:1 for under a week.

[HomoDegerous]

You pointed that out before, and I really don't care. I do know the difference, I just don't bother editing after I type the wrong one as anyone who can't still garner the meaning of the post is more retarded than you!

Well that is very nice and kind of you and so typical of one who claims an IQ of 150 yet can't think on his feet and type proper English on demand.

[Der Übermensch]

i was saying the answer to your question is what italic zero said

Ok. Misunderstood you there. But as I pointed out in my post, although directed differently, I would think that purgery would be enough to invalidate a warrant, as if anything it seems worse grounds than coercion.

Maybe I should just watch more L&O... I'm sure they covered this at some point...

[Reaganista]

it wouldn't invalidate the state's warrant because the misconduct isn't their doing and at the time in was issued they had reasonable probable cause
afaik
you could have an intentional infliction of emotional distress case against someone who knowingly falsely accuses you but if you turn out to actually be guilty anyway i doubt it would hold up

[Der Übermensch]

So it would matter who was swearing out the affidavit? I.e. a citizen making the statement wouldn't necessarily matter, but a state policeman purgering himself could possibly?

[PerpetualBurn]

Obviously the state can't lie to get a warrant. That's a violation of your rights.

If someone else lies of their own free will to the state, and the state establish probable cause at the time, then the warrant is issued and whether you turn out to be guilty or not is irrelevant.

The warrant is issued because you are suspected of a crime, not because you are proven guilty of one.

[Charlie Daniels]

Obviously the state can't lie to get a warrant. That's a violation of your rights.

No, I'm pretty sure even if the policeman has committed purgery to get the warrant, evidence found can still be used against you.

And rightly so.

[HomoDegerous]

No, I'm pretty sure even if the policeman has committed purgery to get the warrant, evidence found can still be used against you.

And rightly so.

If you say so, but isn't this really just a case of the ends justifying the means?

[Charlie Daniels]

In the example I posted earlier, where the police knew the guy was a child p0rnographer but couldn't get a warrant so a rogue officer implicated him falsely as a drug dealer so they could search for drugs, I think it certainly did.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, rights waste time. Why even have trials when the police already know who's guilty and who isn't?

[Smokey D]

you could have an intentional infliction of emotional distress case against someone who knowingly falsely accuses you but if you turn out to actually be guilty anyway i doubt it would hold up

I don't really understand this. Is IIED much easier to make out in the US or something?

Also, how can you be falsely accused if you're guilty?

[Charlie Daniels]

Yeah, rights waste time. Why even have trials when the police already know who's guilty and who isn't?
None of the evidence that he was convicted on him was faked, and the police didn't set up the dodgey drug evidence, a rogue individual did.

How was his rights violated?

[Smokey D]

You have a right to have you life protected from state intrusion unless there is evidence.

But given that he was subsequently convicted, not many people are going to shed any tears (though the officer opened up the state to civil liability and potentially jeopardised the conviction)

[Charlie Daniels]

You have a right to have you life protected from state intrusion unless there is evidence.

But given that he was subsequently convicted, not many people are going to shed any tears (though the officer opened up the state to civil liability and potentially jeopardised the conviction)
There was evidence he was involved in the drug trade, the police intercepted a package destined for him which appeared to contain drugs.

[Smokey D]

Who ever made the package breached his rights.

[PerpetualBurn]

There was evidence he was involved in the drug trade, the police intercepted a package destined for him which appeared to contain drugs.

You see planting evidence is obviously a violation of someone's rights.

[Reaganista]

I don't really understand this. Is IIED much easier to make out in the US or something?

idk
Also, how can you be falsely accused if you're guilty?
hypothetically 'i saw him selling crack on the corner last night' and then it's later proven that he wasn't even in town last night but they do a search and he turns out to be a crack dealer anyway

[Charlie Daniels]

You see planting evidence is obviously a violation of someone's rights.

But that evidence wasn't used in his trial and, when the evidence was found to be false, the drugs investigation was dropped.

[Reaganista]

if the state acts in bad faith at any point everything resulting from that is thrown out unless they wouldve figured it out on their own without it
at least in america

[Charlie Daniels]

Maybe that is so... but really is it really that bad of a thing? Think of the children :-/

[Reaganista]

well i tend to ignore children and think of the constitution and due process and so on