- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 53,674
- Reaction score
- 59,192
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
One would assume so. It appears that the warrant was for a search of the place as well as the persons.
One would assume so. It appears that the warrant was for a search of the place as well as the persons.Did the warrant allow them to take the electronic devices of people not named in the warrant?
She claimed to be a citizen... have you found proof that this claim is valid? Thank...
g
If the persons have moved out and new ones have moved in… what do they expect to find with the place?One would assume so. It appears that the warrant was for a search of the place as well as the persons.
Believe it or not, on occasion criminals give law enforcement fake names. Sometimes they work together with other criminals. Sometimes the landlord is even involvedIf the persons have moved out and new ones have moved in… what do they expect to find with the place?
And if they need to search a place with new persons… then certainly a surprise warrant wasn’t needed.
It is on law enforcement to investigate before people’s rights are violated.Believe it or not, on occasion criminals give law enforcement fake names. Sometimes they work together with other criminals. Sometimes the landlord is even involved
Nonsense. They had the misfortune of moving into a property that had an active warrant against it. It’s just that simple. As for their property, I’ll never understand why people run around with their life savings in cash but civil asset forfeiture is highway robbery. That’s not unique to this case so its neither here nor there though.I think that we can easily determine that the warrant was bullshit because innocent people had their house raided and property seized by the Government.
As said before.Nonsense. They had the misfortune of moving into a property that had an active warrant against it. It’s just that simple. As for their property, I’ll never understand why people run around with their life savings in cash but civil asset forfeiture is highway robbery. That’s not unique to this case so its neither here nor there though.
It isn’t lazy police work and you can never prevent what happened here unless we have a surveillance State where the government and law enforcement know where everyone is all the time. It isn’t law enforcement’s fault that the previous tenants got out of dodge without a forwarding address before the warrant could be executed.As said before.
This lazy type of police work that violates people’s rights will continue to exist only if people continue to make excuses for it.
It doesn’t appear that anyone’s rights were violated. If there was a valid warrant served at a valid address then there was probable cause and the search was reasonable.It is on law enforcement to investigate before people’s rights are violated.
This easy dismissal of lazy police work is what allows it to continue to happen.
Except that's bullshit.One would assume so. It appears that the warrant was for a search of the place as well as the persons.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You could maybe not seize the possessions of the wrong people.It isn’t lazy police work and you can never prevent what happened here unless we have a surveillance State where the government and law enforcement know where everyone is all the time. It isn’t law enforcement’s fault that the previous tenants got out of dodge without a forwarding address before the warrant could be executed.
The seizure was not reasonable.It doesn’t appear that anyone’s rights were violated. If there was a valid warrant served at a valid address then there was probable cause and the search was reasonable.
Like I said, I think civil asset forfeiture is highway robbery anyway. But the unfortunate fact is that if you’re in the property when a property warrant is executed then TAG you’re it. That’s the way it goes in any context.You could maybe not seize the possessions of the wrong people.
Once it was established that the people at the home were not the people being looked for, how does the illegal seizure of these peoples' possessions benefit anyone at all?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."Like I said, I think civil asset forfeiture is highway robbery anyway. But the unfortunate fact is that if you’re in the property when a property warrant is executed then TAG you’re it. That’s the way it goes in any context.
It wasn’t a warrant for a person. It was a warrant for the premises and whatever is inside. Any property on the premises is subject to the warrant."The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Nope.
It doesn't matter. The text is quite plain. Objects to be seized are to be listed in particular.It wasn’t a warrant for a person. It was a warrant for the premises and whatever is inside. Any property on the premises is subject to the warrant.
How do you know those items weren’t listed? Do you have a copy of the warrant?It doesn't matter. The text is quite plain. Objects to be seized are to be listed in particular.
The only exception to that per SCOTUS is if during a reasonable search, unrelated contraband is discovered. Peoples' phones and tablets are not contraband.
Ugh. The warrant doesn’t have to say “Hamish Owl’s cellphone.” It can simply say any cellphone or any electronic device.The warrant listed the phones of people that the police never knew were there?
Did they use The Force? Did they have alien assistance? Was Elvis involved?
View attachment 67567838View attachment 67567838
Nope. Items to be seized have to be listed in particular.Ugh. The warrant doesn’t have to say “Hamish Owl’s cellphone.” It can simply say any cellphone or any electronic device.
False. Per what you quoted - it only hast to identify the item(s) not the person to whom the item(s) belong or is otherwise in the possession of.Nope. Items to be seized have to be listed in particular.
"Cell phones or electronics in the possession of Joe Blow."
Not
"Cell phones of anyone who happens to be present."
What a truly stupid question (as usual). Have you found proof that she is not?
Here's to hoping you don't have a "mistake" like this in your future.This is unfortunate, but you forgot to tell us why this mistake was made? Was it corrected when they realized there was a mistake made? The nation is overrun with millions of immigrants who illegally entered the country and that is a felony, a crime and one that in many cases can end in immediate deportation even without what many would claim was lack of due process, but that's the law.
Under certain circumstances, including being apprehended near the border and within a short timeframe after entering the country, undocumented immigrants can be subject to expedited removal. This process allows for immediate deportation without a formal court hearing.
- Individuals who already have a removal order in place, such as those who missed a court date or were previously found deportable, may not be granted a new hearing before being deported.
- Asylum seekers must make a formal request for asylum within the first year they are in the country.
of course he is. and he is not alone.So, you’re okay with ICE busting in your door at 2 am?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?