Interesting development here in a local murder trial/hearing. Turns out that the cops confiscated a gun suspected to be the murder weapon without permission or a warrant. However, they did seek a warrant before testing the gun. A judge has heard the argument, and he now must decide if the evidence was legally obtained.
Details: Cops have a person of interest in mind while investigating a murder. They find out he owns a 9mm hand gun. A 9mm handgun was used in the murder. So, they go to his house and ask to see said gun. Person of interest shows it to them. Cops say, "Yep, this is it." And, then they take the gun. Suspect complains says he does not consent to confiscation. Cops claim exigent circumstance: probable cause the gun was used in a crime and it is likely thee suspect will destroy the evidence or, worse, use to it commit more crimes, while the state waits for a judge to issue a warrant.
I side with the state. What think you?
Interesting development here in a local murder trial/hearing. Turns out that the cops confiscated a gun suspected to be the murder weapon without permission or a warrant. However, they did seek a warrant before testing the gun. A judge has heard the argument, and he now must decide if the evidence was legally obtained.
Details: Cops have a person of interest in mind while investigating a murder. They find out he owns a 9mm hand gun. A 9mm handgun was used in the murder. So, they go to his house and ask to see said gun. Person of interest shows it to them. Cops say, "Yep, this is it." And, then they take the gun. Suspect complains says he does not consent to confiscation. Cops claim exigent circumstance: probable cause the gun was used in a crime and it is likely thee suspect will destroy the evidence or, worse, use to it commit more crimes, while the state waits for a judge to issue a warrant.
I side with the state. What think you?
Interesting development here in a local murder trial/hearing. Turns out that the cops confiscated a gun suspected to be the murder weapon without permission or a warrant. However, they did seek a warrant before testing the gun. A judge has heard the argument, and he now must decide if the evidence was legally obtained.
Details: Cops have a person of interest in mind while investigating a murder. They find out he owns a 9mm hand gun. A 9mm handgun was used in the murder. So, they go to his house and ask to see said gun. Person of interest shows it to them. Cops say, "Yep, this is it." And, then they take the gun. Suspect complains says he does not consent to confiscation. Cops claim exigent circumstance: probable cause the gun was used in a crime and it is likely thee suspect will destroy the evidence or, worse, use to it commit more crimes, while the state waits for a judge to issue a warrant.
I side with the state. What think you?
Interesting development here in a local murder trial/hearing. Turns out that the cops confiscated a gun suspected to be the murder weapon without permission or a warrant. However, they did seek a warrant before testing the gun. A judge has heard the argument, and he now must decide if the evidence was legally obtained.
Details: Cops have a person of interest in mind while investigating a murder. They find out he owns a 9mm hand gun. A 9mm handgun was used in the murder. So, they go to his house and ask to see said gun. Person of interest shows it to them. Cops say, "Yep, this is it." And, then they take the gun. Suspect complains says he does not consent to confiscation. Cops claim exigent circumstance: probable cause the gun was used in a crime and it is likely thee suspect will destroy the evidence or, worse, use to it commit more crimes, while the state waits for a judge to issue a warrant.
I side with the state. What think you?
Interesting development here in a local murder trial/hearing. Turns out that the cops confiscated a gun suspected to be the murder weapon without permission or a warrant. However, they did seek a warrant before testing the gun. A judge has heard the argument, and he now must decide if the evidence was legally obtained.
Details: Cops have a person of interest in mind while investigating a murder. They find out he owns a 9mm hand gun. A 9mm handgun was used in the murder. So, they go to his house and ask to see said gun. Person of interest shows it to them. Cops say, "Yep, this is it." And, then they take the gun. Suspect complains says he does not consent to confiscation. Cops claim exigent circumstance: probable cause the gun was used in a crime and it is likely thee suspect will destroy the evidence or, worse, use to it commit more crimes, while the state waits for a judge to issue a warrant.
I side with the state. What think you?
Tough call, but if I remember my cop training correctly, I think they'll come out ok on this.
He could have refused to show it and they'd have had to get a warrant. Since he showed it, it is now "evidence in plain sight", and subject to seizure to prevent destruction of evidence, even without a warrant.
The only caveat I see off hand is if they're questioned on "on what basis did you assume this weapon was the murder weapon?" That might get a little sticky, but if they don't blow it they'll probably be ok.
I think so anyway... been a long time since the academy.
Its black and white that they can take it. They can take ANYTHING they deem might be used as evidence later at trialIt’s black and white. The state must prove they took it with his permission. If the can’t? I say it’s inadmissible. They could have stood right there and gotten a warrant. Or arrested him on suspicion ofnthey were so sure and obtained a warrant. Or maybe even gotten a warrant right at the scene.
The cops need a warrant that is based on probable cause in order to take that person's property. So they screwed up and hopefully the judge tosses the evidence out. The cops had no right to confiscate that property without a warrant.
Tough call, but if I remember my cop training correctly, I think they'll come out ok on this.
He could have refused to show it and they'd have had to get a warrant. Since he showed it, it is now "evidence in plain sight", and subject to seizure to prevent destruction of evidence, even without a warrant.
The only caveat I see off hand is if they're questioned on "on what basis did you assume this weapon was the murder weapon?" That might get a little sticky, but if they don't blow it they'll probably be ok.
I think so anyway... been a long time since the academy.
It doesn't need to be in plain sight. Yo can kick down the door of suspect of you believe they are destroying evidence. Anytime you see what can be evidence you can secure it until the investigation is complete without a warrant
It doesn't need to be in plain sight. Yo can kick down the door of suspect of you believe they are destroying evidence. Anytime you see what can be evidence you can secure it until the investigation is complete without a warrant
Its black and white that they can take it. They can take ANYTHING they deem might be used as evidence later at trial
No they don't. If they are investigating a axe murderer and you have a bloody axe sitting in front of you they don't need a warrant to secure that
This is a slam dunk. Exigent circumstances is a constitutional exception used to preserve evidence. Gun stays in
If the state they can prove they didn’t need a search warrant, then it’s black and white your way. If they can’t prove that? They can’t use that evidence.
Its black and white that they can take it. They can take ANYTHING they deem might be used as evidence later at trial
They didn't do a search. He showed them the gun. He did not say look for it yourself. If cops see potential evidence in front of them they can secure it. They did not conduct a search
As I said, if they can prove they took it legally, it’s good. Sans that, it can’t be used, counselor.
If it's black and white then they make an immediate arrest, secure the scene, get a warrant, and then make a search.
Good thing they took it legally
Why get a search warrant if you are not searching?
Why not make an arrest if the circumstances are said to have been so exigent?
No they don't.
If they are investigating a axe murderer and you have a bloody axe sitting in front of you they don't need a warrant to secure that
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?