Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 83 of 83
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Agreed, but doesn't this ruling at least pose an indirect threat to "probable cause" as well.
    IMO I think they are seperate. Probable cause is determined prior to a warrant being issued. Exclusionary rule comes into play after the search has been done. Courts (are supposed to) determine whether there was probable cause at the time of the search, not after the fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    After all, the ruling says that the evidence from an illegal search can still be used. Is the type of illegal search such a great distinction here? In any event, we are certainly moving in a scary direction.
    I think the distinction is important. We still want to have a warrant requirment whenever possible. Courts have always held that to be true. Courts struggle striking a balance between the warrant requirement and handcuffing law enforcement from getting the 'bad guys'.

    In this situation, there was a valid search warrant, but the defendant argued it was not served 'reasonably' (i.e. no knock). That's radically different then having the cops just bust in and search with no warrant (and possibly no probable cause) and then allowing that evidence to come into trial.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    IMO I think they are seperate. Probable cause is determined prior to a warrant being issued. Exclusionary rule comes into play after the search has been done. Courts (are supposed to) determine whether there was probable cause at the time of the search, not after the fact.

    I think the distinction is important. We still want to have a warrant requirment whenever possible. Courts have always held that to be true. Courts struggle striking a balance between the warrant requirement and handcuffing law enforcement from getting the 'bad guys'.

    In this situation, there was a valid search warrant, but the defendant argued it was not served 'reasonably' (i.e. no knock). That's radically different then having the cops just bust in and search with no warrant (and possibly no probable cause) and then allowing that evidence to come into trial.
    Agreed, and I am not a "slippery slope" type thinker. I think that leads to extremism. I am just saying this is the first time I have heard of police making a clearly illegal search, and yet the evidence still being admissible.

    I hope you are right that it will never lead to a ruling admitting other illegal searches such as those without probable cause.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #83  
    This point may have been made, but it occurs to me that a search will occur, regardless of a knock and announce, or not. So, 'illegal search', or 'wrongly accused situation' isn't created one way of the other. You can be wrongly accused, with or without the courtesy knock. This is purely over whether or not theres time to flush or not. What am I missing?
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions