My rights were violated when two deputies came looking for someone but entered through a sliding glass door in rear of my house. Both cops lied at my motion to suppress. Where should I go from here?

How where your rights violated, I have not seen a vioation yet..

Was the door open, did they have a warrant for arrest or search, was there something visible though a window,

At this point you prove they lied and sue them. But if the court has accepted their statements, then it is fact till proved wrong

Bottom line, if the cops had reasonable cause to believe the person was in your house, then its unlikley your rights were violated/

How did the cops lie? Can you prove they diid? And why do you think your rights were violated?

Hello P:

If the evidence is in, you're probably going to be convicted. Maybe a plea would be your best move...

excon

Is it more a question of you feel your privacy has been violeted, rather than rights?

It is never right for cops just to walk into your house, but as much as it pains me to say, it is better to have a small amount of privacy lost by the police than to not have the police at all

Im afraid you just have to let sleeping dogs lie is my advice to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

as it pains me to say, it is better to have a small amount of privacy lost by the police than to not have the police at all. Im afraid you just have to let sleeping dogs lie is my advice to you

---

Hello p:

If you're going to give advice like that on the legal board, be prepared to defend it... It's VERY BAD legal advice. We're not the police cheering section here. We look out for people in trouble with the law. We do NOT look out for the cops. You can do that on another board...

excon

Evening Excon,

No problem, If I have offended anybody, please excuse my poor etiquette.

I totally agree with you on the issue, that it is a civil right that police must be kept in check with constant supervision.

This helps to balance out their side of them watching us

Most of us also understand that courts do look a little more favourably on the cops evidence than normal joes.

If you can think of a way that a cops testimony can be discredited while providing no third party evidence to the contray then please, I will accept defeat.

However, my advice was simple, With a Motion to Suppress, the court finaalised any fuurther action available to P, and as such he was backing a flogged horse.

Excon, please understand, don't hate the Player hate The Game :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

However, my advice was simple, With a Motion to Surpress, the court finaalised any fuurther action available to P, and as such he was backing a flogged horse.

---

Evening, again, p:

I'm sorry. I didn't see the above advice in your original post. I don't disagree with that statement at all.

excon