Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    confuddled's Avatar
    confuddled Posts: 2, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #1

    Oct 2, 2008, 09:24 PM
    The Exclusionary rule & exigent circumstances
    Hello there, I have a question about the Exclusionary rule and exigent circumstances to serving a search warrant.

    If police officers point a heat-sensing device at someone's house without a warrant (for the device) and discover, say marijuana or cocaine, and then obtain a warrant for that residence from a magistrate, but serve that warrant without announcing their presence, can the evidence found be used against the defendant?

    I am unsure how the Exclusionary rule applies in this mess because the officers got a warrant after having used the sensing device which they did only on a suspicion. Would the resulting evidence be obtained in good faith despite the invalidated technical reasons of the warrant?

    Are officers required to announce their presence in exigent circumstances where they fear the defendant would use the delay to destroy the evidence?

    I hope that made sense lol.

    Thank you, and I hope someone can help with this.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #2

    Oct 3, 2008, 06:25 AM
    Hello con:

    Well, it's not quite as definitive as one might want. "Warrants shall not issue, but upon probable cause"...

    What was the probable cause for them to shine their marijuana ray upon your house? If somebody TOLD them, then the snitch has to be a RELIABLE snitch - one they've successfully used before, not just an angry neighbor...

    And so what if they find that you keep your house rather warm? Is THAT probable cause to suspect you of criminal activity?? I don't think so, but apparently the ex prosecutor magistrate thought so..

    Now, I don't know if they're supposed to announce their presence when they search... If they have a warrant, I think they can come ANYTIME, whether you're there or not. Plus, I can't see that they were afraid of you destroying the evidence. If your house was hot enough to show up on their marijahoochie scan, there was more pot inside than you could stuff into a toilet.

    In MY state, the pot police used to fly helo's over neighborhoods and shine their death ray on ALL the houses. THAT was found to be illegal. Fortunately, I live in a state where I can now grow ALL my own medical pot, and I do.

    I think you need a good criminal lawyer. I don't know what state you're in, but go see my friend Jeffery Steinborn at potbust.com

    excon
    confuddled's Avatar
    confuddled Posts: 2, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #3

    Oct 3, 2008, 01:11 PM

    Thank you for the help, Excon, much appreciated.
    Fr_Chuck's Avatar
    Fr_Chuck Posts: 81,301, Reputation: 7692
    Expert
     
    #4

    Oct 3, 2008, 01:21 PM

    This is the issue, if they got a no knock warrant, they don't have to knock or tell you they are there till they knock the door down.

    Was there other evidence used or reason to use the heat detector, as noted in some states they can not use the sensor without a warrant for that, but I don't believe there has been a ruling on this in your state. So you will have to fight it out in court.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Is it possible for an asset to be a liabilty? If so, under what circumstances? [ 6 Answers ]

STUCK ON THIS! Please help its driving me crazy!

Supicious circumstances [ 5 Answers ]

After trying to do a software deal with a "programmer", ( the deal fell through) Some of the program on test I kept. But I have the developing software to open it up to. All I had to do was design the GUI and he would do the coding. Apparently he was not a qualified programmer, (I found out...

Victim of circumstances =( [ 2 Answers ]

I really can use some good advises here... I got a ticket for traffic violation on late November last yr. it was basically moving violation... I was only trying to avoid collision with two cars racing on freeway onlamp by beliefly entering the carpool lane. But with my luck, uniform had to be...


View more questions Search