| quidveritas | 22 Sep 2009 12:08 p.m. PST |
Our boys in blue . . . well just being boys . . . link sorry but this is going to be a long day for me. mjc |
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 22 Sep 2009 1:30 p.m. PST |
A lot of hullaballoo for about an hour of relaxing… I'm inclined to give the boys in blue a break on this one, they have a tough job. |
| quidveritas | 22 Sep 2009 2:32 p.m. PST |
You might view this differently when the drug dealer wins a Civil Rights violation action. Sheesh, why did they do this on their own surveillance cameras? mjc |
| Jmrino | 22 Sep 2009 5:34 p.m. PST |
Civil rights violation?! Really?! I'm not seeing how that fits. I don't even think it will invalidate the search. Poor judgment to be sure, but probably just worth a judge's rebuke to the DA and then down from there? Sounds like it was the defendant's surveillance system actually….. |
| quidveritas | 22 Sep 2009 6:23 p.m. PST |
Similar case a few years back. Marks v. State of Washington. 7 figures for the bad guys -- essentially because of warrant less search -- bunch of stolen jewelry just lying around the cops didn't get a warrant before seizing it. The valid part of the search will stand. It's the invalid part that will provide grist for civil rights litigation. mjc |
 John the OFM  | 22 Sep 2009 8:39 p.m. PST |
Of course it's a civil rights violation. They messed up the high scores in the memory! |
| Jmrino | 23 Sep 2009 3:20 a.m. PST |
I just think that the arguement that turning it on was in effect 'seizing' it is a bit far-fetched. They did not take it with them when they left for forensic examination of the hard drive or otherwise glean info from it? I would like to hear how this ends up! |
| Roderick Robertson | 23 Sep 2009 6:36 a.m. PST |
"Clearly if they're using it, they've seized it and for totally improper purposes, because it's for entertainment. Investigations are not for entertainment." When she hit two strikes in a row, she raised her arms above her head, jumping and kicking Sounds like she was entertained. A task force supervisor from the Lakeland Police Department, gun at his side, pumped his fist after picking up a strike on the first ball he threw. And he was too…
|
| quidveritas | 23 Sep 2009 12:42 p.m. PST |
The Supreme Court has consistently held that a warrantless search or seizure is per se unreasonable and subject only to a few specific exceptions. Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1716 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d. 576 (1967)). One exception is the search incident to a lawful arrest. Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1716 (citing Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1914)). This exception arose out of concern for officer safety and evidence preservation. Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1716 (citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 230-34, 94 S. Ct. 467, 38 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1973)). Please note it says a warrantless search OR seizure. Either will violate the civil rights of the owner/occupant. I don't see any exception in there for officer entertainment. If you don't practice law in Washington State and/or not familiar with the Washington State Constitution, you don't know what you are talking about my friend. mjc |
| Jmrino | 23 Sep 2009 1:25 p.m. PST |
I am quite aware that I don't know what I am talking about, legally speaking – my father was the attorney, not me – and I'm ok with that. But, how is this not just a disciplinary matter? Now, if the officer got a strike and the unit spat out a teener, I could see how that would be inadmissable, but I just can't see how the search would be invalidated and a civil penalty levied. It's like they went in and turned on the stereo, is that seizing/searching the equipment? Would that negate the search warrant? Would that result in the defendant's civil rights being violated? Oh, well it was Florida after all… Personally, I have bit more interest in this police action.. link |
| quidveritas | 23 Sep 2009 2:07 p.m. PST |
First off, the Washington State Constitution actually provides more rights than the USA Constitution. Stuff seized pursuant to a valid search is in -- no problems there. But . . . if the warrant is for an elephant, you could not search a suit case or a bread box because these could not possibly contain an elephant. A warrant for drugs and drug paraphernalia lets you look just about anywhere but is limited to just that kind of stuff. You could not search for porn by running all the tapes in the place to see what is one them, nor could you look through books or diaries unless the warrant allowed a search for that kind of stuff. "using" someone's stuff pursuant to a search warrant can be construed as a seizure -- even if it might be temporary. So in this case the drug dealer's drugs were properly seized and can be used as evidence against him. The unauthorized seizure of his stuff is illegal. The fact that this was taped makes the civil case against the police a slam dunk. The drug dealer sues the police in Federal Court (because a state judge cannot be impartial???) and will settle for more than a few bucks because the City/County will not want to go to trial on a case they will ultimately lose. What I object to is stupid cops putting tax dollars in the pockets of criminals for no legitimate reason. mjc |
| Jmrino | 23 Sep 2009 4:28 p.m. PST |
What I object to is stupid cops putting tax dollars in the pockets of criminals for no legitimate reason. Total agreement here! Especially for something so blatantly ridiculous! Thanks for the extra info.  |
