Can the police do this?

[watchthelaw]

I think you need glasses , I never once made the statement I don't know, stick with the facts.Your suspicions are assumptions and they are false.My answer is if you really care about the subject, which I highly doubt, you wouldn't need me to hold your hand to research it. You're a grown man I assume, do it yourself or produce your own research to counter. And you used to be a judge lol

 

[zwara]

No ... I won't "play" because it's like arguing abortion. People are either on one side or the other. And because I'm a cop you will assume that my position and opinion is one way whether it is or not. So why argue about it?It's pointless.

You won't buy my arguments, and I won't buy yours. So it is a waste of time and bandwidth.

- Carl

good point.....in fact there is nothing really worth arguing here at all, its either your right or your wrong, no in~between in this forum, it's unfortunate but it's true...your a good man Carl, take care and be safe

 

[seniorjudge]

Your suspicions are assumption and they are false.My answer is if you really care about the subject, which I highly doubt, you wouldn't need me to hold your hand to research it. You're a grown man I assume, do it yourself or produce your own research to counter. And you used to be a judge lol

look up burden of proof on the internet

 

[watchthelaw]

Why don't you? what does that have to do with anything

 

[seniorjudge]

I'm in a p****** battle with a skunk!

I've got to get a hobby....

Carl, I'm coming over for sandwiches tomorrow...save some of that meat....

 

[watchthelaw]

you're in a battle
I don't think you're winning

 

[seniorjudge]

"I'm in a p****** battle with a skunk!"

Sorry...I meant with a smelly doper.

I apologize to all the skunks....

 

[watchthelaw]

Whos the doper? It couldn't be a judge making more assumptions LMAO With all the assumptions and statements you put in people's mouths you seem more like a DA than a judge.
You do know what they say about assumptions seniorjudge, don't you?
Maybe you should take your own advice and look up "burden of proof" This is too much funn. O how cruel people can be I thought you guys were above... o wait thats rite

 

[Rhubarb297]

To answer your question is YES!! the Police can do this, if they have a valid search warrant they can search everything and anything in the house for whatever is named in the warrant, nothing is considered safe haven. QUOTE]

And that is not correct. I'll ignore the diatribe of crap you spewed and deal only with your blatant incorrectness.

If the police have a valid warrant they may search for anything contained in the warrant. However, if, in searching for (i.e., drugs in the closet) the item, they come upon evidence of another, unrelated crime, they are well within their rights to take such evidence for processing and to use against the owner.

The police are NOT allowed wide discretion to search for a warrant item. For example, if the warrant says "television approximately 25 x 50 inches" the police are not allowed to search through dresser drawers or clothes hanging in the close since such areas could not conceal a television of the description on the warrant.

In this search, there was reason to believe drugs were in the house and the area searched was consistant with places used to hide or could have been used to conceal drugs. The fact that additional evidence was discovered is valid on its face.

Wow, I'm highly impressed. This correct analysis of the law is so different from what I've seen in your other posts. Maybe you should just confine your posts to the criminal - illegal search area. This seems to be where you're most knowledgable.

 

[watchthelaw]

BB just sounds like a really pissed off cop LOL what the world doesn't need.

 

[Florid-aise]

I absolutely refuse to mediate this thing, but for the sake of principle I will comment on the obvious.

watchthelaw, you make your case, the argument is engaged, you attempt to validate that with a "secondary" and "suspect" reference. CdwJawa joins in the tirade - makes a point or two, leaving the door open for more historically accepted rebuttal. SeniorJudge asks only one question. A question that you, (without correctly seizing that opportunity), failed to produce an answer to, any answer. To cite something relevant or more reliable supporting your cause. You had (and still have) the opportunity to be "credible" in your position. You can forget about any reference to the "burden of proof" and make your case in order to retain or attain "credibility" (the more desirable position here) which would be or should be the basis for intelligent discussion or further argument. When insulting your opponent without provocation, you lose face.

Facts as we all know, are subject to manipulation. Truth however, is the truth no matter when it is said or who says it. (I made that quote up myself). CdwJawa, points out that historians when not actual contemporaries can only speculate as to the meaning of things as they wrote what at the time they wrote it. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been and remain highly and hotly contested even today. The argument there is whether the writer was a historian or a contemporary. An unverifiable argument for either position, will be the case for time immemorial.

The final undisputable point and fact that I have observed made here, is that I too would abandon this or any other thread, where there is pork and sauerkraut ready to be dispensed.

 

[AHA]

What the hell has ancient president's smoking habits got to do with this dumb@ass kid???????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
IT'S 2005, CAN WE FOCUS ON THE LAWS FOR THIS CENTURY PERHAPS???!!!!
Jesus, are you so old you still live in the dark ages?? Get current, for christ's sake and stop embarrassing yourselves.

"a kid who simply has a drug habit, not some big drug "kingpin"

So, how do think drug "kingpins" start their druggie career?? I'll tell you, by getting a drug habit!
Start the parenting your kid is craving and get him off drugs, it might already be to late since he's a grown man already and no one cared to get him help before, but better late than never. I'm shocked that you are more worried about how the cops executed their legal warrant to get into your son's locker, than the fact that he's a druggie and you have done nothing to stop it! Some parents.......................

 

[nanaII]

I beg to differ..

You seem to have missed another post..

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=808012#post808012

 

[zwara]

If David had been faced with 20 Goliaths most likely the outcome would have been much different. The same holds true to any arguments in regards to marijuana. This argument has been argued many times, the people of California even voted to make marijuana legal for medicinal use, only for Goliath Clinton to override it using the Federal Government as his mighty tool to inforce it. This forum would be the last place on earth to attempt to argue the point since it appears the majority of members that subscribe to this forum are made up primarily of law enforcement (just an observation) and since law enforcement are sworn to uphold the laws and do not make them, to argue the issue is pointless. There are several members of law enforcement that partake in the use of the evil weed and many would like to see the decriminalization of marijuana to be put into law but when you have the mighty Federal Goverment with all it's Goliaths who profit from inforcing it, that even David himself would be powerless to change it. There are numerous reputable studies that have been made in showing marijuna to be quite tame but unfortunatley politics rule the day. I have found that even the subject of simple 4th amendment rights cannot be addressed here with any amount of reasonable arguement. While I would have to say there are some here with a fair amount of integrity and knowledge, law enforcement in general interpet this basic right to be something far different then what the original framers intended it to be. The issue in regards to the legal issues of marijuana are irrelevent when the important issue is the means law enforcement attempt to inforce the law and overide the 4th amendment. The truth is the original framers were not arguing what was and what wasnt legal but rather to protect the rights of the People from warrantless claims that would invade their personal domain without true probable cause and the sad fact is that in this day and age "probable" and "power to believe" have become one and the same with little room for discussion.

 

[zwara]

What the hell has ancient president's smoking habits got to do with this dumb@ass kid???????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
IT'S 2005, CAN WE FOCUS ON THE LAWS FOR THIS CENTURY PERHAPS???!!!!
Jesus, are you so old you still live in the dark ages?? Get current, for christ's sake and stop embarrassing yourselves.

"a kid who simply has a drug habit, not some big drug "kingpin"

So, how do think drug "kingpins" start their druggie career?? I'll tell you, by getting a drug habit!
Start the parenting your kid is craving and get him off drugs, it might already be to late since he's a grown man already and no one cared to get him help before, but better late than never. I'm shocked that you are more worried about how the cops executed their legal warrant to get into your son's locker, than the fact that he's a druggie and you have done nothing to stop it! Some parents.......................

....and what an embarrassment you are PaL (or gaL)...it makes me wonder what kind of parents you had to make such a pathetic insinuating statement as this. God help us if you hold any type of judicial position.