Texas judge: Search warrants canbe obtained based on predictions of future crime

[ZombieApocolypse]

http://rt.com/usa/texas-warrants-future-prediction-crimes-449/

 

[MikeDVB]

I predict you might break into my car - I'm going to go ahead and file for that search warrant to look for auto-theft tools like screwdrivers and firearms...

Yeah - absurd.

 

[cobber]

One convoluted post.

The facts are NOT clear from this article, but what the majority ruled would be consistent in principle with long-established federal case law on independent source.

It sounds like the perp was already violating the law by possessing precursors for making meth. In this case, "fixin" to cook is not an indication of a future crime, but is in itself a crime.

So let's drop the "future" tag here.

Police get information from a CI, NOT an anonymous tip, that a meth cook is underway.

I would have to read the facts of the case, and not a media summary.

I also don't get that a person can enter a plea, and then challenge that plea on appeal. Texas.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I also don't get that a person can enter a plea, and then challenge that plea on appeal. Texas.

Conditional guilty pleas are nothing new in federal courts and other states.

In fact, the last Chief Justice of Indiana openly discussed the option in the mid-90s.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

The part i found disturbing was, the police searched a house before obtaining a warrant but were still able to present the confiscated evidence during a trial.

But apparently thats ok because the judge cited federal “independent source doctrine” which allows such evidence when a third party – the unnamed informant – tells police about it beforehand.

 

[OneShotFOGE]

Everybody runs.... Everybody runs....

 

[cobber]

The part i found disturbing was, the police searched a house before obtaining a warrant but were still able to present the confiscated evidence during a trial.

But apparently thats ok because the judge cited federal “independent source doctrine” which allows such evidence when a third party – the unnamed informant – tells police about it beforehand.

Any link to the appellate decision, with recitation of facts in the case?

 

[cubbetm]

Why even require a search warrant then?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The part i found disturbing was, the police searched a house before obtaining a warrant but were still able to present the confiscated evidence during a trial.

It happens. You can search without a warrant for exigent circumstances, then back out and get a warrant once the exigent circumstances no longer exist.

Real life recent examples: House alarm goes off, officers arrive and front door is kicked in, officers clear house for possible burglary in progress...find grow operation in basement. The initial entry is legal, but once they determined no burglary is in progress and the scene is secure, there is no more exigent circumstance. They were legally inside and observed the grow, which is the probable cause for the warrant.

Not all no-warrant searches are illegal or unreasonable.

Back on topic, there's always been the legal concept of prosecuting for future acts. Conspiracy to commit (insert crime here). In short, if someone has taken substantial steps to commit a crime they have the means to commit, you can arrest and try them for it. A guy in a ski mask approaches a pharmacy counter with a gun in his hand and a hold up note in his other hand. What crime has he committed yet? Do you need to let him rob the store before you intervene? You are predicting, and rationally so, that he's about to rob the store.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It happens. You can search without a warrant for exigent circumstances, then back out and get a warrant once the exigent circumstances no longer exist.

Real life recent examples: House alarm goes off, officers arrive and front door is kicked in, officers clear house for possible burglary in progress...find grow operation in basement. The initial entry is legal, but once they determined no burglary is in progress and the scene is secure, there is no more exigent circumstance. They were legally inside and observed the grow, which is the probable cause for the warrant.

Not all no-warrant searches are illegal or unreasonable.

Back on topic, there's always been the legal concept of prosecuting for future acts. Conspiracy to commit (insert crime here). In short, if someone has taken substantial steps to commit a crime they have the means to commit, you can arrest and try them for it. A guy in a ski mask approaches a pharmacy counter with a gun in his hand and a hold up note in his other hand. What crime has he committed yet? Do you need to let him rob the store before you intervene? You are predicting, and rationally so, that he's about to rob the store.

Ah, but it's a real imposition on the perp when it's drugs involved instead of armed robbery, donchaknow?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I see some problems with the reasoning process here. First, a CI is generally a criminal who has been rolled up and proceeds to turn in others guilty of real or imaginary offenses, often of less significance than the CI himself, in lieu of being duly punished for his own misdeeds. This system invites and regularly delivers the predictable results which are less than helpful to the cause of the reduction of crime. Second, the Sixth Amendment states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

How can action on the part of the .gov be taken against any individual based on the word of an accuser whose identity is kept secret and is most generally a disreputable individual with personal vested interests not particularly congruent with law and order be made to conform with the above-mentioned text? Sounds unconstitutional as hell to me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How can action on the part of the .gov be taken against any individual based on the word of an accuser whose identity is kept secret and is most generally a disreputable individual with personal vested interests not particularly congruent with law and order be made to conform with the above-mentioned text? Sounds unconstitutional as hell to me.

First off, I'm not disagreeing with the overall premise about CIs. For the crimes I deal with, our prosecutor's office won't let anyone cut a deal for anything short of an unsolved homicide. As a result, I have very little experience with CIs or the handling of them. As such, I can't claim any expertise on it or comment on it with any authority.

However, there are several times outside of the CI role where someone who reports a crime or gives evidence is not required to testify in court. This is not intended to be a direct comparison to what happened above, just an example. An example would be your Crime Stoppers tip. Let's say you know Johnny Smith robbed the Wal-greens by your house and you know he keeps his gun and his lucky robbery sweatshirt in his yard barn. You call the tip in. I confirm that Johnny Smith matches the physical description of our robbery suspect, he lives nearby, and the sweatshirt matches the one seen on surveillance video. I act on that tip and stake out Johnny Smith's house. He comes out, goes to the yard barn, and comes out with his lucky robbery sweatshirt on and heads to the nearby pharmacy. He walks to the pharmacy, a marked car pulls in the parking lot, and he immediately turns around and runs. He gets stopped, and the officers find the gun and a hold up note in his pocket.

I don't need the Crime Stoppers tip guy to make my case. It may be what started me watching Johnny, but that's no different than the 911 caller who calls and says she heard shots and now there's a guy rolling around on the sidewalk screaming. Its lead information only. I don't need even reasonable suspicion to just sit in a public place and watch someone, so I don't need the lead to justify my presence. I am able to build a tip into reasonable suspicion into probable cause into an arrest that will stick without ever even mentioning the crimestoppers tipster. They accused you, but I am not your accuser in the legal sense, and it will be me you confront in court.

 

[IndyDave1776]

First off...

I agree completely. So far as I am concerned, someone telling you to take those baby blues to a certain location, sit on the bench on the sidewalk, and pay attention in a certain direction is entirely different from obtaining search warrants (like examples which have turned out deadly to the innocent like a famous example involving a grandmother in Atlanta a few years back).

As for the dirty side of the establishment playing ball with the other team in form of CIs, my mind is drawn to an example who was obviously selling drugs (as in you could sit on the bench and see people walk into a music/comedy establishment and walk out with large packages in the time it took to walk in the door, exchange cash for merchandise, and walk out--outside of operating hours on a regular basis) unimpeded while turning in others selectively chosen for his own reasons. Further, the police would do absolutely nothing about this cretin no matter how far and how flagrantly out of bounds his behavior was (sponsoring a motorcycle event with no permits which everyone else was required to have and having near misses ON THE SIDEWALK between motorcycles moving at high speed and patrons of surrounding businesses including Yours Truly is a favorite example) routinely tolerated. Finally and outside agency (state or federal, I don't recall) rolled him up. This is definitely not the type of person I would want steering the pursuit and issue of search warrants!