How can cops do this?

[wacki]

I feel your pain kid. Your friend may of very well been a victim of low quality law enforcement officials either filling a quota or on nothing more than a power trip. Harassment on college campuses is far too common especially with todays "zero tolerance" movement. I've had/seen plenty of bad experiences myself so I don't doubt that it could of happened. But you also need to realize that your friend may not be 100% truthful with you about how everything actually happened. And unfortunately people, sometimes even close friends, aren't always 100 percent truthfull about situations like this. And that too, is far too common.

If your friend feels that he has been harassed, he should get a lawyer and see what the local laws are. In one state, this could be legal, in the next it could be a clear violation of his rights. And that should be the biggest factor on this thread, what are the local laws. I'm lucky enough to have a father as a lawyer, and he has a partner that was a former United States Attorney, so I get plenty of advice all of the time. From what I know, your friends incident does sound a little excessive, but then again I don't know your local laws. He needs to figure out what this is going to cost him, and if it's worth hiring a lawyer to fight it. If they give hime pre-trial diversion then it's probably not worth fighting, that is unless your friend is rich, doesn't care about legal fees, and is willing to risk greater punishment in order to stand up for his rights and more importantly, the rights of others. But if pre-trial isn't an option, he will need a lawyer anyway.
I'm guessing with a case like this he will probably be offered pretrial. On college campuses and any other place that wants a clean image, it's all too often the judicial systems way of getting people to waive their rights in order to maintain the kind of order that they want. Tactics like that occur all of the time. It even happens to my father who is a partner at a high priced law firm. He constantly gets screwed on small things, because to him, his time is better spent fighting the bigger more profitable cases. It's too expensive to fight every battle.

Your friend needs to decide if the expense fighting this case is worth it, regardless if the cops are right or wrong. It's a sucky situation to be in, but it's a part of life.

 

[MAME]

If he had alcohol illegally, he should be busted. Why else make it a law?

 

"MAYBE JUST ONCE... you can make a post that is somehow.. a) not the same exact thing that has been said already b) not demeaning in anyway c) shows some sort of evidence of your ability to understand that you may not be right. I think I'll find Jimmy freakin' Hoffa before that happens."

Maybe just once, once, you'll stand to reason without jumping on the bandwagon or ad hominem attacks. Maybe for once you'll pause to ponder. . . .

To each of your arguments:

a) When did posting an exact same view as someone else become a crime? Do you want to show me that I was the first to repeat a view already expressed within this thread? Or do you want me to show you where people before me had repeated what was already said? Even you did that! Secondly, to make any senses of your statement here, you would be assuming that everyone sits to see what responses are already posted in every case. Do you have proof that I read every, or even most, post within this thread before responding to the original poster? Do you happen to devour people who simultaneously, or a minute apart, post opinions of the same views? I frankly fail to see your point here.

b) It's simply subject to opinion. Unless you're a divine authority to know my demeanour, or the person to whom it's explicitly addressed, or I use an emoticon in agreement with such intent, or I explicitly insult someone, your argument is simply begging the question. I don't think you would want to be a spokeperson for all individuals to whom posts are explicitly made, would you? Often, people find anything that's straightfoward and without emotions expressed demeaning . . . just that mere fact that you tell it as it is makes you condescending or whatever. ("You" was used generically there.)

c) Again, it's your interpretation of given facts. It isn't a fact that I behave that way. It's a fact that I post opinions and you interpret them accordingly. I have admitted time and time again when I'm wrong about something or could be wrong. What I refuse to do is give in to a position on a subjective matter because someone says I must. All of the the instances where I've been criticised for failing to give in have been cases of opinions on subjective matters. I have always by matter of default accepted that we can agree to disagree, and it's possible that I'm wrong. I will argue my position, offer rebuttals or anything else, and I am open to persuasion by means of reasoning or concrete evidence. Don't try forcing a subject of opinion upon my throat and expect me to relinquish my stand. However, come to me at any time with empirical evidence or source to support an argument and I'll be pleased to concede.

At the end, you may object to my individuality, but you have no right to stifle it, so long as it is within the rules of the forum. You have the option to criticise it constructively, try persuading me or disregard it (i.e., ignore). Anything else is simply pointless.

 

[Mill]

luvly, shut the hell up for the 100x time.

What the hell is your problem? You talk out of your ass and no one likes or respects you. Go snort some anthrax and eat a sandwhich.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Two students were found smoking in the girls bathroom. One student confessed but the other, T.L.O. (her initials), denied smoking. In fact, T.L.O. claimed she did not smoke at all. The school Assistant Principal then proceeded to search T.L.O.'s purse. In the purse he found Marijuana in small bags, rolling paper, a large amount of cash and a list of names who owed T.L.O. money. The police were summoned and T.L.O. was arrested. T.L.O. was convicted and through the appeals process the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. T.L.O. claimed that the search of her purse violated her Constitutional rights.

The Court ruled against T.L.O. setting new standards for school officials. The Court ruled that school officials may search a student under "reasonable suspicion." The standard is less than that required of police therefore giving school officials much broader search powers under the fourth amendment.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: luvly
"MAYBE JUST ONCE... you can make a post that is somehow.. a) not the same exact thing that has been said already b) not demeaning in anyway c) shows some sort of evidence of your ability to understand that you may not be right. I think I'll find Jimmy freakin' Hoffa before that happens."

Maybe just once, once, you'll stand to reason without jumping on the bandwagon or ad hominem attacks. Maybe for once you'll pause to ponder. . . .

To each of your arguments:

a) When did posting an exact same view as someone else become a crime? Do you want to show me that I was the first to repeat a view already expressed within this thread? Or do you want me to show you where people before me had repeated what was already said? Even you did that! Secondly, to make any senses of your statement here, you would be assuming that everyone sits to see what responses are already posted in every case. Do you have proof that I read every, or even most, post within this thread before responding to the original poster? Do you happen to devour people who simultaneously, or a minute apart, post opinions of the same views? I frankly fail to see your point here.

b) It's simply subject to opinion. Unless you're a divine authority to know my demeanour, or the person to whom it's explicitly addressed, or I use an emoticon in agreement with such intent, or I explicitly insult someone, your argument is simply begging the question. I don't think you would want to be a spokeperson for all individuals to whom posts are explicitly made, would you? Often, people find anything that's straightfoward and without emotions expressed demeaning . . . just that mere fact that you tell it as it is makes you condescending or whatever. ("You" was used generically there.)

c) Again, it's your interpretation of given facts. It isn't a fact that I behave that way. It's a fact that I post opinions and you interpret them accordingly. I have admitted time and time again when I'm wrong about something or could be wrong. What I refuse to do is give in to a position on a subjective matter because someone says I must. All of the the instances where I've been criticised for failing to give in have been cases of opinions on subjective matters. I have always by matter of default accepted that we can agree to disagree, and it's possible that I'm wrong. I will argue my position, offer rebuttals or anything else, and I am open to persuasion by means of reasoning or concrete evidence. Don't try forcing a subject of opinion upon my throat and expect me to relinquish my stand. However, come to me at any time with empirical evidence or source to support an argument and I'll be pleased to concede.

At the end, you may object to my individuality, but you have no right to stifle it, so long as it is within the rules of the forum. You have the option to criticise it constructively, try persuading me or disregard it (i.e., ignore). Anything else is simply pointless.

a) You made a post about something that had not only already been stated, but already discussed. Quite frankly, if you aren't going to read the whole thread, and you don't know that what you are about to say hasn't been posted, keep reading. Or should we just thank you next time for posting something that's already been said, as if you deserve a medal or award for not acknowledging every other post that has been made? Think about it this way, if you were having a conversation about puppy dogs with some friends, and 10 minutes later you were discussing robots, would you suddendly be inclined to say "I have a puppy dog!"? Frankly, if you answer yes to that, you are either lying, or "just that dumb." Don't dare tell my original statement is 'ad hominem', because that's about as logical as it gets.

b) I can clearly see that your posts are demeaning to people because they come right back and tell you they are! I don't NEED magic powers, I don't need to be the afficianado on emotion, I just need to read exactly what people are saying. Not only that, but regardless of the context you use it in, if you aren't clear, it doesn't mean that someone won't take it the wrong way. GET A CLUE. When people are constantly posting to you telling you that you are (more or less) pissing them off... HELLLLLOO!!! To top it off, I think there is a serious doubt that one person could make this happen on so many occasions. You are demeaning to everyone who your standards don't find acceptable and I'm not the only one to feel that way. There is no "bandwagon" here. You have pissed off many people individually. Which brings me RIGHT UP TO...

c) That entire paragraph contradicts itself.... you say you can admit when you're wrong, but then you will always argue that you won't? To top it off, I have witnessed MANY times occasions where you have been so wrong that you set the bar for being completely inncorrect, and then you just break into other stupid crap and totally dodge the issue. JUST AS YOU ARE DOING NOW.






Below.

 

[GoingUp]

thanks for all of the replies from the people who were serious....

ignore luvlys essays about ad hominem attacks... once again shes trying to take over a thread.... hey luvly, if you never post something not relating to the topic, why dont you just air out your differences with people via PM instead of posting it right in the thread?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Rogue

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
If officers go in with a search warrant lookin for drugs, they cant arrest you if they find a dead body, b/c all they are looking for is drugs... (obviously no search warrant was used here)

Wrongo, Gobadgrs. If, in the course of a warrant search, the cops find a firearm or drugs or a body or something that they were looking for, they have every right to arrest you.

Do you honestly think on a drug raid, if the cops find unlicensed firearms, they must ignore them and only arrest the person on drug charges? Uh-uh.

From what I understand, they can only admit into evidence what they are expecting to find with a search warrant

You watch way too much TV cop shows my friend and I'm not talking COPS either. Do you really think that if they find a dead body on a drug warrant that they can't arrest you for that? C'mon. You're not this dumb are you? Police often fall into doing things that are "reasonable under the circumstances" and then must justify it in accordance with the law later. You've seen how thick the law books are for even sub-categories of the law, right? Still, even with entire libraries of books there is not a law on the books to cover every single thing that can happen. Finding a dead body in an area occupied by someone is immediate grounds to arrest them and conduct a "search incident to apprehension" of the premises. Even more so, if they were smart, they'd treat the body as though it was recently deceased and try to resuscitate it, further granting them rights to be all over the place finding other evidence. The law is not black and white, never was, never is.

Here's what probably happened and your friend didn't want to admit to it. Either A) he or the room smelled of alchohol leading to the suspicion on behalf of the officers or B) there were remnants of alcoholic beverage consumption in plain view. Either way, I'm fairly certain that a college dorm is considered private property, leaving how far the police can step over the line up to the school, not the attorney's office. If this had happened in his own home, I'd be the first one to tell you that his rights had been violated, but in a school dorm on private property, he doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. Granted, I do think that this dumb ass RA that called the cops for this should get a beat down, but that's another matter entirely.

I've got to disagree with jumpr, FallenHero, and Rogue on this one. Searches incidental to arrest only can be precipitated so that the officer can find and confiscate any weapons a suspect may be carrying and/or the need to protect evidence on the suspect's person from being destroyed.

Chimel vs. California(1969) sets limits on what/how/when a person or property can be searched during/after an arrest. If the original party refused to allow a search, a warrant WAS needed and should have issued unless the police were arguing they felt for their safety. I would like to see how they justified searching under a desk in a dorm room on a theft case after the suspect had already admitted his participation in the theft. Secondly, Chimel vs. California setup the idea that a search has to be within the suspects "immediate control" (i.e. arm's length). The court went on to state verbatim: for routinely searching rooms other than that in which the arrest occurs -- or, for that matter, for searching through all desk drawers or other closes or CONCEALED areas in the room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. In general, "area within immediate control" means the area within the reach of the spot where the person was arrested. If no warrant was obtained, I would have to say with the limited information that we have, that the exclusionary rule would apply and that would make the search illegal. Because the search would be illegal, and it was NOT done for protection, then it would be fruit of the poisoned tree and not allowed in court. Because of this the charges would be dismissed.

Gobadgrs stated it was not in plain view, so at best we have to believe that. If there was a smell, then there is no methodology to determine WHERE it was coming from, unless it was clearly and very strongly coming from that room. However, if appears that they arrested him for the theft first, therefore a search incidental to an arrest would not allow them to look under the desk. Even it in arms length, it was a concealed area and there is no reason to believe the stolen tree was under the desk. Unless they had some type of probable cause for the alcohol I think the search would be ruled illegal. My question is, why would they place him under arrest for the theft, and not tell him they had probable cause that alcohol was in the room. The proper procedure as I have heard it, would have been to place him under arrest for theft AND the suspicion of MIP, and then perform the incidental search looking for the alcohol. It's an interesting case and we need more details, but I wonder why the officers searched after they were refused the right to search?

It being a dorm has nothing to do with permission to search. If someone is living there, then it is IS their domicile and it protected by the normal rules governing search and seizures.

 

[GasX]

can you hide a tree in a pill bottle?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Two students were found smoking in the girls bathroom. One student confessed but the other, T.L.O. (her initials), denied smoking. In fact, T.L.O. claimed she did not smoke at all. The school Assistant Principal then proceeded to search T.L.O.'s purse. In the purse he found Marijuana in small bags, rolling paper, a large amount of cash and a list of names who owed T.L.O. money. The police were summoned and T.L.O. was arrested. T.L.O. was convicted and through the appeals process the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. T.L.O. claimed that the search of her purse violated her Constitutional rights.

The Court ruled against T.L.O. setting new standards for school officials. The Court ruled that school officials may search a student under "reasonable suspicion." The standard is less than that required of police therefore giving school officials much broader search powers under the fourth amendment.

Your case doesn't matter, because the property was found on the person and not in an enclosed or concealed area. It is reasonable to except a female to keep marijuana or cigarettes in a purse, and it is reasonable for a search to ensue when the odor of marijuana or smoke is in the air. It is not reasonable, however, to search an area under a desk in an incidental search about theft.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: v3rrv3

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
We have a family friend up here at the University that I know. Well call him "Jeff" Jeff is in a student dorm. In the den of that dorm, they had a Christmas tree, so as a joke, Jeff and his friends put the tree in one of the girls rooms, so when she opened her door, there was a lighted Christmas tree. The Resident Assistant then procedes to call police for the "theft" of the tree.

The cops come to Jeffs room and ask if he knows about the tree. He says that he moved the tree as a joke. They then ask him if they can search his room, to which he replies No. The cops then arrest him for theft and proceed to search his room. There they find alcohol and write him a ticket for underage possession. The dont write him any tickets or charge him with theft though.

How can the cops even do this? They went through everything of his, they even poured out his vitamins and stuff to look for drugs. Isnt that a violation of his civil rights?


edited for a typo

No normally they can't do this. There was a huge supreme court case where the cops had a warrant to search some guy's house and found something else other than what they were looking for. With a warrant they can only get you on what the warrant was issued for.

Now the difference here is it was in the dorms. In a dorm setting you're subject to university rules and whatever they impose. Thus, if the university says so, he can get in trouble for it.

For your first paragraph, either you're making it up or there is some seriously retarded cops. If they happend, theyd'd just go get another warrant. Or the thing with the drug busts as long as there's probable cause with those(which there is as long as its not like a guy with a 20 sack or something) they could look for guns all they want.

Also, say cops are going to someplace to look to see something in a warrant and happend to walk by somewhere and see something wrong(a body, gun, etc) they can do what they please from what I remember, some "good intentions law" or something like that.

- Kevin

I think I know what he means, although he might have read the article he got his information from incorrectly. A warrent has to state what is being searched and it usually will cover every single illegal item that could be found. However, if a warrent does not state say the "basement" of a house then anything found in that basement cannot be admitted into court because the search warrent did not allow for the search of that area. If however, they are searching a house on a drugbust, and they are looking for narcatics but come across a dead body or illegal firearm, then the police are well within their rights to process that evidence as well.

If you have a link to the case to prove me wrong, by all means. I would accually like to read it and see if some of my professors know about it.

I think it's something about the exclusionary rule. I can't find it off the top of my head but a warrant is issued looking for specific evidence related to a specific crime. All evidence found in regards to anything else aren't covered by that warrant thus it's considered a violation of 4th ammendment illegal search and seizure right. I think that's how it all plays out.

About whether they can just obtain another warrant, I'm not sure. I think if they found something during another search they can't get another warrant for it because that information for the warrant was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. They will probably sit outside your house and find some reason to get a warrant for what they're looking for though through probable cause.

You're probably thinking well why can they search your car like that. Because the 4th ammendment protects your expectation of privacy in your own home. When you're in your car it's not considered your own home. I'm not sure about the specifics of this though.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
Two students were found smoking in the girls bathroom. One student confessed but the other, T.L.O. (her initials), denied smoking. In fact, T.L.O. claimed she did not smoke at all. The school Assistant Principal then proceeded to search T.L.O.'s purse. In the purse he found Marijuana in small bags, rolling paper, a large amount of cash and a list of names who owed T.L.O. money. The police were summoned and T.L.O. was arrested. T.L.O. was convicted and through the appeals process the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. T.L.O. claimed that the search of her purse violated her Constitutional rights.

The Court ruled against T.L.O. setting new standards for school officials. The Court ruled that school officials may search a student under "reasonable suspicion." The standard is less than that required of police therefore giving school officials much broader search powers under the fourth amendment.

Your case doesn't matter, because the property was found on the person and not in an enclosed or concealed area. It is reasonable to except a female to keep marijuana or cigarettes in a purse, and it is reasonable for a search to ensue when the odor of marijuana or smoke is in the air. It is not reasonable, however, to search an area under a desk in an incidental search about theft.

 

Ness1496, back to a) Don't make me dig up ideas that no member stated at all and was solely mine.

But supposing your statement is true about I intentionally posting same view that's already been stated, what's your problem? Are those views intellectual property? As far as I know, none is a view that it's impossible for someone to independently come by. They're mostly common knowledge. In this case, do you know my background to presume that I'm ignorant of laws and must have stolen someone's idea? I had touched this subject long time ago during another discussion (i.e., the case of seizure and reading of a student's journal).

b) Again, you're acting as a spokesperson. I'm afraid you're mixing up the opinions of busibodies with the actual persons involved. I would like you to show that--in every instance--the individual who asked for advice/inputs felt and stated publicly that I had acted condescending. I don't care what busibodies say, as I do care how the person whom it concerns perceives it.

c) No, I did not contradict myself. What I said is, I am willing to admit to being wrong, but how could someone say you're wrong on a subjective matter? What I do admit to is non-subjective matters. All of the instances that I'm criticised for not giving in are the subjective cases. You will not find me refuse to concede to an empirical evidence presented or a source cited with credence (i.e., a qualified authority). I can, nonetheless, be persuaded by reasoning on subjective matters.

 

Originally posted by: Millennium


I've got to disagree with jumpr, FallenHero, and Rogue on this one. Searches incidental to arrest only can be precipitated so that the officer can find and confiscate any weapons a suspect may be carrying and/or the need to protect evidence on the suspect's person from being destroyed.

Chimel vs. California(1969) sets limits on what/how/when a person or property can be searched during/after an arrest. If the original party refused to allow a search, a warrant WAS needed and should have issued unless the police were arguing they felt for their safety. I would like to see how they justified searching under a desk in a dorm room on a theft case after the suspect had already admitted his participation in the theft. Secondly, Chimel vs. California setup the idea that a search has to be within the suspects "immediate control" (i.e. arm's length). The court went on to state verbatim: for routinely searching rooms other than that in which the arrest occurs -- or, for that matter, for searching through all desk drawers or other closes or CONCEALED areas in the room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. In general, "area within immediate control" means the area within the reach of the spot where the person was arrested. If no warrant was obtained, I would have to say with the limited information that we have, that the exclusionary rule would apply and that would make the search illegal. Because the search would be illegal, and it was NOT done for protection, then it would be fruit of the poisoned tree and not allowed in court. Because of this the charges would be dismissed.

Gobadgrs stated it was not in plain view, so at best we have to believe that. If there was a smell, then there is no methodology to determine WHERE it was coming from, unless it was clearly and very strongly coming from that room. However, if appears that they arrested him for the theft first, therefore a search incidental to an arrest would not allow them to look under the desk. Even it in arms length, it was a concealed area and there is no reason to believe the stolen tree was under the desk. Unless they had some type of probable cause for the alcohol I think the search would be ruled illegal. My question is, why would they place him under arrest for the theft, and not tell him they had probable cause that alcohol was in the room. The proper procedure as I have heard it, would have been to place him under arrest for theft AND the suspicion of MIP, and then perform the incidental search looking for the alcohol. It's an interesting case and we need more details, but I wonder why the officers searched after they were refused the right to search?

It being a dorm has nothing to do with permission to search. If someone is living there, then it is IS their domicile and it protected by the normal rules governing search and seizures.

You do bring up a good point. My hatred for Luvly apparently blinded me from seeing this in the first place. However, if the cops saw something when questioning him (IE bottle tops, part of a can or bottle) then I would have to say they were in the right. Were the officers invited into the room for the questioning? Anything in plain view is fair game. I guess we just need more facts. "Jeff" probably missed a detail that the police picked up on, otherwise, as Millennium has pointed out, they did something illegal.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: v3rrv3

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
We have a family friend up here at the University that I know. Well call him "Jeff" Jeff is in a student dorm. In the den of that dorm, they had a Christmas tree, so as a joke, Jeff and his friends put the tree in one of the girls rooms, so when she opened her door, there was a lighted Christmas tree. The Resident Assistant then procedes to call police for the "theft" of the tree.

The cops come to Jeffs room and ask if he knows about the tree. He says that he moved the tree as a joke. They then ask him if they can search his room, to which he replies No. The cops then arrest him for theft and proceed to search his room. There they find alcohol and write him a ticket for underage possession. The dont write him any tickets or charge him with theft though.

How can the cops even do this? They went through everything of his, they even poured out his vitamins and stuff to look for drugs. Isnt that a violation of his civil rights?


edited for a typo

No normally they can't do this. There was a huge supreme court case where the cops had a warrant to search some guy's house and found something else other than what they were looking for. With a warrant they can only get you on what the warrant was issued for.

Now the difference here is it was in the dorms. In a dorm setting you're subject to university rules and whatever they impose. Thus, if the university says so, he can get in trouble for it.

For your first paragraph, either you're making it up or there is some seriously retarded cops. If they happend, theyd'd just go get another warrant. Or the thing with the drug busts as long as there's probable cause with those(which there is as long as its not like a guy with a 20 sack or something) they could look for guns all they want.

Also, say cops are going to someplace to look to see something in a warrant and happend to walk by somewhere and see something wrong(a body, gun, etc) they can do what they please from what I remember, some "good intentions law" or something like that.

- Kevin

I think I know what he means, although he might have read the article he got his information from incorrectly. A warrent has to state what is being searched and it usually will cover every single illegal item that could be found. However, if a warrent does not state say the "basement" of a house then anything found in that basement cannot be admitted into court because the search warrent did not allow for the search of that area. If however, they are searching a house on a drugbust, and they are looking for narcatics but come across a dead body or illegal firearm, then the police are well within their rights to process that evidence as well.

If you have a link to the case to prove me wrong, by all means. I would accually like to read it and see if some of my professors know about it.

I think it's something about the exclusionary rule. I can't find it off the top of my head but a warrant is issued looking for specific evidence related to a specific crime. All evidence found in regards to anything else aren't covered by that warrant thus it's considered a violation of 4th ammendment illegal search and seizure right. I think that's how it all plays out.

About whether they can just obtain another warrant, I'm not sure. I think if they found something during another search they can't get another warrant for it because that information for the warrant was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. They will probably sit outside your house and find some reason to get a warrant for what they're looking for though through probable cause.

You're probably thinking well why can they search your car like that. Because the 4th ammendment protects your expectation of privacy in your own home. When you're in your car it's not considered your own home. I'm not sure about the specifics of this though.

Well, they didn't have a warrant in this case, so I'm not sure how the specificity of one would apply in this case. No, evidence found in plain view of a legal search, or when searching for an item in the warranty is legally obtained and may be used in court. It's only a violation of the 4th amendment if the property seized would not have been found if they had searched in places where the listed item was to be find. For example, if they were looking for a stolen chainsaw, there is no reason to believe that it would be in the medicine cabinet of a bathroom. Therefore, anything found in that medicine cabinet would be excluded under the 4th amendment and the exclusionary rule.

 

[Mill]

BTW, it is bad methodology to create a general search warranty and go on a general, exploratory search. There is supposed to be particularity in the description of the property and the residence to be searched. 123 Main Street Apartments would NOT be generally excepted, and 123 Main Street Apartments, Apartment B-16 would be MUCH better and preferred. When it comes to property descriptions, "Stolen Goods" would not cut it, nor would "Stolen Auto Parts." There is supposed to be some specificity such as stolen mufflers and transmission, with "stolen Flowmaster Mufflers" being the preferable to list something on a search. Now, there is judges that will approve pretty much any warranty, and it is not above people to judge shop so that they can find a judge to sign off on the warrant. It depends how much you want to bend the rules and how much you want to nail the thief/perp. Some judges are REALLY particular and others love the cops and give them too much power. I'm just saying whats preferable about search warrants, and not what actually occurs or what the norm is.

 

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: v3rrv3

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
We have a family friend up here at the University that I know. Well call him "Jeff" Jeff is in a student dorm. In the den of that dorm, they had a Christmas tree, so as a joke, Jeff and his friends put the tree in one of the girls rooms, so when she opened her door, there was a lighted Christmas tree. The Resident Assistant then procedes to call police for the "theft" of the tree.

The cops come to Jeffs room and ask if he knows about the tree. He says that he moved the tree as a joke. They then ask him if they can search his room, to which he replies No. The cops then arrest him for theft and proceed to search his room. There they find alcohol and write him a ticket for underage possession. The dont write him any tickets or charge him with theft though.

How can the cops even do this? They went through everything of his, they even poured out his vitamins and stuff to look for drugs. Isnt that a violation of his civil rights?


edited for a typo

No normally they can't do this. There was a huge supreme court case where the cops had a warrant to search some guy's house and found something else other than what they were looking for. With a warrant they can only get you on what the warrant was issued for.

Now the difference here is it was in the dorms. In a dorm setting you're subject to university rules and whatever they impose. Thus, if the university says so, he can get in trouble for it.

For your first paragraph, either you're making it up or there is some seriously retarded cops. If they happend, theyd'd just go get another warrant. Or the thing with the drug busts as long as there's probable cause with those(which there is as long as its not like a guy with a 20 sack or something) they could look for guns all they want.

Also, say cops are going to someplace to look to see something in a warrant and happend to walk by somewhere and see something wrong(a body, gun, etc) they can do what they please from what I remember, some "good intentions law" or something like that.

- Kevin

I think I know what he means, although he might have read the article he got his information from incorrectly. A warrent has to state what is being searched and it usually will cover every single illegal item that could be found. However, if a warrent does not state say the "basement" of a house then anything found in that basement cannot be admitted into court because the search warrent did not allow for the search of that area. If however, they are searching a house on a drugbust, and they are looking for narcatics but come across a dead body or illegal firearm, then the police are well within their rights to process that evidence as well.

If you have a link to the case to prove me wrong, by all means. I would accually like to read it and see if some of my professors know about it.

I think it's something about the exclusionary rule. I can't find it off the top of my head but a warrant is issued looking for specific evidence related to a specific crime. All evidence found in regards to anything else aren't covered by that warrant thus it's considered a violation of 4th ammendment illegal search and seizure right. I think that's how it all plays out.

About whether they can just obtain another warrant, I'm not sure. I think if they found something during another search they can't get another warrant for it because that information for the warrant was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. They will probably sit outside your house and find some reason to get a warrant for what they're looking for though through probable cause.

You're probably thinking well why can they search your car like that. Because the 4th ammendment protects your expectation of privacy in your own home. When you're in your car it's not considered your own home. I'm not sure about the specifics of this though.

Not to come off as a Luvly, but I know plenty (although not all) about search and siezure when it comes to cars and houses. However, seeing as how you have read some information on it, unless one of the other law enforcement people on these boards can come up with a link to prove or disprove what you are saying, I will have to conduct my own research into the area because this will be good to know for future refrence.

As for the car issue...its because its mobile for the most part. The courts do not apply search and siezure rules to automobiles because getting a warrent in each case would prove too time consuming and costly. One can move a car around fairly easily without being caught...houses are a different matter. There is more to it, but I'm tired and cant think of everything at this moment.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Millennium


I've got to disagree with jumpr, FallenHero, and Rogue on this one. Searches incidental to arrest only can be precipitated so that the officer can find and confiscate any weapons a suspect may be carrying and/or the need to protect evidence on the suspect's person from being destroyed.

Chimel vs. California(1969) sets limits on what/how/when a person or property can be searched during/after an arrest. If the original party refused to allow a search, a warrant WAS needed and should have issued unless the police were arguing they felt for their safety. I would like to see how they justified searching under a desk in a dorm room on a theft case after the suspect had already admitted his participation in the theft. Secondly, Chimel vs. California setup the idea that a search has to be within the suspects "immediate control" (i.e. arm's length). The court went on to state verbatim: for routinely searching rooms other than that in which the arrest occurs -- or, for that matter, for searching through all desk drawers or other closes or CONCEALED areas in the room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. In general, "area within immediate control" means the area within the reach of the spot where the person was arrested. If no warrant was obtained, I would have to say with the limited information that we have, that the exclusionary rule would apply and that would make the search illegal. Because the search would be illegal, and it was NOT done for protection, then it would be fruit of the poisoned tree and not allowed in court. Because of this the charges would be dismissed.

Gobadgrs stated it was not in plain view, so at best we have to believe that. If there was a smell, then there is no methodology to determine WHERE it was coming from, unless it was clearly and very strongly coming from that room. However, if appears that they arrested him for the theft first, therefore a search incidental to an arrest would not allow them to look under the desk. Even it in arms length, it was a concealed area and there is no reason to believe the stolen tree was under the desk. Unless they had some type of probable cause for the alcohol I think the search would be ruled illegal. My question is, why would they place him under arrest for the theft, and not tell him they had probable cause that alcohol was in the room. The proper procedure as I have heard it, would have been to place him under arrest for theft AND the suspicion of MIP, and then perform the incidental search looking for the alcohol. It's an interesting case and we need more details, but I wonder why the officers searched after they were refused the right to search?

It being a dorm has nothing to do with permission to search. If someone is living there, then it is IS their domicile and it protected by the normal rules governing search and seizures.

You do bring up a good point. My hatred for Luvly apparently blinded me from seeing this in the first place. However, if the cops saw something when questioning him (IE bottle tops, part of a can or bottle) then I would have to say they were in the right. Were the officers invited into the room for the questioning? Anything in plain view is fair game. I guess we just need more facts. "Jeff" probably missed a detail that the police picked up on, otherwise, as Millennium has pointed out, they did something illegal.

Well, bottle tops, part of a can or bottle are not illegal to possess, so there would have to be more reasonable suspicion than that to search under the desk. Of course anything in plain view is game, but I don't believe caps or empty bottles would give cause to a search. Same goes with shot glasses or Bloody Mary mix in the refrigerator. There has to be a reason the officer would think it was under the desk, because a search incident to arrest probably would not have allowed him to make that search. Also, if permission to search the room was denied, then the officer should have gotten a warrant. Of course I'm not saying his friend won't get convicted, because not all judges care, and not all Attorneys will pay attention and actually argue about that being an illegal search. Most of the time it takes an appellate court to determine the validity of a search, because most courts with original jurisdiction aren't quite as careful.

 

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Millennium


I've got to disagree with jumpr, FallenHero, and Rogue on this one. Searches incidental to arrest only can be precipitated so that the officer can find and confiscate any weapons a suspect may be carrying and/or the need to protect evidence on the suspect's person from being destroyed.

Chimel vs. California(1969) sets limits on what/how/when a person or property can be searched during/after an arrest. If the original party refused to allow a search, a warrant WAS needed and should have issued unless the police were arguing they felt for their safety. I would like to see how they justified searching under a desk in a dorm room on a theft case after the suspect had already admitted his participation in the theft. Secondly, Chimel vs. California setup the idea that a search has to be within the suspects "immediate control" (i.e. arm's length). The court went on to state verbatim: for routinely searching rooms other than that in which the arrest occurs -- or, for that matter, for searching through all desk drawers or other closes or CONCEALED areas in the room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. In general, "area within immediate control" means the area within the reach of the spot where the person was arrested. If no warrant was obtained, I would have to say with the limited information that we have, that the exclusionary rule would apply and that would make the search illegal. Because the search would be illegal, and it was NOT done for protection, then it would be fruit of the poisoned tree and not allowed in court. Because of this the charges would be dismissed.

Gobadgrs stated it was not in plain view, so at best we have to believe that. If there was a smell, then there is no methodology to determine WHERE it was coming from, unless it was clearly and very strongly coming from that room. However, if appears that they arrested him for the theft first, therefore a search incidental to an arrest would not allow them to look under the desk. Even it in arms length, it was a concealed area and there is no reason to believe the stolen tree was under the desk. Unless they had some type of probable cause for the alcohol I think the search would be ruled illegal. My question is, why would they place him under arrest for the theft, and not tell him they had probable cause that alcohol was in the room. The proper procedure as I have heard it, would have been to place him under arrest for theft AND the suspicion of MIP, and then perform the incidental search looking for the alcohol. It's an interesting case and we need more details, but I wonder why the officers searched after they were refused the right to search?

It being a dorm has nothing to do with permission to search. If someone is living there, then it is IS their domicile and it protected by the normal rules governing search and seizures.

You do bring up a good point. My hatred for Luvly apparently blinded me from seeing this in the first place. However, if the cops saw something when questioning him (IE bottle tops, part of a can or bottle) then I would have to say they were in the right. Were the officers invited into the room for the questioning? Anything in plain view is fair game. I guess we just need more facts. "Jeff" probably missed a detail that the police picked up on, otherwise, as Millennium has pointed out, they did something illegal.

Well, bottle tops, part of a can or bottle are not illegal to possess, so there would have to be more reasonable suspicion than that to search under the desk. Of course anything in plain view is game, but I don't believe caps or empty bottles would give cause to a search. Same goes with shot glasses or Bloody Mary mix in the refrigerator. There has to be a reason the officer would think it was under the desk, because a search incident to arrest probably would not have allowed him to make that search. Also, if permission to search the room was denied, then the officer should have gotten a warrant. Of course I'm not saying his friend won't get convicted, because not all judges care, and not all Attorneys will pay attention and actually argue about that being an illegal search. Most of the time it takes an appellate court to determine the validity of a search, because most courts with original jurisdiction aren't quite as careful.

No kidding. I suppose what really determines the officers behavior is how the courts treat the officers. If the courts rubber stamp everything, then the officers are more likely to "bend" the rules a bit in favor of getting a conviction because they know no recourse will come of it unless they meet Bill Gates who has cash and lawyers to represent his lawyers who represent him.

 

[Mill]

BTW, I don't think it being a dorm overrules the constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme law, and someone unrelated to you CANNOT give permission to search your domicile. There have been tons of cases where a roommate or landlord gave permission to search and any evidence obtained was overturned. Only things in plain view were allowed IIRC, because a locked or shut door in a shared residence is considered a domicile and off limits without permission, a warrant, or certain exclusions(such as a search incidental to arrest).

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Millennium


I've got to disagree with jumpr, FallenHero, and Rogue on this one. Searches incidental to arrest only can be precipitated so that the officer can find and confiscate any weapons a suspect may be carrying and/or the need to protect evidence on the suspect's person from being destroyed.

Chimel vs. California(1969) sets limits on what/how/when a person or property can be searched during/after an arrest. If the original party refused to allow a search, a warrant WAS needed and should have issued unless the police were arguing they felt for their safety. I would like to see how they justified searching under a desk in a dorm room on a theft case after the suspect had already admitted his participation in the theft. Secondly, Chimel vs. California setup the idea that a search has to be within the suspects "immediate control" (i.e. arm's length). The court went on to state verbatim: for routinely searching rooms other than that in which the arrest occurs -- or, for that matter, for searching through all desk drawers or other closes or CONCEALED areas in the room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. In general, "area within immediate control" means the area within the reach of the spot where the person was arrested. If no warrant was obtained, I would have to say with the limited information that we have, that the exclusionary rule would apply and that would make the search illegal. Because the search would be illegal, and it was NOT done for protection, then it would be fruit of the poisoned tree and not allowed in court. Because of this the charges would be dismissed.

Gobadgrs stated it was not in plain view, so at best we have to believe that. If there was a smell, then there is no methodology to determine WHERE it was coming from, unless it was clearly and very strongly coming from that room. However, if appears that they arrested him for the theft first, therefore a search incidental to an arrest would not allow them to look under the desk. Even it in arms length, it was a concealed area and there is no reason to believe the stolen tree was under the desk. Unless they had some type of probable cause for the alcohol I think the search would be ruled illegal. My question is, why would they place him under arrest for the theft, and not tell him they had probable cause that alcohol was in the room. The proper procedure as I have heard it, would have been to place him under arrest for theft AND the suspicion of MIP, and then perform the incidental search looking for the alcohol. It's an interesting case and we need more details, but I wonder why the officers searched after they were refused the right to search?

It being a dorm has nothing to do with permission to search. If someone is living there, then it is IS their domicile and it protected by the normal rules governing search and seizures.

You do bring up a good point. My hatred for Luvly apparently blinded me from seeing this in the first place. However, if the cops saw something when questioning him (IE bottle tops, part of a can or bottle) then I would have to say they were in the right. Were the officers invited into the room for the questioning? Anything in plain view is fair game. I guess we just need more facts. "Jeff" probably missed a detail that the police picked up on, otherwise, as Millennium has pointed out, they did something illegal.

Well, bottle tops, part of a can or bottle are not illegal to possess, so there would have to be more reasonable suspicion than that to search under the desk. Of course anything in plain view is game, but I don't believe caps or empty bottles would give cause to a search. Same goes with shot glasses or Bloody Mary mix in the refrigerator. There has to be a reason the officer would think it was under the desk, because a search incident to arrest probably would not have allowed him to make that search. Also, if permission to search the room was denied, then the officer should have gotten a warrant. Of course I'm not saying his friend won't get convicted, because not all judges care, and not all Attorneys will pay attention and actually argue about that being an illegal search. Most of the time it takes an appellate court to determine the validity of a search, because most courts with original jurisdiction aren't quite as careful.

No kidding. I suppose what really determines the officers behavior is how the courts treat the officers. If the courts rubber stamp everything, then the officers are more likely to "bend" the rules a bit in favor of getting a conviction because they know no recourse will come of it unless they meet Bill Gates who has cash and lawyers to represent his lawyers who represent him.

Exactly. That is why everyone in the system must do their part to make sure everything is fair. Once everyone in the system stops caring or "bending" things, then the protection of the Constitution is much less than intended. I'm sure Rogue will be in here later to tell me I am WAY too idealistic, but I guess that is what happens when you are young...

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: MedicBob
The real question is was it MPD or campus police?

(At least here in Ohio) If the campus is a public (IE state) campus, the campus police are real police. Badge, radar gun, baton, whole nine yards.

 

[Mill]

Honestly, I hope Rogue is right and there was something alcohol related that gave probable cause for the search. The MPD is supposed to be one of the top departments in the nation, so I wonder why the hell they would make an illegal search(I am presupposing everything here). Not sure about Wisconsin's Campus Police and what is thought of them. I can only say that Madison is though of as top-notch and thorough.

 

Originally posted by: Millennium


Exactly. That is why everyone in the system must do their part to make sure everything is fair. Once everyone in the system stops caring or "bending" things, then the protection of the Constitution is much less than intended. I'm sure Rogue will be in here later to tell me I am WAY too idealistic, but I guess that is what happens when you are young...

At least that idealism gives you a goal or motivation

I'd rather be too idealistic than corrupt because the system bends rules.

 

[Legendary]

OK I just read my entire housing contract and there's nothing that says that with signing this contract you give the police the right to search your dorm. All it says is that RAs can come in after knocking if there a violation has been filed against your room. My bad for bringing that up.