Justices to Hear Warrantless Search Case

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Justices to Hear Warrantless Search Case

AP foreign, Monday March 24 2008

By PETE YOST

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court stepped into two
criminal cases Monday, one that will help define the
limits of warrantless police searches and the other
interpreting a law on guns and domestic violence.

Five police officers from Utah asked the court to consider
whether officers may enter a home without a search warrant
when an informant already is inside and sees evidence of
a crime.

The case against Afton Callahan of Millard County, Utah,
will test whether the officers who conducted the warrantless
search may be sued by the person they arrest.

-snip-

In the second case, the court will consider Randy Edward
Hayes' argument that the government was wrong to charge him
with violating a federal law barring people convicted in
domestic violence cases from possessing firearms.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7408493

[pattmarty]

1. As far as the first case, most informants are SHITBAGS.

I have not read about either case, but as I stated a lot of these "informants" are liars to get their cases either dismissed or reduced. There has been plenty of horror stories about this type of thing. On the surface, just reading the first couple of paragraphs in your post it sounds "reasonable" to say sure, that would be enough, but that assumes (and you know what kind of trouble you can get into "assuming") the informant is credible and honest which in MOST cases they are not.

[selador]

2. the first case is interesting

the argument is that since the informant is already inside the house, an agent of the police (and thus - the police) are already witnessing a crime in plain view.


whenever cops see a crime in plain view, they can act w/o a warrant is the general principle. it's one of the classic exceptions.

fwiw, lower courts have split on this issue.

it's actually kind of interesting. since the informant is already invited into the home, his observations (and thus the cops - with him as proxy) are plain view.

but they are split on whether at that point, with the informant witnessing a crime in progress- is a warrant still required.

there is also another funky immunity issue in the callahan case that is more technical, and not very interesting imo

[Winterblues]

4. It would seem an easy task to get a warrant if an informer was already inside

They just want to be able to just barge in against the Constitution...Nazi SS style.

[selador]

5. if you want to have a

rational discussion, im there.

if this is going to devolve into godwinlike rants, i'll pass.

like i said, its an interesting issue, and the lower courts are divided. the issue is more complex than evul nazi SS d00ds!

[benEzra]

6. There was a case recently in which the informant was a BURGLAR...

what does that do to the Fourth Amendment if the informant is allowed to be considered a proxy for police?

[Infinite Hope]

8. An informant isn't necessarily an agent of the state.

I think the evidence would have to be corroborated to reach the level of probable cause.

[benEzra]

9. It often isn't corroborated at all.

The informant's word is often considered probable cause on its own.

There was a case a couple weeks ago in which a SWAT agent kicking in a door pursuant to a no-knock warrant was shot by a homeowner who thought the boot kicking in his door belonged to a criminal (his house had been burglarized three days prior). Turns out the no-knock was based solely on the word of an informant (who appears to have been the burglar) who mistook the homeowner's japanese maples under grow lights for pot. The police didn't bother to corroborate before raiding, and now an officer is dead and an apparently innocent man is charged with murder.

[Infinite Hope]

10. That's due to "exigent circumstances" n/t

[High Plains]

11. The federal appeals courts talk about "consent-once-removed"

...believe it or not! My understanding is slightly different from yours: It's not about plain sight, but about consenting to the police search. By allowing the snitch (as an agent of law enforcement) into the house, the resident has already consented to the presence of law enforcement in the house, and thus the cops don't need to get a warrant.

Frankly, I find this judicial logic mind-boggling (like the notion that being sniffed by a drug dog is not a search). How can one knowingly consent to allowing law enforcement in the house when he doesn't know the snitch is an agent of the cops?

It seems like just another drug war-driven erosion of the Fourth Amendment to me, and I have no confidence in getting a favorable ruling from this Supreme Court.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

3. Here we go. Time for the definitive rubber stamp approval

They have to get it through before things change- this will probably be their only chance to vindicate this gross illegality.

No more warrants needed after this one is done.

[tom_paine]

7. Yep. Warrantless searches are about to become legal.

I mean, they already were and are in a lawless totalitarian Empire, but it's nice to get that stamp of legitimacy from a phony Bushie Court.

Makes things look nicer, more impressive, more legal, for the peasantry.