Blacktip said:Absolutely correct
Uh, no it's not. Nothing could be further from the truth. But thanks for coming out.
Blacktip said:Absolutely correct
RJH8541 said:i think you need a valium man. Say it with me...
Serenity now....
Serenity now....
This is in reference to my post....Aboot said:Uh, no it's not. Nothing could be further from the truth. But thanks for coming out.
DougoeFre5h said:Understood. I just dont see how they would find evidence of a rape in my fridge/closet/drawers/etc. He admitted to having sex with her anyways, she just called it rape.
liftsiron said:In the recent supreme court ruling Georgia vs. Ross the Supreme court of the United States upheld the ruling of the Georgia supreme court. Ruling that co-habitants of a dwelling i.e. husband-wife, boyfriend girlfriend, roomates etc. CANNOT give police permission to search the premises without consent of the other person living there. Any evidence found in such a search is unlawful. However if the police had a warrent everything is moot. Although the warrent must have listed speciffacially what evedience was being searched after.
Popichulo said:Correct my good man, the contents of the search warrant is what they can lawfully search for if they did happen upon your stash of gear it would be inadmissable in court due to it not being listed in the contents of the search warrant.
truck said:you would have had not a lot to worry about even if they found things. Just like people said before. Your gear would not have anything to do with a rape investigation. I think only evedince of rape and murder are the only two things that if found outside the scope of a search can be braught up on new charges. I think this is how is works, but its been a while, my dad is a retired cop I'll ask him about it sometime.
wrong wrong wrong...any evidence of a crime, or any potential evidence of crime may be seized during consent or warrant search under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th...
I think Its kind of like when an officer asks to search your car and you say no. The officer can still search your car, BUT anything he finds will most likely be ruled inadmissble in court. The more you know your rights the free'r you are. Its good to know some of this stuff I read through this post. The law will violate your rights if you let them, so don't be ignorent.
incorrect to a substantial degree...the court has always allowed
a wide degree of latitude for officer safety...the cop need only
be able to articulate a reasonable explanation of why he felt there
was a threat to his safety (most people dig in the glovebox or
under the seat for their info-this will suffice) to justify ordering
the driver out, patting him down, and searching the passenger
compartment of the car...any contraband found during such
an officer safety search will usually be admissible...
truck said:By what you said you are saying the 4th amendment doesn't exist, and the court has a right to over rule it, well they don't.
the court has always interpreted the 4th based on
what is "reasonable"...there is always a balancing test going on between
the rights of the individual and the needs of law enforcement and the
society they represent...
so in essence, the court does have a right to rule over the 4th...
examine the text of the 4th amendment...where is the exclusionary
rule??? a hint, it isnt there, it is judge-created doctrine...
they created it...they rule over it
By the way Bwood, you go to law school or what. Sounds like you know your shit. I'm like the rest of people, just go off what I hear and observe.
ex-cop...scurvy shyster scumbag...
please dont misunderstand...perhaps i am too blunt...i intended
no disrespect to any poster...i dont post in this forum very
often so you guys dont know my sense of humor...
Aboot said:Uh, no it's not. Nothing could be further from the truth. But thanks for coming out.
Well, trevdog does and he seems to disagree with you:Blacktip said:LOL You dont know shit about the law.
Blacktip said:LOL You dont know shit about the law.
PwnedAboot said:On second thought Blacktip, since you are an alter and were previously banned under two different names including "Waterfowl" I'll just go ahead and ban you again. Goodbye.