Any law buffs here? Quite the close call!!!!

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. 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.

SO Not to high jack this post but, what would happen in a controlled delivery and your roommate signed for the package???
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

think about it...

do you honestly think that she would
stop the accusations at rape???

these type of women always throw
some drug accusations into the
mix as well...

you need to pull a copy of the report
and check it...if there is a signed affidavit
from her, perhaps you might want
to press some filing false report charges
with the prosecutor against her...
 
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.
Click to expand...


please be careful in dispensing legal advice...you are
somewhat vague as to whether consent is required
from an absent co-tenant...

consent is not required from an absent co-tenant
without a showing of police misconduct in ensuring
that co-tenant's absence...

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. ____ (2006). page 17

"If those cases are not to be undercut by today’s holding, we have to admit that we are drawing a fine line; if a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is infact at the door and objects, the co-tenant’s permission does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy, loses out."
 
and another important thing that essentially
renders this case completely worthless...

"Nor does the State claim that the entry and search should be upheld under the rubric of exigent circumstances, owing to some apprehension by the police officers that Scott Randolph would destroy evidence of drug use before any warrant could be obtained." Randolph, 547 U. S. ____ (2006) pages 18-19.


so consider, if you will, this fact pattern...

1. first tenant says police can search, other
tenant says no...

2. police ask first tenant, "what's in there?"

3. first tenant says, "drugs, guns, etc..."

4. at that point, the police can use the doctrine
of exigent circumstances to enter and preserve
evidence OR order both tenants out of the dwelling
and bar anyone from entering while they get a warrant...

the result is the same...FUBAR for the person
whose prints are on the contraband...
 
also of importance...

just because something may get pitched
at the supression hearing does not preclude
it from being presented to the grand jury and
at sentencing...
 
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.
Click to expand...

frighteningly wrong...
 
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...
Click to expand...

...
 
Bwood. It aslo depends on how good your lawyer is. I talked to a lawyer who mainly delt with search and seizures, just about getting pulled over, he said as long as you say no your well on your way being able to have all evidence be dismissed in court. 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. Yes people to get hung up on charges from these type of things, but as long as you and your lawyer understand your rights and the laws, you are most likely going to be on the winning side. With the officer safty thing, is why they still have the right to search the vehicle after you say no, but the evidence in most cases "should" be inadmissable. People just shouldn't believe that the courts have absolute power, we gotta fight for this stuff, because it is our rights, we are losing them everyday because ignorent basterds lay down to the law. But always asume that they are going to fuck you over, just don't go down without a fight, exercise your rights.

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.
 
Last edited:
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...
Click to expand...

...
 
Rule number one " Never trust a bitch" Your roomate probably was running his mouth about you to her. And it sounds like you have more going on than just a couple of bottles lying around. She probably took what ever she knows about the juice to the cops along with the rape. Most important for you is to get a copy of the warrant.
 
I don't mind cops just the dushebag cops who don't understand that its their call to look past something that is in the gray area of our society, where its OK if you don't get caught but don't let me catch you. Its like the whole barry bonds thing, everyone knew he was on juice but now that they found something they want his head. gear and ganja should be America's last two problems to deal with. My cousin just offed himself after being on meth for years, seems like they are more focused on the wrong things.
 
Aboot said:
Uh, no it's not. Nothing could be further from the truth. But thanks for coming out.
Click to expand...

LOL You dont know shit about the law.
 
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.
 
Aboot 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.
Click to expand...
Pwned

Looks like that that guy really paid attention in his grade 12 law class. Fact of the matter is even if your "really good lawyer" is able to have the evidence supressed/excluded, you still lose all your gear and spend a cock and a ball on legal expenses. Not to mention all of the stress and anxiety of going through the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Aww Snap! Just did first injection!
Replies
17
Views
2K
milklover87
M
P
Let the Mind Games begin
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Puddles
Puddles
brooklynheight
Cops using gear story....lol
Replies
13
Views
1K
drk_diggler
drk_diggler
J
Test Enth first injection
Replies
7
Views
5K
jynx
J
S
super test 250 - wheres the pain?
Replies
2
Views
1K
rpwhit777
rpwhit777
Back
Top