Common sense ruling for cops or violation of 4th Amendment search and seisure?

breakingcontact

TGT Addict
Oct 16, 2012
18,315
38
Indianapolis
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/12/parker_county_meth_search_warr.php

Informant notifies cops meth "cook" is going to happen. Cops surveil house, then walk in and handcuff everyone, then search house for drug fixins....then get warrant.

Things like this are how police and govs expand power. Target a class of society that no one likes, expand power based on that, then apply to the next group...then to you.

Again, notice this is Texas. I read the other day about how Texas is so strict and aggressive in police work due to the laws going way back here to the Spanish/Mexican law. Different tradition than most other states.
 
Last edited:

Blind Sniper

Well-Known
Apr 12, 2013
1,831
36
Bay City, MI
>.> You copy-pasta'd the wrong link.

In regards to what actually happened, doesn't having probable cause (or solid evidence) mean you don't need a warrant to go in and cuff people or search the building?
 

txinvestigator

TGT Addict
May 28, 2008
14,119
113
Ft Worth, TX
>.> You copy-pasta'd the wrong link.

In regards to what actually happened, doesn't having probable cause (or solid evidence) mean you don't need a warrant to go in and cuff people or search the building?
Probable cause is needed for a warrwnt. There are a few exceptions to the search warrant requirment.

Breakingcontact, it appears a federal decision was the basis for the final decision in this case, not a Texas precedent. CI information is good for obtaining warrants, but only having the facts here the extremely biased Dallas Observer wants you to have; it is difficult to actually determine what actually happened......There could be clear cut facts left out, opinion statements ommittee.

I will tell you that, based on how the Observer wrote it, it dont smell right. But I have learned to be careful with that bit of "journalism".
 

jordanmills

TGT Addict
Sep 29, 2009
4,371
113
Pearland, TX
I would like to hear more about this too. From what I know, if the cops could legally be in the house to perform an arrest, they don't need a warrant to act on what they see in the course of performing those arrests. Question is why they bothered with the warrant.
 

popo22

Member
Feb 1, 2009
136
18
Normally if you are already inside the residence legally making an arrest then anything you observe in "plain view" is OK, but to search beyond that "plain view" exception you would need a search warrant.
 

M. Sage

TGT Addict
Jan 21, 2009
16,326
36
San Antonio
Normally if you are already inside the residence legally making an arrest then anything you observe in "plain view" is OK, but to search beyond that "plain view" exception you would need a search warrant.
True, but outside some specific circumstances, you need a warrant to go inside a home to arrest somebody. It doesn't sound like they had that.
 

txinvestigator

TGT Addict
May 28, 2008
14,119
113
Ft Worth, TX
Maybe they could smell the meth cooking, giving probable cause.
Probable Cause is needed for a warrant, not to search without a warrant. Plain view applies to all of your senses, and a warrant is not needed to seize if contraband is in plain view.

There has to be case law on smell of an illegal substance in a private residence. Homework..... lol
 
Top Bottom