Texas Court Rules That Police May Introduce Illegally-Gathered Evidence At Trial

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • diveRN

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 4, 2014
    227
    11
    The Metroplex
    Out of curiosity, is there a consensus in Texas regarding this decision? Personally, I think this is a huge assault on the 4th amendment.

    In 2010, police in Parker County, Texas received a call from a confidential informant (CI) who claimed that Fred Wehrenberg and a number of associates “were fixin’” to cook meth. Hours after the call–at 12:30 A.M the following day–police entered the Wehrenberg home without a warrant and against the wishes of Wehrenberg. Police handcuffed all of the occupants, held them in the front yard, and proceeded to perform what the officers described as a “protective sweep” of the residence. An hour and a half later, after finding no meth being made on the premises, police prepared a search warrant affidavit and secured the warrant.

    In the affidavit, police stated that information concerning Wehrenberg’s activities had been provided by a confidential informant. However, “…the judge who signed that search warrant was not informed by the language of the affidavit…that the police had already (1) taken custody of everyone in the place and held them in the front yard; and (2) entered the home already to look around.”

    Not that I'm in favor of anyone cooking meth, but in some situations, I see this working out as "Take a tip from a manufactured CI, do a search, find evidence, then get a search warrant." Really?

    Texas Court Rules That Police May Introduce Illegally-Gathered Evidence At Trial
     
    Last edited:

    Major Kong

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    2,550
    96
    Katy
    No one is coming in my house without a warrant. Period.

    I don't do anything illegal, but value my liberty, freedom, and rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    MK

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
     

    rushthezeppelin

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 28, 2012
    3,821
    31
    Cedar Park
    Great I hope word of this doesn't spread like wildfire to other PDs otherwise the 4th is effectively gone. Such utter horse shit.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    ROGER4314

    Been Called "Flash" Since I Was A Kid!
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 11, 2009
    10,444
    66
    East Houston
    Notice that not ONE of the ruling bastards is giving MORE rights and protection under the law to the people? They keep chipping away at our rights until they feel authorized to enter our homes at will................. or so they think. Some of these crazy Texans may resist!

    Flash
     

    diveRN

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 4, 2014
    227
    11
    The Metroplex
    I agree, but that's contingent on it actually getting that far ... at least in this case. An ostentatious lawyer working this case pro-Bono notwithstanding, I can't see a meth cook pushing this issue up to the federal level.

    Others will likely suffer for this decision first.
     

    MPA1988

    Active Member
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 28, 2012
    244
    1
    The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.

    The rule does not prevent the government from introducing illegally gathered evidence to “impeach,” or attack the credibility of, defendants’ testimony at trial. The Supreme Court recognized this exception to prevent perjury. Even when the government suspects perjury, however, it may only use tainted evidence for impeachment, and may not use it to show guilt.
     
    Last edited:

    txinvestigator

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 28, 2008
    14,205
    96
    Ft Worth, TX
    I read the article, but I am confused. The police found nothing in the warrantlees search, right? Then they applied for a warrant, but failed to mention the prior warrantless, fruitless search?

    A warrant was issued then, right?

    What illegally gathered evidence was introduced?
     

    Support

    Sponsors

    Greeneye Tactical
    silencers
    DK Firearms
    Tyrant Designs
    Every Day Man
    Shroud
    Shroud
    Weapon displays
    Ammo

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    106,798
    Messages
    2,564,418
    Members
    32,900
    Latest member
    Lestbuff
    Top Bottom