Illegal Search & Seizure on Blue Warrant Arrest?

[Kay Bayless]

What is the name of your state? Texas
Arrested one day before end of parole. A blue warrant had been issued approximately 45 days prior to the arrest for numerous failed urinalysis tests. Although, one the evening of his arrest an informant called and/or flagged down the police, told them that JDoe was wanted on violation of parole and a blue warrant existed. She further told the officers he was making harassing phone calls to her, that there were illegal drugs and a fire weapon on his premises.

After receiving this information, the police went to JDoe’s home. A friend of JDoe’s answered the door and stood on the porch talking with the police. After talking with the friend on the porch for approximately 5 minutes, the police claim they saw JDoe sitting in a chair and they therefore proceeded into his home, forced him to the ground while cuffing him, searched the surrounding area, and then seized the illegal drugs and fire weapon.

JDoe is now charged with violation of parole, 3 counts narcotics possession and unlawful possession of firearm.

Two days after his arrest, the informant broke into a storage unit leased by JDoe and proceeded to steal items from the unit for approximately 4 hours. This has been caught on video tape, a witness can positively identify her, as well as her accomplice (who just prior to JDoe’s arrest rushed into JDoe’s home with an axe and threatened his life).

2 Questions: 1) Did the police have the right to conduct a search and seizure with only a blue warrant and information from an unconfirmed credible informant, and 2) can the evidence seized during the search be suppressed?What is the name of your state?

 

[CdwJava]

2 Questions: 1) Did the police have the right to conduct a search and seizure with only a blue warrant and information from an unconfirmed credible informant

Heck, they could have believed innuendo and rumor and went to the residence hoping to find him. Once they saw him, if there was a warrant for his arrest, he belonged to them and there was almost certainly good cause to make entry to seize him.

and 2) can the evidence seized during the search be suppressed?

Sure ... if there is some grounds to supress it. Where was the stuff found? In plain sight? Within his reach? On his person? Did the owner of the residence give permission to search it? Did the wanted person liuve there?

there are a great number of possibilities to justify a search beyond the immediate area of the arrestee. And since he was on parole, he likely was subject to search by law enforcement anyway.

- Carl

 

[Kay Bayless]

arrest him yes, but search and seize?

I don't doubt they could make entry to arrest him, but to search and seize based on an informants information?

The firearm was hidden and the narcotics were not in plain site. Because of the information the police obtained from an informant who, even had the police done their due diligence as to her credibility, has absolutely zero credibility yet made them privy to the fact a firearm and narcotics were in the home and the location of said items.

The irony of the situation is that the informant randomly contacted the police making the aforementioned claims, yet is caught on tape breaking into JDoe's storage unit 2 days later with the man who threatened JDoe's life with an axe.

JDoe is a convicted felon. All non-violent convictions. Before just recently, the last time JDoe broke the law was in 1997 with his 3rd DWI. He was granted probation, violated it by not reporting, was caught in 2004 for a floating a stop sign, sent back to jail for a year for violating his parole, paroled again and then arrested just 1 day before the end of the probation. No doubt he was in violation of his probation for dirty urinalysis tests, but this person (informant) has made sure he would not see the outside of a jail cell for possibly 25 years. JDoe is around 50 years old, was trying to lay low, yet got caught up in the informant's web of evil and deceit, while she stole from him, lied the him, made a mockery of him, yet he knew she had issues and wanted to believe the things she was telling him were true.

Overall, his want to believe in her quite possibly got him 25 years and he will be 75 years old when released. I totally understand he should pay for violating his parole, but the rest is just such an injustice. The informant should not have the right to set him up with such reckless disregard. It is just unbelievable to see how this person uses, manipulates, and violates other people for her own personal gain. Now she's running around with things she stole from his storage and is not being held accountable.

 

[tranquility]

Unlike many on the list, I believe there are a number police who violate some laws to enforce others. They believe, as the immortal thespian said in Judge Dread, "I *am* the law."

However, I fail to see the injustice here. While there are more facts, some of which could make a search/seizure violation, none are even hinted at in the OP's post. Bad guys tend to hang out with bad guys. If you're going to be a bad guy, it's probably not a smart thing to tell other bad guys about the bad things you do because they might do bad things to you if it benefits them.

JDoe isn't going away for 25 years because he violated his parole (If so, what was he originally jailed for?), but because he was a felon with a firearm and drugs. Now, I tend towards being a Liberterian and think the war on drugs as a concept is wrong. However, I've seen the devistation drugs can cause and find, practically, there aren't any simple solutions. JDoe had adequate warning society finds drugs to be a major crime. While I'm sorry a person with a (drug) problem is being removed from society for a long time, I'm not going to claim he doesn't deserve it.

 

[CdwJava]

I don't doubt they could make entry to arrest him, but to search and seize based on an informants information?

The search would have to be done on other grounds ... incident to arrest, plain view, parole conditions, consent - whatever was applicable. I doubt they searched the entire residence without a warrant and based solely on the story of the first fellow.

The firearm was hidden and the narcotics were not in plain site. Because of the information the police obtained from an informant who, even had the police done their due diligence as to her credibility, has absolutely zero credibility yet made them privy to the fact a firearm and narcotics were in the home and the location of said items.

Again, they would have have one of the many other justifications to search.

His attorney could move to have the evidence suppressed if there was no justification for the search. However, if the resident gave permission for the search, it is valid. If the arrestess was on parole with search conditions (and they tend to be) and this was his residence, the search is likewise valid. There could be any number of reasons why the search was valid. What do the poilice cite as their authority to search?

JDoe is a convicted felon. All non-violent convictions.

Completely irrelevent to the situation.

JDoe is around 50 years old, was trying to lay low, yet got caught up in the informant's web of evil and deceit, while she stole from him, lied the him, made a mockery of him, yet he knew she had issues and wanted to believe the things she was telling him were true.

Lying low ... yep ... obviously he did not want to get caught with the firearm and the dope.

Now she's running around with things she stole from his storage and is not being held accountable.

I thought you wrote that she got caught breaking in. Apparently they didn't have enough to make a charge stick if she is still running around after having been caught in his storage unit.

- Carl

 

[seniorjudge]

The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to parolees.

Read the docs you got.

 

[justalayman]

The entire calim of the informants actions of:

The irony of the situation is that the informant randomly contacted the police making the aforementioned claims,

seem to be born to be true based upon the findings of the search. Apparently the informant was not as untrustworthy as you feel they are.

Now the informant may have been carrying a grudge for the suspect but that does not change the facts the suspect did actually commit the crimes the informant reported them for. It goes back to the old saying of "there is no honor among thieves". Why do you think police like to use little fish as bait for the big fish? It's because they are all of criminal mind and do whatever they feel suits them best at the moment.

JDoe was merely the end result of committing crimes and then interacting with other criminals and apparently pissing off one of those criminals.

Justice served.

 

[CdwJava]

After re-reading the post, I think JDoe is toast.

There is no argument to suppress the evidence: It was JDoe's residence ... JDoe was on parole ... JDoe had a gun and drugs.

It does not matter that the police were there on the tip from a fellow ne'er-do-well or someone with an axe to grind, JDoe still had drugs and a gun.

It does not matter that the complainant might have later broken into a storage unit - JDoe is not a witness to the crime of drug and gun possession. Had JDoe NOT been on probation or parole, they might have needed said complainant to testify as to the contraband in question, but they likely would have had to get a search warrant or obtain a consent to search if JDoe was not on parole or probation.

Bad news for JDoe.

- Carl

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Carl...carl...carl....

I would have thought you'd catch these on the first reading....

Wife change the coffee to decaf on you?

 

[seniorjudge]

Carl...carl...carl....

I would have thought you'd catch these on the first reading....

Wife change the coffee to decaf on you?

Don't EVEN say that!

What a horrible thought....

 

[CdwJava]

Carl...carl...carl....

I would have thought you'd catch these on the first reading....

Wife change the coffee to decaf on you?

Nah ... just too late when replying originally. I missed the part about the house being JDoe's residence. That sort of removes the argument about an unlawful search in its entirety.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Don't EVEN say that!

What a horrible thought....

Almost as bad as the burned remains of the pot that I find every morning at the office.

- Carl

 

[seniorjudge]

Almost as bad as the burned remains of the pot that I find every morning at the office.

- Carl

You scrape those up and smoke 'em....

 

[CdwJava]

You scrape those up and smoke 'em....

I got a bleeding ulcer just thinking about that!

- Carl

 

[justalayman]

After re-reading the post, I think JDoe is toast.
- Carl

Does that mean no croissants for JDoe? If so, I don't expect mocha java is even a remote possibility.