Police and 2 judges have violated my 4th amendment rights

[Steven DB]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon
A search warrant was issued and used to search my home... To get a judges approval for the search warrant the so called Probable Cause was obtained by the word of a CRI (confidential reliable informant) A criminal who's trying to get his sentence reduced. The police did 3 controlled buys but did not do any of the steps that they are legally required to be do.

They did not search the CRI before he entered my home, they lost sight of him before he entered my home, there was no audio or video recording of the CRI once he entered my home, I have 2 other doors that were not viewable by the police conducting the controlled buy, and they didn't search the CRI upon exiting and returning to the police.
They also did not provide any evidence that this informant was even reliable. My attorney and I had a hearing to suppress the evidence on the grounds that my 4th amendment rights had been violated and the search was illegal.

The judge just ignored all of the required steps that the police did not do and the affidavit where they state how the controlled buys were done without the required steps and made a ruling by letter of denying the motion to suppress with no explanation, reason or comments on how she came up with a denial.

Other then the appeal process which takes a year and a half while I sit in prison is there any government official that can help me in this matter . Who can I talk to about my violation of my 4th amendment rights. The evidence in this case should have been suppressed and I should be a free man. This is wrong... I am facing a 3 year sentence in less then 2 weeks and I don't know where to turn. My attorney seems to have just given up at this point. I need some help please.

 

[rjordan392]

I find your post quite interesting, To me it reads you sold drugs to a CRI but because the police did not perform proper procedure in your arrest, you claim your 4th amendments rights are violated. Hmmm; What About The Publics Rights To A Drug Free Society?

 

[CdwJava]

Apparently the court did not agree that your 4th Amendment rights were violated. From the sound of it, they were not. The 4th Amendment does not guarantee a specific process in the conduct of a controlled buy.

When you contested this all at trial, how did that fare for you? I take it the jury felt the evidence was compelling enough to convict you? Did you have an alibi? Did you present any evidence to argue that the controlled buys could not have happened because you are not involved in the use or transfer of controlled substances?

Did you take a plea and are now trying to wrangle your way out of it?

Or, are you guilty, and this is the only longshot you have to try and play the system to get away with it?

 

[FlyingRon]

You've lost me. What on earth does a controlled buy have to do with the fourth amendment or a search warrant. No warrant or other judicial approval is necessary for this and frankly unless you can raise some specific constitutionality issue, failure to follow their own internal procedures doesn't invalidate the evidence obtained.

Why on earth would they be expected or required to search the informant? The standards for getting a warrant based on an informant are admittedly weak, and while an unreliable informant may be something you could have challenged at trial (or immediately on appeal), it would appear that train has left the station (even if it had any relevance to suppressing the evidence derived from the improperly obtained warrant).

Ditto, the judge doesn't have to explain herself at the trial as to why they are denying a motion. If you felt they made an improper decision, it is required that you make an objection to such and if overruled take exception to that ruling. THen you need to make a timely appeal. Nothing seems to indicate you (or your legal counsel) did any of that.

We're missing all the actual details that would actually indicate whether you had a case or not and I suspect you're not in a reasonable position to understand how to relate them to us. Just jumping up and down and claiming your rights were violated will not do anything.

 

[Steven DB]

Apparently the court did not agree that your 4th Amendment rights were violated. From the sound of it, they were not. The 4th Amendment does not guarantee a specific process in the conduct of a controlled buy.

When you contested this all at trial, how did that fare for you? I take it the jury felt the evidence was compelling enough to convict you? Did you have an alibi? Did you present any evidence to argue that the controlled buys could not have happened because you are not involved in the use or transfer of controlled substances?

Did you take a plea and are now trying to wrangle your way out of it?

Or, are you guilty, and this is the only longshot you have to try and play the system to get away with it?

For a controlled buy to be used as probable cause which it was in this case it has to be done by the letter of the law and it wasn't. Not one of the steps that are required were done in all three of the controlled buys. Therefore by ignoring the fact that this search warrant was granted by the first judge and then over looked by the second judge when they know that the evidence for probable cause was done illegally violates the 4th amendment.

The innocence or guilt of any case is not the question here. Our rights are slowly (more quickly recently) being taken away one by one. By letting this type of violation slide sets us all up for the continuation of all of our rights to be violated

 

[FlyingRon]

How the hell are we supposed to know what the relationship between the controlled buy and the search warrant and the controlled buy when you never stated it.
Even with your clarification, you're still apparently lacking any legal ground. Police are allowed to make controlled buys. With your amplification, I have even less clarity on what issue the "reliability" of the informant used has to do with anything. Just because the cops failed to follow some internal guidance on the buy doesn't make the buy "illegal" and it certainly doesn't necessarily make use of the information obtained therein invalid for the purposes of obtaining a warrant. The standards for obtaining warrants are much weaker than for convicting and the evidence in support of the warrant is looser than the rules of evidence at trial.

You seem to want to do nothing other than rant at us. I'm not inclined to play this game any further.

Did you have an actual question?

 

[HighwayMan]

I am wondering why an informant was used to do the buy when it could have just as easily been an undercover police officer.

 

[Just Blue]

For a controlled buy to be used as probable cause which it was in this case it has to be done by the letter of the law and it wasn't. Not one of the steps that are required were done in all three of the controlled buys. Therefore by ignoring the fact that this search warrant was granted by the first judge and then over looked by the second judge when they know that the evidence for probable cause was done illegally violates the 4th amendment.

The innocence or guilt of any case is not the question here. Our rights are slowly (more quickly recently) being taken away one by one. By letting this type of violation slide sets us all up for the continuation of all of our rights to be violated

Consult with your Attorney. To expect random strangers on the net to "solve" your drug case is bizarre.

 

[CdwJava]

For a controlled buy to be used as probable cause which it was in this case it has to be done by the letter of the law and it wasn't.

And ... what IS that "letter of the law, you speak of?

While what you describe is common procedure and is something that should be done both for the safety of the informant as well as to minimize a defense challenge, it is not - at least in my state - codified into any law that must be adhered to at the risk of losing probable cause.

Not one of the steps that are required were done in all three of the controlled buys. Therefore by ignoring the fact that this search warrant was granted by the first judge and then over looked by the second judge when they know that the evidence for probable cause was done illegally violates the 4th amendment.

The fact that the police followed questionable procedure is certainly grounds for review, but, as with any 4th Amendment issue, they are to look at the totality of the circumstances, not simply one piece of the puzzle.

 

[CdwJava]

I am wondering why an informant was used to do the buy when it could have just as easily been an undercover police officer.

Oh, there are many reasons why.

But, you can get a search warrant through the use of informants on buys that are not even controlled buys. One does NOT need a controlled buy to get a search warrant for dope as the OP seems to think.

 

[FlyingRon]

I am wondering why an informant was used to do the buy when it could have just as easily been an undercover police officer.

Believability. It's often easier to use someone already established in the "culture" to set things up than to try to make an undercover officer look realistic. But since the police apparently were present during the buy/bust, it doesn't really look like it makes any difference. The poster seems upset that they didn't treat their informant the way they treat criminals like him.

 

[CdwJava]

We use CIs because they are often already trusted by the sellers and middlemen. Injecting a newbie into the mix can take time. When you are dealing with street corner buys, an officer can do just fine. But, the nature of many drug sales - particularly involving white guys and speed - is that they occur in homes and only to people that are known or trusted by the seller. Inserting that officer can be tedious and can involve a long operation. Sending in the CI for a couple or four buys is much easier.

In the OP's case, I suspect that if the officers had failed to adhere to the penultimate protocol and relied on a ONE transaction, the defense might have a better argument. But, THREE buys ... well, that's pretty damning evidence.

 

[serisdaddy]

Sticky situation

Well I thought I was joining a forum of people looking to help out but seems as though they are just people looking to berate and accuse! Sorry for your situation, I myself am kind of going through the same thing with the 4th amendment thing only I had someone living in my garage where the stuff was found. My wife passed away and when the investigators arrived for that, looked in my garage and saw stuff they "believed to be stolen". No warrant. When asked about it I told them it belonged to the person staying in my garage. They then used photos they took of the stuff to get a warrant violating my 4th, and then arrested me.
I relate to your situation not so much because of the charges or even the 4th amendment violation but mostly because even though I have a past history (nothing like this and 20 years ago) no one seems to care and my lawyer seems to have given up also!! What is left for us to do?
I understand everyone's concern for community and everything but seriously, no ones perfect and if you can't help, maybe don't say anything...we're going through enough already innocent or guilty.
That's all
Good luck

 

[Silverplum]

Well I thought I was joining a forum of people looking to help out but seems as though they are just people looking to berate and accuse! Sorry for your situation, I myself am kind of going through the same thing with the 4th amendment thing only I had someone living in my garage where the stuff was found. My wife passed away and when the investigators arrived for that, looked in my garage and saw stuff they "believed to be stolen". No warrant. When asked about it I told them it belonged to the person staying in my garage. They then used photos they took of the stuff to get a warrant violating my 4th, and then arrested me.
I relate to your situation not so much because of the charges or even the 4th amendment violation but mostly because even though I have a past history (nothing like this and 20 years ago) no one seems to care and my lawyer seems to have given up also!! What is left for us to do?
I understand everyone's concern for community and everything but seriously, no ones perfect and if you can't help, maybe don't say anything...we're going through enough already innocent or guilty.
That's all
Good luck

So like does gravitate unto its own kind.

 

[CdwJava]

Well I thought I was joining a forum of people looking to help out but seems as though they are just people looking to berate and accuse!

You have a clear misunderstanding of the issues involved here. That's not OUR fault. You are confusing procedure with the 4th Amendment. Understand that the 4th Amendment is SILENT on the use of a CI. No CI is required for a search warrant to be issued. They can apply even on the statement of a witness. The totality of the circumstances are taken into consideration.

In the OP's case one judge reviewed the evidence and found it sufficient to issue a warrant. Another judge dismissed the OP's attempt to suppress the warrant likely on the grounds that there was sufficient grounds to meet the requirement of probable cause necessary to issue the warrant, in spite of the apparent lack of diligence to protocol.