search warrant

[newdig63]

What is the name of your state? Illinois
A friend had a search warrant "served" on him for supposedly selling meth. The warrant was based on a confidential informant's claim that he had purchased a $125 bag the day before (one small bag of many in a bigger bag, supposedly). The supporting evidence for the warrant was that the complaining officer had watched "numerous subjects coming and going from the apartment building which [the officer] believes to be narcotics related." He then says that "a criminal history check revealed [defendatn] had a [numbered record]."
The apartment building has seven units; an observer from the street would have no idea of whose apartment these people were coming or going from (there are no windows outside the defendants entry area to observe).
The criminal record contains no convictions, and none of the charges in any way related to drugs. Several of them were related to political actions--and one involved a police officer who forced his way into his apartment after a screaming woman wouldn't leave the entrywayof his building. He filed a complaint against the officer--who was one of the officers involved in the raid.
My friend has two witnesses who he spent the entire day with of the supposed drug sale, and will support his contention that they had no other visitors.
The search warrant was not served with a knock-and-announce but rather a busting down of the door (it was NOT a noknock warrant). Three people were present who can testify to that.
Conviently, after three cops had looked through a closet, another one found a bag with less than a 1/2 gram of meth in the closet. The bag did not match the description of the informant's. Less than an ounce of marijuana was found as well.
Sooooo.....
His lawyer thinks this is a minor case with a 60% chance that it will be thrown out on a motion over the search warrant or the no-knock entry.
But my friend is afraid that the police are out to get him.
Questions:
--Can a search warrant be issued based on one confidential informant AND supported by specious "evidence" that druggies were seen entering and leaving anapartment building shared by seven apartments AND by his "crfiminal record" that contains no convictions and no cases related in any way to drugs.
--Can the testimony of three witnesses (the defendant and two friends) that there was no knock compete with the police officer who claim they knocked). The entry took only seconds, and the defendant and two friends were captured in the living room, having had no time to make a move toward the door or anywhere else (if there'd been a knock you'd expect they'd have made some kind of a move somewhere--to thedoor or the supposed drugs.)
--And shouldn't the lawyer be doing something to gather evidence for the case, should it fall in that 40% that wasn't dismissed? His worst case scenario is drug school for possession, but my friend has a public/political career of sorts at stake. (I've known him for 18 years, and have never had the slightest hint that he either deals in drugs or uses meth.)
The process seems to be the punishment.

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? Illinois
A friend had a search warrant "served" on him for supposedly selling meth. The warrant was based on a confidential informant's claim that he had purchased a $125 bag the day before (one small bag of many in a bigger bag, supposedly). The supporting evidence for the warrant was that the complaining officer had watched "numerous subjects coming and going from the apartment building which [the officer] believes to be narcotics related." He then says that "a criminal history check revealed [defendatn] had a [numbered record]."
The apartment building has seven units; an observer from the street would have no idea of whose apartment these people were coming or going from (there are no windows outside the defendants entry area to observe).
The criminal record contains no convictions, and none of the charges in any way related to drugs. Several of them were related to political actions--and one involved a police officer who forced his way into his apartment after a screaming woman wouldn't leave the entrywayof his building. He filed a complaint against the officer--who was one of the officers involved in the raid.
My friend has two witnesses who he spent the entire day with of the supposed drug sale, and will support his contention that they had no other visitors.
The search warrant was not served with a knock-and-announce but rather a busting down of the door (it was NOT a noknock warrant). Three people were present who can testify to that.
Conviently, after three cops had looked through a closet, another one found a bag with less than a 1/2 gram of meth in the closet. The bag did not match the description of the informant's. Less than an ounce of marijuana was found as well.
Sooooo.....
His lawyer thinks this is a minor case with a 60% chance that it will be thrown out on a motion over the search warrant or the no-knock entry.
But my friend is afraid that the police are out to get him.
Questions:
--Can a search warrant be issued based on one confidential informant AND supported by specious "evidence" that druggies were seen entering and leaving anapartment building shared by seven apartments AND by his "crfiminal record" that contains no convictions and no cases related in any way to drugs.
--Can the testimony of three witnesses (the defendant and two friends) that there was no knock compete with the police officer who claim they knocked). The entry took only seconds, and the defendant and two friends were captured in the living room, having had no time to make a move toward the door or anywhere else (if there'd been a knock you'd expect they'd have made some kind of a move somewhere--to thedoor or the supposed drugs.)
--And shouldn't the lawyer be doing something to gather evidence for the case, should it fall in that 40% that wasn't dismissed? His worst case scenario is drug school for possession, but my friend has a public/political career of sorts at stake. (I've known him for 18 years, and have never had the slightest hint that he either deals in drugs or uses meth.)
The process seems to be the punishment.

The best advice, of course, is for you to hire a good lawyer immediately (which I see you say you have done).

--Can a search warrant be issued based on one confidential informant AND supported by specious "evidence" that druggies were seen entering and leaving anapartment building shared by seven apartments AND by his "crfiminal record" that contains no convictions and no cases related in any way to drugs.

A: The way you have phrased the question leaves only one answer. So the question is pretty worthless. Let's just say that the court will decide.


--Can the testimony of three witnesses (the defendant and two friends) that there was no knock compete with the police officer who claim they knocked). The entry took only seconds, and the defendant and two friends were captured in the living room, having had no time to make a move toward the door or anywhere else (if there'd been a knock you'd expect they'd have made some kind of a move somewhere--to thedoor or the supposed drugs.)

A: Again, you will find out the answers in court.


--And shouldn't the lawyer be doing something to gather evidence for the case, should it fall in that 40% that wasn't dismissed?

A: I would be highly suspicious of any lawyer who gave percentages like that. If you are uncomfortable with your lawyer, then fire him and get another.



Standard answer

Here are some hints on appearing in court:

Dress professionally in clean clothes.

Do not wear message shirts.

Don't chew gum, smoke, or eat. (Smokers...pot or tobacco...literally stink. Remember that before you head for court.)

Bathe and wash your hair.

Do not bring small children or your friends.

Go to court beforehand some day before you actually have to go to watch how things go.

Speak politely and deferentially. If you argue or dispute something, do it professionally and without emotion.

Ask the court clerk who you talk to about a diversion (meaning you want to plead to a different, lesser charge), if applicable in your situation. Ask about traffic school and that the ticket not go on your record, if applicable. Ask also about getting a hardship driving permit, if applicable. Ask about drug court, if applicable.

From marbol:

“Judge...

You forgot the one thing that I've seen that seems to frizz up most judges these days:

If you have a cell phone, make DAMN SURE that it doesn't make ANY noise in the courtroom. This means when you are talking to the judge AND when you are simply sitting in the court room.

If you have a ‘vibrate’ position on your cell phone, MAKE sure the judge DOESN'T EVEN HEAR IT VIBRATE!

Turn it off or put it in silent mode where it flashes a LED if it rings. AND DON'T even DREAM about answering it if it rings.”

(Better yet, don’t carry your cell phone into the courtroom.)”


Here are five stories that criminal court judges hear the most (and I suggest you do not use them or variations of them):

1. I’ve been saved! (This is not religion specific; folks from all kinds of religious backgrounds use this one.)

2. My girlfriend/mother/sister/daughter/wife/ex-wife/niece/grandma/grand-daughter is pregnant/sick/dying/dead/crippled/crazy and needs my help.

3. I’ve got a job in [name a state five hundred miles away].

4. This is the first time I ever did this. (This conflicts with number 5 below, but that hasn’t stopped some defendants from using both.)

5. You’ve got the wrong guy. (A variation of this one is the phantom defendant story: “It wasn’t me driving, it was a hitchhiker I picked up. He wrecked the car, drug me behind the wheel then took off.” Or, another variation: “I was forced into it by a bad guy!”)

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=854687#post854687

Public defender’s advice

http://newyork.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/70300494.html


Other people may give you other advice; stand by.

 

[smutlydog]

What is the name of your state? Illinois
A friend had a search warrant "served" on him for supposedly selling meth. The warrant was based on a confidential informant's claim that he had purchased a $125 bag the day before (one small bag of many in a bigger bag, supposedly). The supporting evidence for the warrant was that the complaining officer had watched "numerous subjects coming and going from the apartment building which [the officer] believes to be narcotics related." He then says that "a criminal history check revealed [defendatn] had a [numbered record]."
The apartment building has seven units; an observer from the street would have no idea of whose apartment these people were coming or going from (there are no windows outside the defendants entry area to observe).
The criminal record contains no convictions, and none of the charges in any way related to drugs. Several of them were related to political actions--and one involved a police officer who forced his way into his apartment after a screaming woman wouldn't leave the entrywayof his building. He filed a complaint against the officer--who was one of the officers involved in the raid.
My friend has two witnesses who he spent the entire day with of the supposed drug sale, and will support his contention that they had no other visitors.
The search warrant was not served with a knock-and-announce but rather a busting down of the door (it was NOT a noknock warrant). Three people were present who can testify to that.
Conviently, after three cops had looked through a closet, another one found a bag with less than a 1/2 gram of meth in the closet. The bag did not match the description of the informant's. Less than an ounce of marijuana was found as well.
Sooooo.....
His lawyer thinks this is a minor case with a 60% chance that it will be thrown out on a motion over the search warrant or the no-knock entry.
But my friend is afraid that the police are out to get him.
Questions:
--Can a search warrant be issued based on one confidential informant AND supported by specious "evidence" that druggies were seen entering and leaving anapartment building shared by seven apartments AND by his "crfiminal record" that contains no convictions and no cases related in any way to drugs.
--Can the testimony of three witnesses (the defendant and two friends) that there was no knock compete with the police officer who claim they knocked). The entry took only seconds, and the defendant and two friends were captured in the living room, having had no time to make a move toward the door or anywhere else (if there'd been a knock you'd expect they'd have made some kind of a move somewhere--to thedoor or the supposed drugs.)
--And shouldn't the lawyer be doing something to gather evidence for the case, should it fall in that 40% that wasn't dismissed? His worst case scenario is drug school for possession, but my friend has a public/political career of sorts at stake. (I've known him for 18 years, and have never had the slightest hint that he either deals in drugs or uses meth.)
The process seems to be the punishment.

The warrant was based on a confidential informant's claim that he had purchased a $125 bag the day before

This probably isn’t an unverifiable claim as you would suggest. The $125 bag is probably sitting in the evidence room at the station.

The criminal record contains no convictions, and none of the charges in any way related to drugs.

Would it have made a difference if this incorrect information had been left out? I could be wrong but I think the courts will ask this question. The controlled buy is enough

 

[newdig63]

There was no controlled buy.
The application for the search warrant states that the CI "took the bag containing the white crystal substance and left the location. The C/I then ingested the Methamphetamine the C/I purchased from [the defendant], and received the same euphoric high which the C/I has received numerous times after ingesting Metamphetamine. The C/I has been using narcotics for three years."
There is no "controlled buy" evidence. In fact, there is no evidence that a C/I even exists (yes, i know...). The police are hanging on to the "intent to distribute" charge nonetheless though the "evidence" from the raid matches nothing in the C/I's statement. The .4 (point 4) grams of supposed meth was in a different type of bag than those the C/I claimed he saw. It was in a closet that three officers checked before a fourth officer supposedly found it in plain view.
This is a political case, an effort to shut someone up who was a pain in the ass--and an obnious jerk. It also very conveniently shuts him out of working for six months or more, in the height ofan elecition year where he could normally bill $100 an hour.
There are no records of anyone else being prosecuted for .4 grams of meth (or anything else) with intent to distribute.
This is all about "the process is the punishment." IE, he's been a problem for us, so we'll shut him up.
I am 60 years old, never been approached by the police for anything other than a traffick ticket, have known many good cops in my life--and a few bad ones. But this case reeks.
It has shaken my faith in the police, imperfect as a I realize they are, in that some of them will lie, misrepresent a case...and possibly plant evidence to cover up a bad search warrant.
One of the police officers in this raid beat and terrorized the defendant to the point that two witnesses in the other room heard the other officers yell "pull him off him" while the beating was going on. He was handcuffed and straddled for no appropriate reason by one officer who held a gun to his head with the safety off. He was hit in the head and kicked in the butt, both of which I have photos of.
Bu nothing is being done about this.
His claim against the officer who broke into his apartment 10 days before the raid after specifically being denied entrance was dismissed as unfounded, althtough--again--there was a witness. No effort was made to talk to the witness before dismissing the complaint.
That officer took part in the raid 10 days later.
Isn't this a conflict of interest at the least.
The stakes here for the attorney are very small. The intent to distribute charge is a non-starter. The possession charge would likely result in drug school. The defendant--my friend--is adamant against a plea bargain for this.
Basically, the cops--irritated by his past actions--hung a doozey on him that will take 6 to 9months out of his life. It's the cops--a couple of them--who should be prosecuted.

 

[outonbail]

Was your friend arrested following the raid and taken into custody? If so, was he given a drug test, to determine if he had any drugs in his system at the time of the arrest?

If not, I would have suggested that he have his own drug screen done if he's not a user. It's probably too late at this point, as if he was under the influence at the time of the raid, it would probably be out of his system by now. Although, I understand the hair follicle test can go back for several months and show if there has been any drug use. You may suggest he asks his lawyer if a clean test of this type will help his case. Of course a clean test doesn't prove he was not in possession, but it may help position his credibility on higher ground in the eyes of a jury

As far as these friends, who he plans on calling as witnesses, what's in their past? Anything criminal or indicative of drug use?

If they are clean and upstanding members of the community, they stand a much better chance of being believed when on the stand. If they have past drug related arrests, they aren't going to do much to help his case. In fact, they can do more harm than good if they're not squeaky clean. The old birds of a feather story,,,,,

Also, a good lawyer should be able to find out who the C/I was and what relation he actually has to your friend.

Ordinarily I don't put much faith in someone's claim of being set up by the police,,,, but when it comes to political battles, I believe almost anything's possible.
However, proving it to be the case, is rare.

One last thought, knowing someone for 18 years and not realizing they are involved with drugs, when they in fact are, does happen. Not suggesting this is the case in your situation, but it has been known to happen.

 

[THE PRACTICE-23]

My response:

Ah, forensics!

They have his fingerprints on the "buy" money!

IAAL

 

[smutlydog]

There was no controlled buy.
The application for the search warrant states that the CI "took the bag containing the white crystal substance and left the location. The C/I then ingested the Methamphetamine the C/I purchased from [the defendant], and received the same euphoric high which the C/I has received numerous times after ingesting Metamphetamine. The C/I has been using narcotics for three years."
There is no "controlled buy" evidence. In fact, there is no evidence that a C/I even exists (yes, i know...). The police are hanging on to the "intent to distribute" charge nonetheless though the "evidence" from the raid matches nothing in the C/I's statement. The .4 (point 4) grams of supposed meth was in a different type of bag than those the C/I claimed he saw. It was in a closet that three officers checked before a fourth officer supposedly found it in plain view.
This is a political case, an effort to shut someone up who was a pain in the ass--and an obnious jerk. It also very conveniently shuts him out of working for six months or more, in the height ofan elecition year where he could normally bill $100 an hour.
There are no records of anyone else being prosecuted for .4 grams of meth (or anything else) with intent to distribute.
This is all about "the process is the punishment." IE, he's been a problem for us, so we'll shut him up.
I am 60 years old, never been approached by the police for anything other than a traffick ticket, have known many good cops in my life--and a few bad ones. But this case reeks.
It has shaken my faith in the police, imperfect as a I realize they are, in that some of them will lie, misrepresent a case...and possibly plant evidence to cover up a bad search warrant.
One of the police officers in this raid beat and terrorized the defendant to the point that two witnesses in the other room heard the other officers yell "pull him off him" while the beating was going on. He was handcuffed and straddled for no appropriate reason by one officer who held a gun to his head with the safety off. He was hit in the head and kicked in the butt, both of which I have photos of.
Bu nothing is being done about this.
His claim against the officer who broke into his apartment 10 days before the raid after specifically being denied entrance was dismissed as unfounded, althtough--again--there was a witness. No effort was made to talk to the witness before dismissing the complaint.
That officer took part in the raid 10 days later.
Isn't this a conflict of interest at the least.
The stakes here for the attorney are very small. The intent to distribute charge is a non-starter. The possession charge would likely result in drug school. The defendant--my friend--is adamant against a plea bargain for this.
Basically, the cops--irritated by his past actions--hung a doozey on him that will take 6 to 9months out of his life. It's the cops--a couple of them--who should be prosecuted.

It's not the cops fault unless the snitch misleads them before on other cases. Some judges will throw out cases involving informants who mislead cops on prior cases.

It kind of sounds like the informant backed out at the last minute. In other words he or she had a change of heart. If drug testing was used the snitch would have had to be tested before going in the house. It's hard to find a snitch that can test negative. I have never heard of someone getting busted this way anyway.

Finger prints are used sometimes so your attorney needs to research this further.