Random question regarding search and seizure laws

[Dillon]

Dillon.

Put. The. Bong. Down.

Proserpina, i dont understand the legal term, Bong. LOL

have a great day


dillon, sui juris, absent senior fiduciary capacity.

 

[davew128]

i dont understand the legal terms

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Dillon]

Wow ... your local cops have printers and fax machines in their patrol cars?!

Utah cops praise electronic warrant system

By Jason Bergreen
Salt Lake Tribune ----------------- 12/26/08

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah — Computer technology traditionally associated with sending a note to a colleague, inviting friends to a party or purchasing presents on the Internet has expanded to allow Utah police to seek -- and within minutes get -- permission to search your home or force a blood draw.

The state court system introduced an electronic warrant pilot program this spring. It is available to law enforcement agencies throughout the state and, so far, judges in the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th District courts have been trained to issue the warrants.

Police say not having to travel to see a judge in person saves valuable investigation time and helps them quickly collect and preserve evidence to build a criminal case.

"I don't know how much more user-friendly it can be," said Utah Highway Patrol trooper Brandon Whitehead who has written six e-warrants this year as a member of the DUI squad. "It saves more manpower and completely expedites things."

Officers who have Internet access in their patrol cars, officers can create affidavits in support of a warrant and submit it to a judge via an e-mail request. The judge reviews the affidavit and either denies the warrant, denies the warrant with an explanation or issues the warrant.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/communications/articles/1769302-Utah-cops-praise-electronic-warrant-system/

Go Figure

 

[Dillon]

Truer words were never spoken, Dillon
you are so Right on all your posting.

Thanks, davew128 -------------- LOL

 

[Just Blue]

Thanks, davew128 -------------- LOL

 

[Just Blue]

Yesterday, 07:46 PM
davew128
Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,987

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillon
i dont understand the legal terms

Truer words were never spoken.

Actual post.

 

[CdwJava]

Well, bully for Utah ... however, they are not using those to supplant probable cause only to seek warrants to search a home or obtain blood in those instances where probable cause alone is not sufficient to conduct those searches.

Nice try, but no cigar.

And do you really think any county has enough judges to standby computers and fax machines to handle what could be dozens or even hundreds of field search requests each day? 24 hours a day? Really? You want to pay for the costs of such a system?

Let's see ... hordes of new judges, thousands of dollars in new equipment for each and every patrol car in the state, maintenance on the technology, added recordkeeping personnel and systems, training for court personnel and officers ... Holy Hannah, what a huge flippin' ONGOING expense that would be!

Dillon, your pipe dream is not here yet. And it won't be in our lifetimes. While technology to do many things might be available, that does not mean the technology is affordable or practical.

 

[Dillon]

Well, bully for Utah ... Nice try, but no cigar.

And do you really think any county has enough judges to standby computers and fax machines to handle what could be dozens or even hundreds of field search requests each day? 24 hours a day? Really? You want to pay for the costs of such a system?

Let's see ... hordes of new judges, thousands of dollars in new equipment for each and every patrol car in the state, maintenance on the technology, added recordkeeping personnel and systems, training for court personnel and officers ... Holy Hannah, what a huge flippin' ONGOING expense that would be!

bottom line warrantless searches and seizures are obsolete and NOW un-necessary, therefore its unreasonable not to uses e-warrants.

like the article says, its better and faster for all, so why not use them? it actually saves time and money in the long run.

Just use an i-phone, its time police didnt have to use bear skins and bone knives for equipment.

have a nice night

 

[CdwJava]

bottom line warrantless searches and seizures are obsolete and NOW un-necessary, therefore its unreasonable not to uses e-warrants.

No, they are not.

Please cite controlling case law that says that exigencies have been eliminated ... we'll be waiting.

And, as mentioned, the costs and logistics involved in the system you wish we had would be so prohibitive as to render it untenable from the start.

Just use an i-phone, its time police didnt have to use bear skins and bone knives for equipment.

Great ... you got the money for all that equipment? The maintenance? The replacement? The training? The additional judicial staff? The additional officers that would be required to standby while another officer spends forever trying to type on the small letters on the phone's keypad?

Dillon, let us deal with the law AS IT STANDS, not as you would like it to be. As the law exists today, searches based upon probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances still permit a search without a warrant. Period. Even if. If a court subsequently rules that no probable cause or exigency exists, then the evidence can be suppressed, and if particularly egregious additional penalties might apply.

 

[Dillon]

Dillon, let us deal with the law AS IT STANDS, not as you would like it to be. As the law exists today, searches based upon probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances still permit a search without a warrant. Period. Even if. If a court subsequently rules that no probable cause or exigency exists, then the evidence can be suppressed, and if particularly egregious additional penalties might apply.

the law stands now its called the fourth amendment. get a warrant


there is never exigency or PC issues with e-warrants and an i-phone, is there ?

the judge could issue the e-warrent from home in his underware.

saves gas, appeals for no PC, suits for false arrest, quicker convictions, etc...

Plus a judge saying there is PC for an arrest is much better than an officer saying so, Right?


the case law will come soon, its just a matter of time.


dillon, sui juris

p.s. why not just issue warrant forms and PC affidavit forms to police like they do with traffic court summon forms? I mean, they are both court orders, Right?

if there are any mistake on the forms with PC, it can all just be overturned on appeal.



-------------------

 

[CdwJava]

the law stands now its called the fourth amendment. get a warrant

Not required if there exists probable cause and exigent circumstances.

Read up a little more on the subject.

there is never exigency with e-warrants and an i-phone, is there ?

When there is no system in place to seek and obtain such on-the-spot warrants, and no legal requirement to obtain them, yes there ARE still exigencies. Even in a world where this fantastic and expensive proposition existed, there would still be situations where even the short delay would be impractical or unsafe. Hence, exigencies would continue to exist. Or, would you advocate that officers stop pursuing fleeing criminals when they run into a residence or leap a fence as they flee the cops?

the judge could issue the e-warrent from home in his underware.

Ah, yes, the on-call judges would like that ... no sleep.

You really have no concept of just how many exigencies exists for pat-downs, vehicle, searches, etc., do you? In some medium jurisdictions we could be talking dozens each night. In larger jurisdictions and counties, we could be talking hundreds! Just how many more judges would you want to pay for?

And, as I said, technology costs money. Money is in short supply. Technology has to be replaced about every three years - that means budgeting for constant replacement and maintenance. then there is training. Then there is additional personnel to address the increased court workload and additional officers to standby at a scene while one or more officers heads back to his car to type up a search warrant. In the meantime you have issues of unlawful detentions because typing up the requisite affidavit, contacting an on-call judge, and receiving a reply will likely take far longer than the current 20-odd minutes the courts assume a traffic stop should take.

the case law will come soon, its just a matter of time.

Not in my lifetime.

And to point out the truth in my position, let me remind you that telephonic search warrants have existed since before I became an officer. And with most every officer having a cell phone if it were a legal requirement - or even a thought to make it so - this requirement could have been implemented a dozen years ago. It has not. And, it will not be. There are too many reasons why it would be impractical, unsafe, and would be detrimental even to those people you are purporting to assist with this hair-brained idea.

ps why not just issue warrants and PC affidavit forms to police like they do with traffic court summones? they are all court orders, Right?

Nope.

A probable cause declaration is NOT a "court order," it is a statement of articulated probable cause to support an arrest, or, in the case of a search warrant application, to support the application for a search warrant.

Oh, and a traffic court "summons" is not a court order but a signed promise to appear. In many states (such as mine) a "summons" is not issued by the police but by the court. The type of "summons" or written citation an officer issues is, essentially, a written promise to appear in lieu of going to jail and not a "court order."

So, one again, the law as it stands today says that exigent circumstances are a permissible exception to the warrant requirement. Regardless of what you want to see, would like to see, or believe should be, the simple truth is that exigencies still exist under the law. Period.

If there ever exists some controlling case law that eliminates exigency exceptions, please do come back to share. Until then, the law stands.

End of discussion.

 

[Dillon]

there would still be situations where even the short delay would be impractical or unsafe. Hence, exigencies would continue to exist. Or, would you advocate that officers stop pursuing fleeing criminals when they run into a residence or leap a fence as they flee the cops?

Ah, yes, the on-call judges would like that ... no sleep.

And, as I said, technology costs money. Money is in short supply.

Oh, and a traffic court "summons" is not a court order but a signed promise to appear. In many states (such as mine) a "summons" is not issued by the police but by the court. The type of "summons" or written citation an officer issues is, essentially, a written promise to appear in lieu of going to jail and not a "court order."

good point, get the e-warrant later, there will be a few exceptions.

No money, thats a bigger issue then warrantless arrest or seizures.


traffic summons is not a court order, "officer, please note on the citation " I agree to specially appear upon receipt of proof of personal and subject matter jurisdiction from the court within 10 day of today, if not I reserve my right to cancel the agreement to appear for cause.

Really thanks CdwJava,

that was the best information i have ever read on this fourm.

---------------------------

 

[justalayman]

=Dillon;2895860]good point, get it after the pursuit, should be no problem.

ever hear of night court.

Not in my area, no, there is no such thing.

traffic summons is not a court order, "officer, please note on the citation " I agree to specially appear on the condition that I receive proof of personal and subject matter jurisdiction from the court within 10 day of today, if not I reserve my right to cancel the agreement to appear for cause.

You go ahead and try that. You have the choice of promising to appear, without your little exceptions, or you will go to jail and deal with a judge; your choice. Let us know how it works out for you, if they have internet service in whatever jail you end up in.

 

[CdwJava]

good point, get the e-warrant later, there will be a few exceptions.

No money, thats a bigger issue then warrantless arrest or seizures.

No need for a warrant in a warrantless search with probable cause and an exigency. If a defendant or other party wants to challenge the search, they can make the proper motion in court or file suit.

traffic summons is not a court order, "officer, please note on the citation " I agree to specially appear on the condition that I receive proof of personal and subject matter jurisdiction from the court within 10 day of today, if not I reserve my right to cancel the agreement to appear for cause.

They can scrawl that if they want, but it does nothing to release them from their obligation to appear at the listed location on the day and time indicated.

 

[Dillon]

No need for a warrant in a warrantless search with probable cause and an exigency. If a defendant or other party wants to challenge the search, they can make the proper motion in court or file suit.


They can scrawl that if they want, but it does nothing to release them from their obligation to appear at the listed location on the day and time indicated.

exigency in this case NO, but PC maybe. its nice to know the options

its called a conditional agreement/ACCEPTANCE and its perfectly lawful and legal.

Conditional Acceptance

A conditional acceptance, sometimes called a qualified acceptance, occurs when a person to whom an offer has been made tells the offeror that he or she is willing to agree to the offer provided that some condition or event occurs.

there are at least two types of appearances at law, special and general, as the citation does not specify which one is required I choose special appearance where court jurisdition must be proven on the record of the court.

I could just say " officer please note on the citation I choose to make a special appearance

-----------------