Random question regarding search and seizure laws

[CdwJava]

Of course it is all fantasy as there is no legal requirement that an officer make such frequent contact with a judge, nor would any court system I know of have so many judges on call and standing by their computers, phones and faxes waiting for field contacts to evaluate.

Haven't we all had enough of this futility, yet??

 

[Dillon]

Of course it is all fantasy as there is no legal requirement that an officer make such frequent contact with a judge, nor would any court system I know of have so many judges on call and standing by their computers, phones and faxes waiting for field contacts to evaluate.

Haven't we all had enough of this futility, yet??

dont be so sure, cdwjava, read the story


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.


see the website below for the rest of the story. (judges like it, too)

Utah cops praise electronic warrant system

Go Figure

 

[justalayman]

dont be so sure, cdwjava, read the story


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.


see the website below for the rest of the story. (judges like it, too)

Utah cops praise electronic warrant system

Go Figure

I don't see anything addressing this system to a motor vehicle situation. The courts have ruled there is an exception for motor vehicles so until you challenge it, successfully, based on there no longer being a justification due to the electronic age, we are stuck with the exception for vehicles.

 

[CdwJava]

Dillon, the story involves search warrants for those things for which they would otherwise have to take time to get a search warrant for already! It does nothing to change current law, it only expedites the current requirements allowing for the process that might already be in place for telephonic search warrants to be ported over to the electronic world. It says NOTHING about erasing probable cause and exigencies, nor creating new legal requirements.

Instead of phoning and then later physically delivering the warrant to a judge after hours, or actually hunting a judge down in the middle of the night for those things they would already have to do this for, they can now send the communications via email and the like. Heck, we can do that now. I can still go to my office, type it up, and then call the judge and say I'm emailing something to him for his review. That does not mean that it is required for every circumstance, and CERTAINLY not for field contacts. Utah does not have that many judges.

I live and work in a small county. We have one judge on call after hours and on weekends (that assignment rotates). Based on your criteria, Dillon, my agency alone might have to call him a half dozen times a night between 9 PM and 6 AM to approve these mini search warrants. When you add the rest of the county into the mix, the judge would be up for 24 hours and likely have well over a dozen such calls - more when we have DUI sweeps, drug sweeps, and the like. The system you propose would be unwieldy and cost prohibitive. And, it is NOT what the news article is discussing.

I am still waiting for you to show us just ONE controlling case that states that searches based upon probable cause and an exigency are no longer valid. Just one. ... Still waiting ...

 

[dave33]

In all fairness, before this thread took a left turn, in a sense I agree with Dillon's frustration at the exigency clause. I would like to see a change in current law that requires the p.d. to get a warrant. The abuses of the current system are well known. It may cost the state more money and be inconvenient, but the money and difficulties by the defendant are not less important. Maybe the money and convenience issues should have been contemplated before enacting all the new laws. Regardless of what statistic anyone feels reliable it is clear that America locks up more citizens (by far) than any where else. Is it because Americans are bad people? I do not believe so. Instead I believe it is because virtually anyone can be searched anywhere at any time and this is legal. Warrants have been successfully bypassed and the right to be free from unlawful searches has been circumvented. This is in most case4s legal under current law. On the same tolken it is clearly a violaton of the constitution and the bill of rights. Maybe a warrant system would limit convictions of v ictimless crimes. Put the power back in the judges hands where it belongs.

 

[Dillon]

I am still waiting for you to show us just ONE controlling case that states that searches based upon probable cause and an exigency are no longer valid. Just one. ... Still waiting ...

nobody has argured the obsolete issue in court yet, its just a matter of time.

people are so used to the status quo.

 

[Dillon]

In all fairness, before this thread took a left turn, in a sense I agree with Dillon's frustration at the exigency clause. I would like to see a change in current law that requires the p.d. to get a warrant. The abuses of the current system are well known. It may cost the state more money and be inconvenient, but the money and difficulties by the defendant are not less important. Maybe the money and convenience issues should have been contemplated before enacting all the new laws. Regardless of what statistic anyone feels reliable it is clear that America locks up more citizens (by far) than any where else. Is it because Americans are bad people? I do not believe so. Instead I believe it is because virtually anyone can be searched anywhere at any time and this is legal. Warrants have been successfully bypassed and the right to be free from unlawful searches has been circumvented. This is in most case4s legal under current law. On the same tolken it is clearly a violaton of the constitution and the bill of rights. Maybe a warrant system would limit convictions of v ictimless crimes. Put the power back in the judges hands where it belongs.

I am saying.

 

[justalayman]

In all fairness, before this thread took a left turn, in a sense I agree with Dillon's frustration at the exigency clause. I would like to see a change in current law that requires the p.d. to get a warrant. The abuses of the current system are well known. It may cost the state more money and be inconvenient, but the money and difficulties by the defendant are not less important. Maybe the money and convenience issues should have been contemplated before enacting all the new laws. Regardless of what statistic anyone feels reliable it is clear that America locks up more citizens (by far) than any where else. Is it because Americans are bad people? I do not believe so. Instead I believe it is because virtually anyone can be searched anywhere at any time and this is legal. Warrants have been successfully bypassed and the right to be free from unlawful searches has been circumvented. This is in most case4s legal under current law. On the same tolken it is clearly a violaton of the constitution and the bill of rights. Maybe a warrant system would limit convictions of v ictimless crimes. Put the power back in the judges hands where it belongs.

Personally, I have never agreed with the vehicle exigency issue. If the police want a warrant, they could just detain until said warrant is issued. The claim it was due to the vehicle being mobile is bs. It isn't mobile if the cops do not let it be mobile.

Actually, I think the courts are starting to come around a bit with the newest limits on a search incident to arrest restrictions.

Just give it a couple more decades and maybe it will come around.

 

[Dillon]

I don't see anything addressing this system to a motor vehicle situation. The courts have ruled there is an exception for motor vehicles so until you challenge it, successfully, based on there no longer being a justification due to the electronic age, we are stuck with the exception for vehicles.

it will be addressed, like i said its because nobody has challanged the Motor Vehicle exception as being obsolete, yet.

nobody has thought of doing it yet, because they are so used to it the way it is now.

and there is the money issue of many state and local government being low on funds

 

[justalayman]

Utah Highway Patrol trooper Brandon Whitehead who has written six e-warrants this year as a member of the DUI squad.

motor vehicle dui squad.

what were the warrants for? That makes a huge difference in whether the system would alter the status quo of police making the decision for a warrantless search.

 

[Dillon]

Personally, I have never agreed with the vehicle exigency issue. If the police want a warrant, they could just detain until said warrant is issued. The claim it was due to the vehicle being mobile is bs. It isn't mobile if the cops do not let it be mobile.

Actually, I think the courts are starting to come around a bit with the newest limits on a search incident to arrest restrictions.

Just give it a couple more decades and maybe it will come around.

i could not have stated it any better. thanks

 

[Dillon]

what were the warrants for? That makes a huge difference in whether the system would alter the status quo of police making the decision for a warrantless search.

they will not use e-warrants for minor traffic stop because there is too much money invested in keeping it that way.

 

[justalayman]

the other vehicles are not so much involved because mostly no damages or injuries for minor traffic issues .

minor traffic issues are mostly civil in nature, therefore no real criminal PC they are civil PC issues..

I was starting to understand you dillon but you just lost me again. You quoted a section about a cop that sought warrants via the electronic system and I asked what they were for and you come back with something about civil issues.

 

[Dillon]

I was starting to understand you dillon but you just lost me again. You quoted a section about a cop that sought warrants via the electronic system and I asked what they were for and you come back with something about civil issues.

let me explain, would a judge even issue a criminal e-warrent for a civil infraction (say for broken tail light)? No, its civil in nature, a contract issue.

so, How is the officer going to legally detain the driver to issue a civil traffic citation for said broken tail light w/o violating the drivers right not to be seized w/o a criminal warrant, because it not a criminal investigation?


thats why you will never see e-warrant for minor motor vehicle traffic issues.

 

[CdwJava]

Personally, I have never agreed with the vehicle exigency issue. If the police want a warrant, they could just detain until said warrant is issued. The claim it was due to the vehicle being mobile is bs. It isn't mobile if the cops do not let it be mobile.

So ... you might be willing to stay with your car on a traffic stop for, say, two or more hours while the officers have you detained and one of them runs off to seek a warrant due to the odor of alcohol or marijuana? Should we also do away with searches incident to arrest? What about pat-downs? Where do we draw the lines with exigencies? This would require an overhaul in a number of different 4th Amendment standards.

Judges already have the final say. Even in field searches the officer will have to articulate the probable cause and the exigency for any evidence to be of use. The issue is already subject to judicial review, it simply does not require that we have a platoon of on-call judges on standby.

I shall be long retired and likely long slipped these earthly bonds before the legal standards change so significantly ... and then it will not likely change to restrict the officers, but will likely be to grant them more autonomy with such things ... unless, of course, the world becomes a kinder, gentler place in the next few decades. If it continues on its current path, then expect greater autonomy and likely even more statutory or explicit exigencies.