On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:18 AM, G Money wrote:
> Nothing...the statute is not a crock, it's the enforcement. How can you
> prove or disprove probable cause?
This is a frightening concept.
We tell by using definitions of/for things -- and the definitions have
gotten entirely too fuzzy for comfort
That one is absurdly easy. You rescue the kid which is, after all, the
most important part of this whole thing. The kids parents report the
kid missing. You investigate based off of the missing childrens report
and are able to create a chain of custody that to find evidence that
does not include th
G Money wrote:
>
> Nice options, heh.
Then what are your options? I felt I left that open with choice C.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.double
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ian Skinner wrote:
> A) There is nothing anybody can do, just let it go and let law
> enforcement do whatever they want. Just as long as most of the people
> they get are guilty of something.
>
> B) Always strive for the ideal and point out whenever law enforceme
G Money wrote:
> Nothing...the statute is not a crock, it's the enforcement. How can you
> prove or disprove probable cause?
If the statute is valid, then what is your position on how we should
deal with this?
A) There is nothing anybody can do, just let it go and let law
enforcement do whateve
Nothing...the statute is not a crock, it's the enforcement. How can you
prove or disprove probable cause?
I got pulled over because the cop said I started from a stopped position at
a red light before the light actually turned green.
That was his probable cause. How could I fight that even if I w
G Money wrote:
> Probable cause is pretty much a crock anywaycop can say just about
> anything he wants.
So what do you think should or should not be done with the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution?
/*"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, ag
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Ian Skinner wrote:
> Until that victim is interviewed and a legal search can be done of the
> guys possessions, yes.
How are you going to interview the victim? Since your search was illegal in
your eyes, you have to let him go without prejudice. You can't follow
G Money wrote:
> Hmmmcop finds thousands of pictures of kiddie porn and a 6 year old kid
> bound and gagged in the trunk.
>
> oopssearch was illegal...let the guy go with your apologies.
>
Until that victim is interviewed and a legal search can be done of the
guys possessions, yes.
> Y
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> I honestly don't care what the guy was busted for.
Hmmmcop finds thousands of pictures of kiddie porn and a 6 year old kid
bound and gagged in the trunk.
oopssearch was illegal...let the guy go with your apologies.
You sure you d
I really don't care about the gun that was found. I really don't care
what crime he was convicted of. The officer only had probable cause
because of a false warrant out for the drivers arrest. The probable
cause was not real and so anything found in the search is a moot
point. Period. End of story.
No, but police can search a vehicle based on probable cause. I've had
my car searched because it matched the profile for a group that was
trafficking drugs (red '92 sunbird ... this was in '98) in North
Texas.
Also, you failed to mention the gun that the officer found as well.
> Sadly that doesn
rom: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:04 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: High Court Oks illegal search based on computer error
>
> I honestly don't care what the guy was busted for. If the search was
> based on anything illegal o
What if the guy with meth in his car was driving to a meeting of people
starting a police state?
-Original Message-
From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:04 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: High Court Oks illegal search based on computer
I honestly don't care what the guy was busted for. If the search was
based on anything illegal or bogus then evidence is excluded. Period.
I don't care what the crime is. Does it mean that some guilty people
will get off on a technicality? Yes it does. And I'm ok with that. I
fear a police state fa
Crap like the guy driving around with meth? I agree.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/us-high-court-o.html
>
> Cop pulls a guy over, central says to cop "hey guy has an outstanding
> warrant". Cop searches the car based on that and
16 matches
Mail list logo
