Search Warrants Based on "Future Crime"

[Don]

Judge: In Texas, Search Warrants Can Now Be Based on a "Prediction of a Future Crime"

The Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth wasn't so eager to overlook what appeared to be a clear case of police misconduct and overturned the lower court's ruling.

But it's the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that has the final say, and last week they agreed with the trial court. In a majority opinion, Judge Elsa Alcala wrote that, while Texas' "exclusionary rule" bans illegally seized evidence from trial, federal precedent dictates that it can be introduced if it was first confirmed by an independent source.

The source reported seeing meth-making chemicals and "illicit laboratory items" like ammonia, rock salt, lithium batteries, clear tubing, pseudoephedrine, funnels, possible drain cleaner containing sulfuric acid, at Wehrenberg's house.

Further your Affiant relays that within the past 72 hours, the source personally observed the suspected parties in possession of a useable amount of methamphetamine at the suspected place.

I usually appreciate Texas' sense of justice; but this is WAY across the line, and sets a chilling, horrible precedent.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Judge: In Texas, Search Warrants Can Now Be Based on a "Prediction of a Future Crime"




I usually appreciate Texas' sense of justice; but this is WAY across the line, and sets a chilling, horrible precedent.

Ever see "Minority Report"? Fiction brought to life.

 

[abcgrad94]

This has to be unconstitutional. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I can see it now--your kid has a chemistry set and some other kid confirms it. Yep, you have matches and a chemistry kit, so you must have the intention of building bombs in the basement. Good grief.

 

[ktn4eg]

If only that concept would apply to those at both ends of PA Ave in Washinton DC...... :thumbs:

 

[poncho]

We'll quietly accept this too.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

http://rt.com/usa/texas-warrants-future-prediction-crimes-449/

There is a lot more to this story than the headline which is just a one liner from one of the disenting judges, but it still looks like a violation of the 4th amendment to me.

The police did not have a warrent when they entered the house and found the meth ingredients. They only applied for a warrent after the fact. In asking for a warrent they mentioned a tip they had received but failed to mention they had already entered the house.

This should be overturned.

 

[Gina B]

I've also seen the opposite happen. Years ago when my kids were tiny we had a neighbor whose little daughter has asthma. The dad decided to smoke marijuana in the small place with her there and it was strong and you could hear her struggling and the mom had complained of this in the past. Not being shy, I knock on the door and give him what for, he says it's not my business, but when there's a kid wheezing away...I tell him to at least put the kid in the bedroom in back and he's just rude.
I call the police, concerned for the baby.
He knows they're coming, sprays stuff to make it smell nice, and the little girl is put somewhere where you can't hear her.
He won't let them in, but they stand there for a while trying to convince him to, and ask him to at least bring the little girl to the door to let them see her and make sure she's okay.
Nope. He states his rights and doesn't let them in.
He then says it was ME. ROFL
They then decide they want to search my home.
I know my rights too, but figure since they have already smelled marijuana "somewhere in the vicinity" but can't pin it down, at least they can knock me out of their people of concern and let them in. They find my babies sleeping peacefully and everything in order, nothing suspicious.
But - there was nothing they could do about the baby that was probably high and coughing and wheezing away. At that time, I probably would have been the last to complain if they'd gone in anyhow to ensure she wasn't in need of emergency medical care.

There's always a price to pay for freedom. If we could trust people and the authorities more, it would be much easier in cases like this to say "it was necessary given the circumstances" and look at it as a type of needed violation, but it's not rare and limited to them only using it on the bad guys. That means that unfortunately, we can't overlook it. However, I would say to prioritize and defend innocent victims of lawbreaking law enforcement first before defending criminals who were victims of lawbreaking law enforcers.