Can Hearsay Be Enough Proof for a Search Warrant

State vs Tibbles.

Actually I did say that wrong.It does not fit exigent circumstances so they should have taken their PC to a Judge .
But it will slow the amount of searches considerably.

So since I was convicted 6 years ago then I lose my right to be privacy? I don't understand how it cannot be hearsay, since none of the people with me had never been to my house or even knew where I lived, than how can the information they provided without any actual direct knowledge not be considered hearsay?

Besides, it was not my car and the bag of marijuana was found in a bookbag that belonged to one of the passengers, but I guess that doesn't matter.

I kinda had a situation similar. Some one stashed weed in my car and other drugs but they weren't mine. I was with 2 other people who were well known for drugs. I however got the charge for the drugs because it was my car. Shouldnt the owner of the vehicle be charged with the marijuana and not even give a search to the passengers house if he had no drugs on him?

Since neither we nor you are privy to exactly what was presented or told to the judge who issued the warrant, the best you're going to get are educated guesses. But in the big picture, a warrant only requires probable cause, which is a pretty low standard. Beyond that, your attorney will need to get the FULL facts, as presented to the judge at the time, and then decide on what grounds to potentially attack the basis of the warrant.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

State vs Tibbles.

---

Irrelevant. That was a Washington state case, not Wisconsin. Plus, we do not know the cause stated by the police for the original vehicle search and later for the affidavit in support of the warrant ... though odor DOES seem likely to be among them.

Quote:

---

Actually I did say that wrong.It does not fit exigent circumstances so they should have taken their PC to a Judge .
But it will slow the amount of searches considerably.

---

Only in the state of WA and only when based upon the odor of marijuana. I suspect drivers will give their consent when faced with waiting at the roadside for a few hours for a warrant.

Quote:

---

Quoting warped71

---

I don't understand how it cannot be hearsay, since none of the people with me had never been to my house or even knew where I lived, than how can the information they provided without any actual direct knowledge not be considered hearsay?

---

Their statements are direct testimony. It may be false, it may be a lie ... but it was apparently sufficient to convince a judge that probable cause existed to issue a search warrant.

But, the issue is NOT one of hearsay even if there might be other problems with the search.

From NOLO:

hearsay
Testimony given by a witness who is not telling what he or she knows personally, but what others have said.

And,

hearsay rule
A rule of evidence that prohibits the use of out-of-court statements that are offered as proof of the subject of the statement. These statements are not admitted as evidence because person who made the statement isn't in court for the other party to cross-examine. For example, if Cathy, an eyewitness to an accident, later tells Betsy that the pickup ran the light, Betsy would not be allowed to recount Cathy's remarks. Out-of-court statements that aren't offered to prove the truth of the statement are admissible, however. Suppose Tom is called to testify, "On January 1, Bob said the Steelers stink." If the party calling Tom wants to prove that Bob was alive on January 1, Tom's testimony would be admitted, because the other side could question Tom about whether the conversation really took place on that date. Whether the Steelers are a poor team is beside the point. Even statements that are hearsay may be admitted if they fall within one of the many exceptions to the rule. In general, hearsay will be admitted if the circumstances of the statement indicate a high probability that the statement is true. For example, a statement uttered spontaneously and under duress -- such as a victim's remarks immediately following an accident -- could be admitted because the judge might find that the person had little time to plan to say anything other than the truth.

Quote:

---

Besides, it was not my car and the bag of marijuana was found in a bookbag that belonged to one of the passengers, but I guess that doesn't matter.

---

As I said, it is an issue that your attorney can raise for reasonable doubt or for suppression.

Normally the owner of the vehicle is the default owner of any contraband in his car.Constructive possession can be applied to the car owner and can sometimes even be used to prosecute multiple defendants.In this case we have the word of an unreliable witness (the driver who has everything to lose)and a neutral witness(I say neutral but if he has a close relationship with the driver he is also unreliable.)

The person who said (I have to assume they said something more than just "there is more cannabis") it would have to be specific enough to lead them to believe he knew intimate details about your house and about the deal he claims you were doing.

The fact that there were no ledgers or trafficking paraphernalia to suggest that you were dealing it then (depending on what the person said they would find) the person has shown himself to be unreliable.So ,why would I believe him about you being the owner of the cannabis.There are a lot of unknowns here so until you can get a thorough discovery all anyone can do is guess and go through many possible scenarios.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

Normally the owner of the vehicle is the default owner of any contraband in his car.Constructive possession can be applied to the car owner and can sometimes even be used to prosecute multiple defendants.In this case we have the word of an unreliable witness (the driver who has everything to lose)and a neutral witness(I say neutral but if he has a close relationship with the driver he is also unreliable.)

---

As I said, apparently the information at hand was sufficient to overcome this natural doubt and give a judge reason to believe there was probable cause to believe there might be indicia of sales or transportation (or whatever) at the OP's house. You don't have to agree with it, but it happened.

If the police left the information about the owner of the backpack and the car (and they knew it at the time of the affidavit) that is exculpatory and could be sufficient to suppress the warrant.

Of course, the owner of the pack can always claim that yeah, the pack was his, but they stuffed the OP's dope in it. Without knowledge of the statements and the affidavit, who knows?

And, how do you KNOW the witness was "unreliable?" Perhaps he was a shill - an informant? Perhaps he had set other people up? Perhaps the police had obs on the transfer? We do not know. The OP's attorney can find this out.

But, it does NOT take a whole lot to establish the probable cause necessary to obtain a search warrant.

Quote:

---

And, how do you KNOW the witness was "unreliable?" Perhaps he was a shill - an informant? Perhaps he had set other people up? Perhaps the police had obs on the transfer? We do not know. The OP's attorney can find this out.

---

Good point,I'll be you could come up with a dozen more possibilities.
Point being don't lose hope,the more complicated the case(and this is a doosey)
the more likely someone made a mistake and a good attorney can pick up on it.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

Good point,I'll be you could come up with a dozen more possibilities.
Point being don't lose hope,the more complicated the case(and this is a doosey)
the more likely someone made a mistake and a good attorney can pick up on it.

---

It really does not seem all that complicated to me ... but then, I do these sorts of things a lot.

It seems to me that you are blessed by a professional dept.
It gets complicated when police are sloppy or overzealous.