Haven't insulted you. In fact I have only insulted one human and that was in another thread.mewgirl, you have insulted just about everybody here.
Because it probably isn't written directly in any statues, and if it is it would be hard to find.If you know so damn much, why don't you just research this yourself and show us all how great you are.
In fact I AM researaching it; by asking people here.
Okay. I don't care, because I know my evidence is illegal. I wasn't asking whether or not the SEARCh had a fult or would have been able to be used if there hadn't been a warrant. But I did describe EVERYTHING that happened in order to get the warrant, so I need to know if the warrant negates the search. Again if the search is illegal for the purposes of my question then it doesn't even really matter if it was ACTUALLY illegal since my question only talks about it if it wasn't.Evidence from an illegal search can be used against you in some situations.
Only if they can see something, in which case no search was conducted in order to see it. But it doesn't really matter because in MY case the search was illegal even if there are other cases where a search was legal.this is not true. Even with the recent SCOTUS decision, there are still times your car can be searched without a warrant.
I am perfectly aware of this. I never said they WON'T arrest you, and I never said they WON'T convict you. I simply said that it's illegal if they do. Many people who are arrested illegally don't know it, tehrefore they won't use it as a defense. Many of the people you just mentioned even plead guilty!again, you are wrong. For some reason, the millions of people that are arrested without a warrant but due to the evidence the officer sees of a crime when interacting with the person are setting in jail because there is no warrant needed in such a situation are still there, even with you claiming they cannot be arrested without a warrant.
Quote:
Now, if PD#1 did not arrest you based upon an arrest warrant, why did they stop and search you?
Irrelevant. I want answers to my questions, not a prosecution. if it was important I would mention it.
No, it's not, since I am not asking for help with that case. What if the case was ALREADY dismissed? How do you know it WASN'T already dismissed? how do you know it was not ALREADY "rules by a judge" that the search was illegal? I am not talking about that case because I do not need help with that case in this regard.No, it isn't irrelevent. It is very relevent to the situation where you claim the search was illegal.
Quote:
If it weren't for the fact that it was illegal in the first place, the fact that they destroyed my property, and the fact that they are pressing charges themselves which is also illegal regardless of the fact that it is commonly practiced, then you would be right
It doesn't matter whether or not the POLICE agree with me....You claim it is illegal. I suspect they do not agree with you.
And do you REALLY believe that "the State" would be able to provide proof of loss to "the State" in ANY criminal case?!And to the officers pressing charges? How about the state is pressing charges. That is how it works in a criminal trial.
You can make a citizen's arrest in any state. It is under common law. However, if you are a citizen and you are "arresting" me then it means you have a complaint against me. When the police arrest you without a warrant, they do not usually have a complaint against you. I believe I already quoted the Constituion here. If not then it was in the part of the post that got deleted by Internet Explorer.An arrest does not need to have a warrant issued. Dang, in many state I could arrest you and I'm just a plain ol' citizen. No warrant needed.
Actually what I said was more along the lines of, "ALL seaches need warrants except for in "certian circumstances". There was nothing in view and those circumstances did not apply.and I love your explanation about searches. They all need warrants, except in certain situations. Ya, that about covers it. They all need warrants except those that don't.
Okay, but in this case, the search was wholly illegal. All other circumstances that do not revolve arounf the search - for instance, the fact that they called the victim, but could not have known to call the victim if they had not illegally searched the automobile - was mentioned and explained here.there are times where a search may on its' face be improper but due to other circumstances, the evidence recovered by such a search is still admissable.
No, you are wrong; the idea you are trying to cnvey would be correctly stated if you said that without knowing the additional circumstances surrounding it, it would be impossible to determine. But I have provided the infomration on the aditional circumstances.Without knowing why your search was illegal, it is impossible to determine if this is applicable to you or not.
I didn't ask if "the evidence was admissible". The fact that I had the item in my posession is obvioulsy not "admissible". But, there was more evidence besides that gathered before the warrant was issued... sort of, since knowing that the item WAS stolen but not knowing that I HAD the item in my posession would actually obviously not show in any way that I had stolen it. But anyway, like I said I did not ask if the "evidence is admissible"; that being the evidence obatined due to the search which was the fact that I had the items. What I asked was whether the fact that they had a warrant makes the fact that they had "no evidence available to obtain the warrant with" irrelevant to the case, or not.So, my answer to; is the evidence admissable?
maybe
I think.
Actually what I asked was made clear in the first post, but since no one (except for on human) wanted to answer it I ended up having to try and rephrase it here.

