Obviously, but I need to prove that in COURT, not HERE just to appease you. if I already KNOW the search is illegal, then WHY it is illegal is irrelevant for the purposes of my question. If I am either wrong or unable to prove it in court, then obviously I will not be able to get any other cases dismissed based on that. However, NO ONE will be able to know that until I actually go to court with it, so any other information based on this will need to be gathered anyway.
Again if you are not here to help people with their defenses then do not post in defense threads.So they got lucky when they managed to contact a victim and confirm that the property was stolen? Wow! Those cops should play the lottery!
No, they need a reason to do a check to find out, though, unless their check does NOT involve any searches or arrests.They don't need a reason to act on a hunch. They need a reason to make an arrest or to effect a detention, even to conduct a non-consensual search, but they do not need any reason at all to suspect that something might be stolen.
If they SEARCHED anything that was not on your body and not taken with you into the jail, without consent or a warrant, then it is illegal. If you were illegally arrested, then ANY search was also illegal if not consented to.If you were lawfully arrested (on a warrant or via probable cause) then most any evidence discovered in your possession at the time of the arrest will be free game for them to inspect further with some few exceptions.
Irrelevant. I want answers to my questions, not a prosecution. if it was important I would mention it.Now, if PD#1 did not arrest you based upon an arrest warrant, why did they stop and search you?
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. But in actuality it was horrible police work and would have only been "good" police work if they had had reason to believe I had stolen property before they contacted me.Sounds like good police work to me. Good call.
Constitution for the united States of America.Where did you get THAT?!?
Of course not. It does require a warrant, though.First, an arrest requires only that there exists probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed the offense. It does not require absolute certainty and is a relatively low hurdle to leap.
Not many, and I know what they are.Second, there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement with regards to a search.
Not actually. I am pretty certain that there are many laws mentioning exceptions which are not legal for the laws to exist. I may be wrong about the existence of these laws. However there was a court case decided last week by the Supreme Court in which it state automobiles can NOT be searched incident to arrest unless something is in plain view etc. Citing of the case is not important enough for me to search through my e-mail to find it because you obviously do not believe in abiding by decisions for the Supreme Court.If you were in a vehicle at the time of the arrest, there are quite a few exceptions because of the nature of the vehicle.
That is irrelevant. Again. I am not here for you to collect information abut me and send it to the prosecutors, or to help you have other people arrested when they do not deserve to be.Why were you arrested at the outset? Why were you stopped/detained/arrested and searched? What was the reason that PD #1 stated as to why they arrested you?
I don't want an opinion of the "situation" I want only to know that IF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH WAS PERFORMED, AND EVIDENCE (that evidence being that the owner of the property confirmed that she had had such an item stolen from her AFTER the item was found in the illegal search) OBTAINED, AND A WARRANT LATER GRANTED BASED ON SAID EVIDENCE, IS THE CARRYING OUT OF THAT WARRANT STILL ILLEGAL? It is a semi-simple question and does not require a "situation" to answer. Although you do know part of the situation; you know what particular "evidence" was obtained BECAUSE of the search, other then the item itself. You may say, "Yes that is illegal but only if the search was actually illegal". Well if that is the case you can still answer "yes" because the fact that the search was illegal is included in the question, and if the search in my case was legal then your answer to the question I asked would still be correct, it just wouldn't apply to my case.Yes, there ARE important questions if you want a fair and impartial opinion of your situation.
I don't understand your reply. Any evidence of items obtained through an illegal search is always illegal, and I doubt that you would believe that not to be true. but that was the only thing I mentioned as knowing or being a fact in the quote you replied to right there.again, not true, always and in your situation, I do not believe it would be true, based on your rendition of the story.
But hey, you already have all the answers so why do I bother?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for attempting to answer my question. No offense or derogatory-ness is meant by the word "attempting".
There was no subsequent search, or else I would have mentioned it.
Here is a recent ER case. although the warrant obtained was NOT based on an illegal entry/search, etc., just for some reading edification.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZO.html
I'm not sure if anything in that case apllpies to me. From what I read, they discussed the actions required to execute a search warrant when one exists, and the alreaady-known fact that when an illegal search is performed the evidence is not able to be used. If there was anything in there abuot a warrant granted based on the search evidence, I missed it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cyjeff: The search was illegally performed, and the warrant was issued based on evidence of the search. Since these both happened as results of each other on the same day, there was obvioulsy no time to go to court to prove the search was illegal before the warrant was issued. The jduge cannoot rule on whether or not a search was illegal before issuing a warrant if they have not yet recieved the evidence showing such. In addition the warYou seem to be oversimplifying and I am not sure whether or not you understood it, although you seem like you would have.

