
Quoting
mewgirl
Obviously, but I need to prove that in COURT, not HERE just to appease you.
You're right. But without anything to evaluate, all any of us can do is shrug our shoulders and wave. We can merely affirm your contention that IF the search was illegal and IF the arrest was illegal, you should be okay.
if I already KNOW the search is illegal, then WHY it is illegal is irrelevant for the purposes of my question.
Nothing you have written shows that the search was illegal. You SAY it was illegal, but your beliefe and $3.85 will buy a Venti Mocha at Starbucks. It's not what you or I say, it's what a court says. And since you have also elected not to provide even an inkling of why you believe the search was illegal, that, too, cannot be evaluated.
Again if you are not here to help people with their defenses then do not post in defense threads.
All points of view are important in crafting a defense. And, sorry, but I do not see a "defense" thread on these boards.
No, they need a reason to do a check to find out, though, unless their check does NOT involve any searches or arrests.
Where did you get THAT idea??
They don't need a reason to check anything. They need a reason to seize things or make an arrest, but they don't need a reason to inquire further including phone calls, questions, etc.
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.
That's not true at all. There are numerous exceptions as has been explained to you. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you.
If you were illegally arrested, then ANY search was also illegal if not consented to.
Possibly ... but, this is not a guarantee. If arrested "illegally" (that is without probable cause) then any evidence discovered as a result of that arrest can probably be suppressed. However, other searches that might have occurred prior to the arrest and maybe even afterwards might be perfectly lawful - it depends on the details. The devil is always in the details.
Irrelevant. I want answers to my questions, not a prosecution. if it was important I would mention it.
It is absolutely relevant! Why PD#1 stopped and searched you will be key to determining whether or not they had cause to examine the evidence that ultimately led to your arrest. I don't know why you so adamantly think it was not relevant except that it shows your total lack of knowledge of the law.
Constitution for the united States of America.
NOWHERE in the Constitution does it state what you wrote:
ALL arrests of any kind MUST have a warrant except in danger, and ALL searches of any kind MUST have either a warrant or consent, except in certain situations.
This contention is patently untrue.
Of course not. It does require a warrant, though.
An arrest does not REQUIRE a warrant. Some do, but most are not based upon an arrest warrant.
Where do you get these misconceived legal notions??
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.
That was the Gant decision and it dealt with only one aspect of a search of a vehicle incident to arrest. It left open all the other avenues, and it also specifically allowed for a search if there was cause to believe that evidence of the crime for which the suspect was arrested might be in the vehicle. Then, of course, there is the impound inventory exception, among others ... depending on the details.
Gant was very specific, and unless their whole case rested upon Gant, then you're relying too heavily on a decision that might not apply.
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.
First, I could care less about your case and have no interest in sendin anything to anyone. Second, I have no clue who you are or even what county in your state you live in, so even if I was so inclined to dime off your posting on a message board, it would be a waste of time.
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?
If everything is ruled by a competent court to have been "illegal" then you should go free. Somehow, I doubt that will be the case. But, if everything was illegal you win.
However, there may be other avenues for the prosecution to get there ... if the victim could otherwise identify you as the suspect is one way.
But, you have not given us anything to go on, so we are left with the simple and probably incomplete answer: If everything was illegal you're in the clear.
It is a semi-simple question and does not require a "situation" to answer.
Sure it does. Sorry you cannot see that.
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.
I suppose all we can really recommend is that you consult good legal counsel if you hope to have the remotest chance of prevailing in whatever this incident involves.
- Carl