Warrantless search - Rogers County

[WoodsCraft]

I think we have gotten far off the original thought of this thread. The officers were acting within the laws, as currently written. There may well be more to this story. Individuals deciding what laws are "repugnant" to the Constitutional seldom has a happy ending.

As do officers taking a maximus approach to their road side interperation of the law and their authority vs taking a minimus approach.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

or "keyboard lawyers"

 

[WoodsCraft]

or "keyboard lawyers"

Ahh another one of those "Plebe you have no business understanding the law or your rights" responses...

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Now that's cute. You win. Have a nice day.

 

[THAT Gurl]

In the interest of further understanding, let us put a finer point on the matter. LEOs, help me out here:

Let us assume for discussion that the Rogers County deputies respected the Fourth Amendment and applied for a warrant to search for marijuana on the following gounds:
1) The third brake light of his car is inoperative.
2) He looks "nervous".
(These are the only two points articulated by the Rogers County deputies before searching.)

Do you anticipate that any judge would issue a search warrant on these grounds?

Not LEO but worked for lawyers longer than I care to admit ... About half of that time (8-10 years) was in criminal law, much of which was cases arguing illegal search on the side of the highway ...

Based on the facts as I understand them, in Oklahoma County, yes, at the time of my career, the judge would likely have approved the application for a warrant.

In other counties, especially rural or southeastern (Bubbaland), where communities are smaller and everyone knows everybody (very high school-ish) it kinda depends on the social connections and integrity of the people involved. By "people involved" I mean EVERYBODY -- the "kid" pulled over, the cops actually involved in the stop, those officers' supervisor, the dad of the "kid", and the judge, and even possibly the judge's baliff and/or secretary -- maybe, maybe not.

To pretend the size of the community and possible social connections will not affect the process in an less sparsely populated county or city is naive. So maybe, maybe not. But unless you are the town millionaire living in a $1.5M mansion on the hill, who gets out and shakes hands a couple times a week, that warrant is probably gonna get signed.

Actually, even in large populations like OKC and Tulsa, if things can be kept on the down/low, then social standing and personal connections will affect the decision-making process for authorities involved then, too, though their options may be more limited if they don't want to risk public wrath -- especially during an election year.

And then, still there is a whole segment of the population who appear to be completely bulletproof -- Hunter Biden ring a bell??

So ... That is THIS keyboard lawyer's interpretation of whether or not a warrant would have been signed in your kid's situation. Bottom line is ... It depends. That's the GREAT thing about the law. Lawyers LOVE to muddy the water.

 

[tweetr]

Not LEO but worked for lawyers longer than I care to admit ... About half of that time (8-10 years) was in criminal law, much of which was cases arguing illegal search on the side of the highway ...

Based on the facts as I understand them, in Oklahoma County, yes, at the time of my career, the judge would likely have approved the application for a warrant.

In other counties, especially rural or southeastern (Bubbaland), where communities are smaller and everyone knows everybody (very high school-ish) it kinda depends on the social connections and integrity of the people involved. By "people involved" I mean EVERYBODY -- the "kid" pulled over, the cops actually involved in the stop, those officers' supervisor, the dad of the "kid", and the judge, and even possibly the judge's baliff and/or secretary -- maybe, maybe not.

To pretend the size of the community and possible social connections will not affect the process in an less sparsely populated county or city is naive. So maybe, maybe not. But unless you are the town millionaire living in a $1.5M mansion on the hill, who gets out and shakes hands a couple times a week, that warrant is probably gonna get signed.

Actually, even in large populations like OKC and Tulsa, if things can be kept on the down/low, then social standing and personal connections will affect the decision-making process for authorities involved then, too, though their options may be more limited if they don't want to risk public wrath -- especially during an election year.

And then, still there is a whole segment of the population who appear to be completely bulletproof -- Hunter Biden ring a bell??

So ... That is THIS keyboard lawyer's interpretation of whether or not a warrant would have been signed in your kid's situation. Bottom line is ... It depends. That's the GREAT thing about the law. Lawyers LOVE to muddy the water.

That last sentence is perfectly true!

Explore further:
Remember that the Fourth Amendment requires particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Therefore no warrant can issue in the hopes of finding something unspecified. Therefore the application for a warrant must specify both the items to be seized and the probable cause to suspect finding them.

Therefore:
How would you reasonably proceed from "third tail light" and "nervous" to "illegal marijuana"?

 

[WoodsCraft]

Now that's cute. You win. Have a nice day.

 

[THAT Gurl]

That last sentence is perfectly true!

Explore further:
Remember that the Fourth Amendment requires particularly describing the place to be search and the persons or things to be seized. Therefore no warrant can issue in the hopes of finding something unspecified. Therefore the application for a warrant must specify both the items to be seized and the probable cause to suspect finding them.

Therefore:
How would you reasonably proceed from "third tail light" and "nervous" to "illegal marijuana"?

Me?? Personally?? I'd consider it a bad day, try not to mull it over so much I develop PTSD and move on with my life. NOT one of those things worth all the time you have already sunk into it. And most certainly not worth throwing perfectly good money at.

The judicial system may not write law, but it most certainly influences, and shapes the interpretation and creates guidelines to be followed in the application of that law, by judges' rulings and juries' determination in cases. The case law out there does very much "write" law. Stating that "the judicial system does not write law" is extremely naive. And a basically uneducated way of studying law and the application thereof.

You can be able to recite the Constitution by memory, and be able to give me the Webster's Dictionary interpretation of every single word in the Constitution and if you are unaware of the applicable case law on both sides of the issue, you don't have a clue how any particular law is or is not applied in the real world.

That's not me passing judgement on any particular person in this thread. That is what one of the senior partners at McKinney, Stringer & Webster told me my first day of work there when he was explaining to me why he expected his support staff to understand how to research legal issues, not just type the pleadings and prepare documents required in discovery.

You had to understand the "why" with regard to every single thing you put down on paper: As a defense of your position, or what you anticipated the other side to use as a defense of their position.

ETA: Sorry, I couldn't stand it -- I HATE paragraphs that are 3 pages long. Had to deal with that last "paragraph" that was a Wall of Text ...

 

[WoodsCraft]

Me?? Personally?? I'd consider it a bad day, try not to mull it over so much I develop PTSD and move on with my life. NOT one of those things worth all the time you have already sunk into it. And most certainly not worth throwing perfectly good money at.

The judicial system may not write law, but it most certainly influences, and shapes the interpretation and creates guidelines to be followed in the application of that law, by judges' rulings and juries' determination in cases. The case law out there does very much "write" law. Stating that "the judicial system does not write law" is extremely naive. And a basically uneducated way of studying law and the application thereof.

You can be able to recite the Constitution by memory, and be able to give me the Webster's Dictionary interpretation of every single word in the Constitution and if you are unaware of the applicable case law on both sides of the issue, you don't have a clue how any particular law is or is not applied in the real world. (That's not me passing judgement on any particular person in this thread. That is what one of the senior partners at McKinney, Stringer & Webster told me my first day of work there when he was explaining to me why he expected his support staff to understand how to research legal issues, not just type the pleadings and prepare documents required in discovery. You had to understand the "why" with regard to every single thing you put down on paper: As a defense of your position, or what you anticipated the other side to use as a defense of their position.

Were it based only on that ... I remember being involved in a civil suit years ago where my attorney said yep you're right and you have a good solid case I can represent you no problem. He then said how much money and time do you have ? And we might still lose so would you like to try and work out a settlement ?


I say all that to say I am actually really well aware of case precedent and how it can affect the law and the handing out of judgements. I am also saying though allowing such to the level we have has corrupted the spirit of the law and what is actually written.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Understanding the Fourth Amendment begins with quoting the text.

Reading the text, what warrantless search complies with the Fourth Amendment? Stated simply, what is the right affirmed (not conferred) by the Fourth Amendment?

Exactly. What, for instance, is difficult about:

1. Congress shall make no law (nothing)
2. Shall not be infringed (nothing)
3. No soldier shall . . . be quartered (nothing)
4. Shall not be violated (nothing)
5. No person shall be held (nothing)
6. Shall enjoy the right (nothing)
7. Shall be preserved (nothing)
8. Shall not be required (nothing)
9. Shall not be construed (nothing)
10. Are reserved (nothing)

All that remains are what laws shall not be made, what right shall not be infringed, where soldiers shall not be quartered, what right shall not be violated, and so forth. In the fourth instance, stated at its essence, the right is to be secure. That right inarguably was violated in spirit and in detail.

There is nothing remotely difficult about any of these prohibitions unless you want to circumvent them. Then they are difficult.

Just to make sure I'm on the same page with your idea on the 4th Amendment...

Are you saying no search or seizure should ever be allowed without a warrant?