Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenRivet
If the article was properly and thoroughly read, you will find that it pertains to evidence as it is received by a third party source aka a "tip".
The exclusionary rule still applies to evidence seized improperly or without a warrant
HOWEVER... Texas judges... interpreting federal precedent determined that if i go tell the police that I was at billy bobs house, and he had detailed maps of a local federal building and what appeared to be several pipe bombs on the kitchen table this whole exclusionary rule goes out the window as it is a fair assumption that there is an intent to commit a crime based in me going to the police and bringing this to their attention.
Furthermore i will point out: the cops probably did drop the ball on this one and stepped into some crap, but looking for a way to cover it's arse end, the state found a federal loop hole and took advantage of it.
Finally, the state sticks to its claim that the arrests were not made because jim bob said someone was "fixin to break the law"... because "fixin to break the law" isnt against the law, breaking the law is against the law... i could think about robbing banks and pimpin' hoes all day long but until i actually do it i havent committed a crime, no the state says that their arrests were made due to the tip provided that these dope heads had meth cooking equipment and ingredients in quantities that were not only very likely illegal to possess, but they had completed product AND the tipster observed these knuckleheads in the first stages of cooking the meth. Which, i think for most of us, the assumption is safe that those things ARE against the law
sounds a little shady how they busted in... because how are we to know this guy isnt an amateur bill nye and was just working on a really cool 5th grade volcano experiment? but the kicker is the tipster telling the police about possession of the physical "usable quantity" of meth product and meth paraphernalia.
|
Exactly, moreover the use of the heat source and the toxic situation, a major EPA headache, more than qualifies as
conspiracy at that point and under the
exigent circumstance of an
explosion or toxic fire, the matter may be attended to prior to obtaining the warrant if the
witness is
reliable. Any
'fruits of a poisonous tree' issues can be dealt with by the court and judge after the fact at the hearing or indictment. In the
piling on of charges at the prosecutors disposal and discretion, will include conspiracy and public endangerment.