Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: The need of suspicion to run for warrants

  1. #1
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    The need of suspicion to run for warrants

    I think random warrant less checks on individuals and license plates are unconstitutional and violates the 4th a the right to feel secure in your person.

    The claim is made that belief is absurd and anti libertarian.

    In a libertarian society there wouldn't be unconstitutional proactive policing.

    If a cop has a warrant he already has the name and pertinent information for whom he needs to get, if there happens to be a detention based on RS or PC and the name comes up in a check is a different beast then just randomly running people. Welcome to Big Brother Police state USA.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Warrants are public information. They are not private. It is not the obtaining of a list of warrants for a name that is the 4A invasion, but the obtaining of the name (if such obtaining is not lawfully authorized).

    There is no point in having warrants if they cannot be matched with a person for execution.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    The county that I moved away from has >25,000 (TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND) warrants backlogged. Population 350,000
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Warrants are public information. They are not private. It is not the obtaining of a list of warrants for a name that is the 4A invasion, but the obtaining of the name (if such obtaining is not lawfully authorized).

    There is no point in having warrants if they cannot be matched with a person for execution.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    I am not saying Warrants are private, or that the person shouldn't be found.

    Randomly running people to see if they have warrants seems to be a violation of the 4th, and a contradiction to our common law.

    This is "proactive" policing which I find abhorrent. I don't think the "founders" would have approved of the Brits installing license plates on a ship and then randomly running them to see if the owner may have smuggled some goods in the past.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    How many are warrants for illegal parking?

    The cops can snap a photo of your LP. They can snap a photo of you behind the wheel. They can look up the "owner" of that plate, get his photo or a number of photos if the same name has multiple faces. If the face on a photo matches the face behind the wheel, well, tough toenails.....don't do things that will get a warrant issued with your name on it.

    What i don't like is the accuracy of the name on the warrant. How many John Smiths are there in your jurisdiction. Does the warrant show Jon Smith (the wanted perp) as John Smith the LAC. Warrants are too easily issued is the problem. The execution of the warrant is usually not the problem in my view.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    How many are warrants for illegal parking?

    The cops can snap a photo of your LP. They can snap a photo of you behind the wheel. They can look up the "owner" of that plate, get his photo or a number of photos if the same name has multiple faces. If the face on a photo matches the face behind the wheel, well, tough toenails.....don't do things that will get a warrant issued with your name on it.

    What i don't like is the accuracy of the name on the warrant. How many John Smiths are there in your jurisdiction. Does the warrant show Jon Smith (the wanted perp) as John Smith the LAC. Warrants are too easily issued is the problem. The execution of the warrant is usually not the problem in my view.
    Yes warrants are too easily issued, the justice system is supposed to be a check yet we see judges rubber-stamping warrants instead of being the check on police intrusions they are supposed to be. The statist judges are a huge part of the parasitic bottom feeder class of government living off of the people.

    If you match the photo you match the photo, I don't have the problem with duly executed warrants especially ones that have gone through due process.

    I have a problem with the intrusions of the right to be secure in your person, by proactive policing. The idea that you need no RS or PC to randomly run people is sick.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 12-11-2013 at 08:58 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    big difference between trolling to see if one person in a crowd is wanted for something and investigating every person in the crowd to see if they've broken a law.

    HUGE DIFFERENCE.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Warrants are public information. They are not private. It is not the obtaining of a list of warrants for a name that is the 4A invasion, but the obtaining of the name (if such obtaining is not lawfully authorized).

    There is no point in having warrants if they cannot be matched with a person for execution.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    The person being harassed then can ask to inspect such records ... after a few of those requests and the effort needed to comply with the law; the government will stop harassing one.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yes warrants are too easily issued, the justice system is supposed to be a check yet we see judges rubber-stamping warrants instead of being the check on police intrusions they are supposed to be. The statist judges are a huge part of the parasitic bottom feeder class of government living off of the people.

    If you match the photo you match the photo, I don't have the problem with duly executed warrants especially ones that have gone through due process.

    Can you cite the law that says you have to hang around after an unintentional discharge. I have a problem with the intrusions of the right to be secure in your person, by proactive policing. The idea that you need no RS or PC to randomly run people is sick.
    What warrants are you seeing rubber stamped.

    With failure to appear or failure to pay warrants in the courts systems I worked with people were given plenty of opportunity to show up or pay their fines before a warrant was issued. Issuing a warrant for a low cost fine costs the courts more money then not, they would much rather see them paid or show up with out issuing a warrant.

    It is amazing how many people refuse to paid a fine and well wait until they get arrested to do so.

    Hers one of many examples I could tell about I stopped a fellow for speeding 20 some mph over the limit.

    When I checked on is DL I found a FTP warrant from his last citation. His claim was I never knew about.

    Well I know the court that issued the warrant sends out 3 notification letters and tries to make phone contact before issuing a warrant.

    Off to jail he went where he took out his wallet and paid the fine and warrant costs.

    I guess he was just banking oh well they well not arrest me for that.
    Last edited by Firearms Iinstuctor; 12-11-2013 at 09:52 AM.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    What warrants are you seeing rubber stamped.

    With failure to appear or failure to pay warrants in the courts systems I worked with people were given plenty of opportunity to show up or pay their fines before a warrant was issued. Issuing a warrant for a low cost fine costs the courts more money then not, they would much rather see them paid or show up with out issuing a warrant.

    It is amazing how many people refuse to paid a fine and well wait until they get arrested to do so.
    Well that was side conversation to the OP, but worth of discussion

    I doubt many of the victims of no knock warrants had much opportunity to counter anything, and it is the practice of many judges rubber stamp these warrants.

    I have first hand experience that FTA warrants aren't always afforded the opportunity to counter. (failure to appear can be issued for failure to pay, and this can be because of a mistake of the government you are paying for)
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Warrants are public information. They are not private. It is not the obtaining of a list of warrants for a name that is the 4A invasion, but the obtaining of the name (if such obtaining is not lawfully authorized).

    There is no point in having warrants if they cannot be matched with a person for execution.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Dammit I agree again, anybody can run a warrant, not just police. Each state has a system/fee, but there are private agencies also. Eye is correct warrants are public information. Names are also public information as long as they are obtained legally. County tax records usually contain the names of property owners. With those two pieces of information all the residents of a home names can usually be found through public utility records.

    There used to be a thang called the phone book at one time...
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Dammit I agree again, anybody can run a warrant, not just police. Each state has a system/fee, but there are private agencies also. Eye is correct warrants are public information. Names are also public information as long as they are obtained legally. County tax records usually contain the names of property owners. With those two pieces of information all the residents of a home names can usually be found through public utility records.

    There used to be a thang called the phone book at one time...
    I have no problem with the warrants, and looking for warrants.

    The problem is the random running of names and plates.

    One thing that is often lost is that, for private individuals what is not prohibited is allowed. This same rule doesn't necessarily apply to government officials, their actions when engaged in their official capacities are to remain limited, restricted and allowed by legislation.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I have no problem with the warrants, and looking for warrants.

    The problem is the random running of names and plates.

    One thing that is often lost is that, for private individuals what is not prohibited is allowed. This same rule doesn't necessarily apply to government officials, their actions when engaged in their official capacities are to remain limited, restricted and allowed by legislation.
    Somewhere there is a ruling that what is in plain view is not protected. License plates and known persons in plain view do not have a expectation of privacy as to their character. Again warrants are public information, so there is no expectation of privacy. And again anybody can have a warrants check done on another person.

    If the police are doing it to harass, such as the case of someone known to use a scanner, to irratate them. Then it would be a simple matter to get a RO. But RO's have consequences for the person requesting them. I have arrested the requesting party when they violate the RO that they asked for.

    This is what frustrates some people, because A~they brought it on themselves, and B~there only recourse affects them more than it does the police.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    FTP FTA warrants are two different things in Wis I can not speak about warrants issued in the state your from. Each state has different rules for warrants that are suppose to reflect their constitutions along with the US constitution.

    I agree that certain types of warrants have be come to common thank the so called war on drugs for that.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Somewhere there is a ruling that what is in plain view is not protected. License plates and known persons in plain view do not have a expectation of privacy as to their character. Again warrants are public information, so there is no expectation of privacy. And again anybody can have a warrants check done on another person.

    If the police are doing it to harass, such as the case of someone known to use a scanner, to irratate them. Then it would be a simple matter to get a RO. But RO's have consequences for the person requesting them. I have arrested the requesting party when they violate the RO that they asked for.

    This is what frustrates some people, because A~they brought it on themselves, and B~there only recourse affects them more than it does the police.
    Yes, the problem comes in when a perfectly lawful and authorized activity is used by public officials to harass an individual.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    I know some guys will hate this but I'll throw in this. We'll see if it remains respectful.

    I personally run papers on just about everyone I meet on a call. I believe that a poster made a great explanation and said you must use discretion some times as in if there's a lady with her 6 kids then if you check her better be prepared to deal with it. So depending on the situation you may not. But again that's on calls. To boot we are required to check papers on persons involved in domestics. No discretion there.

    As far as proactive policing I print out the warrant list every other week or so. You print said list and it provides name and dob of everyone who has a warrant under the parameters you set. Such as area or date range for the warrant. I then go find them.

    SVG I know your referring to it as "proactive" policing but honestly I just see it as policing. Even running plates for warrants. Its not even a judgement call on the officer like most other charges. Its simply finding a person we were told to get. That's our job. At least as I see it.

    I know this will sound crazy but I've actually had people thank me for being nice about it as we are leaving their house. The really nice guys usually thank me for grabbing them at their house because they didn't "know' they had one and if I caught them driving it would be more expensive/hassle on them.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    One last thing in the protectiveness of doing this. Its actually one of the few ways we can prevent crime.

    Example. If a guy has a warrant for a whole litany of violent offenses. Say he skipped his court date. Well him roaming around is opportunity for him to hurt someone else which he may have a inclination of doing.

    Take out violent offense insert say property crimes. I known breaker. Well if he skips and is on the run that's more houses and cars he's breaking into. He'd remain out there until someone either caught him on a call or pro actively looked for guys with warrants.

    I think the disconnect is that I don't see many "dog license" warrants. Some are for petty charges and a person did forget to pay a fine or to appear. But the majority (and the ones I specifically "hunt" lol ) are for pretty serious crimes and are guys you don't want on the street.



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  18. #18
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    The problem is not in the course of duties. The problem is when it is done as a form of harassment, but then there are legal procedures to stop it.

    Most people would not like it if there name is repeatedly being used for warrant search on the radio. It could be incriminating if your boss has a scanner and keeps hearing the employees name repeatedly. This would be a abuse, and the courts should step in.

    But most police officers do not know who has a scanner and who does not and who gets their panties in a wad if their name is heard on it. This is where keep your big mouth shut comes in, don't advertise that you(general you) have a scanner and listen to police calls. And then broadcast it on the internet or other venues that it bothers you. Bullies look for insecurities to use them to their benefit, and sometimes bullies can be police, and most certainly the press is often a bully.

    The old saying is "what goes around comes around".

    I understand and often agree about police abuses, but most of us do not have problems with the police, while some of us have consistent problems with them. There are reasons for that, sometimes criminal, sometimes personal, and sometimes because the supposed victim stalks police. There comes a time when no matter what the law is, to use good common sense.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 12-11-2013 at 11:23 AM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  19. #19
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The problem is not in the course of duties. The problem is when it is done as a form of harassment, but then there are legal procedures to stop it.

    Most people would not like it if there name is repeatedly being used for warrant search on the radio. It could be incriminating if your boss has a scanner and keeps hearing the employees name repeatedly. This would be a abuse, and the courts should step in.

    But most police officers do not know who has a scanner and who does not and who gets their panties in a wad if their name is heard on it. This is where keep your big mouth shut comes in, don't advertise that you(general you) have a scanner and listen to police calls. And then broadcast it on the internet or other venues that it bothers you. Bullies look for insecurities to use them to their benefit, and sometimes bullies can be police, and most certainly the press is often a bully.

    The old saying is "what goes around comes around".

    I understand and often agree about police abuses, but most of us do not have problems with the police, while some of us have consistent problems with them. There are reasons for that, sometimes criminal, sometimes personal, and sometimes because the supposed victim stalks police. There comes a time when no matter what the law is, to use good common sense.
    I agree with your first paragraph.

    I'm under the impression the OP does have a problem with it even when its in the course of regular duties. Not trying to state is own case that's just the impression I get from OP and his subsequent posts. Waiting for him to clarify if he wishes to do so.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    With all the predictability of unmonitored reform school kids, police have abused a privilege they were trusted with. Worse is the juvenile justifications for this abuse that violates anothers right to privacy and to be left alone. We are asked to believe we have no rights when we are targeted "in the interest f public safety".
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    When judges are held to account for the accuracy of the warrant then we may see more due diligence. Hand written warrants must never be submitted and if they are the judge needs to reject them out of hand. A e-copy must be retained. The only hand writing on the warrant should be the signature of the person requesting the warrant, and the judges signature. Oh, verbal go-aheads should never be issued with paperwork to follow latter.

  22. #22
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    When judges are held to account for the accuracy of the warrant then we may see more due diligence. Hand written warrants must never be submitted and if they are the judge needs to reject them out of hand. A e-copy must be retained. The only hand writing on the warrant should be the signature of the person requesting the warrant, and the judges signature. Oh, verbal go-aheads should never be issued with paperwork to follow latter.
    You see that above is more relevant than the need to run a warrant. I would be more PO'd over a malicious and unjust warrant than checking for warrants. I suspect the OP's problem has more to do with the issuance of the warrant in the first place. The person who first brought this subject up, his complaint was hearing his name on a scanner.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Whether one "has" a warrant or not is clearly not a privacy issue. A warrant is not an attribute of a person, despite the fact we say a person "has" a warrant. I think the terminology confuses the issue that way, because it lumps having a warrant in with other things a person "has" or "has on their person" etc. that clearly are a privacy interest and w.o certain cause, compelling reason, etc. should not be the kind of thing a law enforcement officer or anybody else for that matter should just be able to find out about.

    Example: a person has a medical condition. Privacy interest. There must be certain factors present for a law enforcement officer to inquire about same, or for that matter for anybody else to.

    When I am going to book somebody at the jail, prior to transport for instance, I will ask about medical conditions, for the person's safety WHILE IN MY CUSTODY since that is my responsibility. In that situation, it's reasonable for me to ask does the person have something like diabetes, where depending on when they last shot up/ate etc. they could pass out etc. during the transport, or do they have a joint injury that would make wearing handcuffs problematic, etc. We certainly don't ask about HIV etc. but only conditions that would be dangerous to fellow inmates (highly communicable, like Hep B), or dangerous to themselves durimg transport or incarceration (hidden absess for instance. Not at all uncommon amongst IV drug users and often a serious and even potentially fatal condition. If they have an absess, they go straight to the hospital, not the jail, and often we will forego booking and just leave them at the hospital to be treated, etc. suspects may be hesitant to admit to being an opioid addict for instance (especially in a case where I found drugs on their person since they perceive it could incriminate them - help support that they would be a person who would have drug X on their person, or under their car seat or whatever. I will encourage suspects to admit same to the jail nurse, so that they can receive treatment during their incarceration/withdrawal that will at least make the withdrawal a little more tolerable (antihistamines, possibly something like clonidine or suboxone as well, etc.). In the case of withdrawal from alcohol, as opposed to opioids, that can be a potentially fatal condition, as well and it is logical and reasonable for us to ask, FOR THEIR safety, and because it's out responsibility, etc. And fwiw, I will never document a medical condition, that I learn about through such screening, on a case report, because it was asked as a matter of privacy and for their safety and not for public knowledge. nothing I, or a nurse or a booking officer asks about medical conditions for the purposes of their safety/others safety during incarceraton will be used against them, as it should be. But at least we have valid, articulable reasons in that case to probe into a very private area.

    other examples of things a person "has", that are privacy interest - what does he have in his possesion/pockets/concealed under his clothes, etc. It's inappropriate for me to inquire into same without cause, iow randomly just because they are walking down the street, like I could randomly inquire about their warrants given if I knew their name/dob and saw them walking down the street.

    other examples of things a person "has" - they may have a political belief, religious belief/membership, etc. that is again none of my damn business, except in certain rare circs, but certainy not randomly when I see them walk down the street, etc.

    There are all sorts of things like this, whether it's an object in a pocket, a condition, etc. that a person HAS that certainly should not be a target of random police (or anybody else's) inquiry just because you are walking down the street, or filming the cops, or standing on the street corner, or driving by, etc.

    "having" a warrant is distinguishable from these, and is not a privacy interest, CERTAINLY not a privacy interest FROM law enforcement, who is tasked with serving warrants . A warrant is not a thing that one chooses to "possess" and keep private, like the contents of one's pockets, it;'s not a sacred private belief, it's not a medical condition, etc.

    those things a person "has" of course should be protected from random police inquiry. No libertarian or anybody who has ANY respect for privacy could argue otherwise.

    "having a warrant" is not like these things. What "having" a warrant means is that a judge, etc. has reviewed a complaint against a person made under oath etc. and found that there is probable cause to arrest, arrest being a way to formally advise a person of charges, get him an attorney if he wants one, and start the wheels of justice rolling so that justice/redress can be obtained for a victim/society after a criminal act. or it means that the person skipped out on sentencing or incarceration after conviction, or in some cases skipped out on responding to a summons etc. etc.

    these are not private things a person "has" in the respect of those mentioned above.

    If one describes it then not as a Person having a warrant, but as a Person against whom a warrant has been issued by a Judge having jurisdiction, it is more clear that there need be no indicia of suspicion to check on this.

    A warrant is issued because a person CHOSE to ignore lawful process/obligation (like showing up at a court date, or going to an anger management class as a result of a conviction for assault) or because a person was found by an impartial third party (a judge) to have sufficient evidence brought against them such that it is probable that they committed the relevant crime. Among other things, considering it a privacy a interest does a disservice to society and to the victim of the crime. A warrant is not a thing like what a person places in their pocket or other private place, or like any of the above mentioned things that trigger privacy.

    It's an official document, official process issued against a person by a member of the criminal justice system, and NEEDING prompt attention for the sake of justice.

    NOT making this info OPEN knowledge to law enforcement would be absurd. It would be beyond absurd to make it a privacy interest of person X, that a govt. authority has found probable cause that they committed a crime and wants them brought before a court, to in any way conceal that info from a person (a leo) who is TASKED with executing that warrant.

    It would be insane to issue the warrant and ask law enforcement to execute it (and again, warrants have that language "to any peace officer ... etc.) but then require them to have some indicia of suspicion about a person before inquiring into whether such an instrument has been created (the warrant) regarding that person.

    It would be even more absurd to believe that whether or not an OBJECT, a car, has been reported stolen, isn't something an officer could randomly inquire into by running a license plate for warrants. What possible privacy interest does an OBJECT (whether or not occupied) have to impede law enforcement from knowledge that some person who lawfully owns it has been unlawfully deprived of it by a criminal, and to that would impede law enforcement in returning the stolen property to its lawful owner?

    So, sorry, but this idea that cops should need an indicia of suspicion in these cases is insane. Warrants are not like the other things mentioned, for reasons explained above. I don't care if you are filming the police (constitutionally protected activity that I have engaged in), walking down the sidewalk, driving on by, or not even within eyesight of a LEO. *if* they already know your name, there is no invasion of your privacy in any way, shape or form, for the LEO to check if any judge has found that justice requires you be brought before a court either because there is probable cause you victimized somebody or there is probable cause you chose to ignore an order of a competent court (like an order to appear, etc.)

  24. #24
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    PALO

    Obnoxious Member

    This message is hidden because PALO is on your ignore list.

    View Post

    Remove user from ignore list
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Whether one "has" a warrant or not is clearly not a privacy issue. A warrant is not an attribute of a person, despite the fact we say a person "has" a warrant. I think the terminology confuses the issue that way, because it lumps having a warrant in with other things a person "has" or "has on their person" etc. that clearly are a privacy interest and w.o certain cause, compelling reason, etc. should not be the kind of thing a law enforcement officer or anybody else for that matter should just be able to find out about.

    Example: a person has a medical condition. Privacy interest. There must be certain factors present for a law enforcement officer to inquire about same, or for that matter for anybody else to.

    <snip>
    Arrest warrants are predicated on the validity of the document and thus the judge takes the word of the cops who request his signature. Because we all know that cops don't serve bogus arrest warrants, just ask them. By definition arrest warrants are 100% correct else cops would not serve them. Because if cops served bogus arrest warrants they would be held to account, criminally, for serving a bogus arrest warrant that was not warranted (could not help it.....sorry). So, cops are never held to account for serving a bogus arrest warrant, are they?

    The vast majority of arrest warrants are well deserved and well served by reasonable and responsible cops.

    Cops can troll LPs in the hopes that they get lucky. If they see one, they stop it, and roust the citizen behind the wheel. Whether or not the citizen is the perp. Due process only counts after the ride it seems.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •