Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 93

Thread: Now a future search warrant is OK? Ohio is going down the tubes

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Now a future search warrant is OK? Ohio is going down the tubes

    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod...5-ohio-284.pdf

    Police seized defendant’s phone because of suspected child pornography on it. The warrant to search the phone was not issued until the following day. Defendant cites no authority that a one day delay was unreasonable. State v. Welch, 2015-Ohio-284, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 243 (9th Dist. January 28, 2015).

    .............................http://fourthamendment.com/
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-31-2015 at 05:38 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Did you even read the ruling? The phone was seized to prevent the destruction of evidence - in my opinion (and that of the court) that is not an unreasonable seizure given the totality of the circumstances. Then, a warrant was secured before searching the contents of the phone. What, exactly, is your disagreement with the ruling?
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    Did you even read the ruling? The phone was seized to prevent the destruction of evidence - in my opinion (and that of the court) that is not an unreasonable seizure given the totality of the circumstances. Then, a warrant was secured before searching the contents of the phone. What, exactly, is your disagreement with the ruling?
    Well said. Same goes for other items like safes, locked containers, even vehicles.

    Now his long is too long? Depends on state and maybe theres fed case law too. But a day isn't unreasonable to type a ticket and get it signed.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Where was the warrant to seize the phone?
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Where was the warrant to seize the phone?
    Exactly...it was produced after it was taken.

    Court said .. "ah, that's OK'...what's one day after...

  6. #6
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Where was the warrant to seize the phone?
    No warrant is required (nor should it be) under those circumstances. It is not unreasonable for a law enforcement officer to be able to preserve evidence of a crime - that is one of the few exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    No warrant is required (nor should it be) under those circumstances. It is not unreasonable for a law enforcement officer to be able to preserve evidence of a crime - that is one of the few exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
    Not according to the constitution.
    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)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Deleted.

    Double post.
    Last edited by Superlite27; 01-31-2015 at 10:51 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    No warrant is required (nor should it be) under those circumstances. It is not unreasonable for a law enforcement officer to be able to preserve evidence of a crime - that is one of the few exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
    So they can seize your house, put you up in a hotel for the night, and come back the next day after they cook up a warrant in order to search it?

    You know. "Preserving evidence" and all that.

    How about they pull you over, tow your car, and just wait until they get a warrant the following day before they open the door?

    That's preserving evidence, isn't it?

    The feds will be over soon to impound your guns.

    That's "preserving evidence" until they obtain a warrant to run the serial numbers, right?

    These are legitimate examples according to you, right?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Only a Nazi, Genocidal, Statist lackey would see giving Government any more power like this in a positive way.
    Last edited by Jeff. State; 01-31-2015 at 11:50 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    .

    So they can seize your house, put you up in a hotel for the night, and come back the next day after they cook up a warrant in order to search it?

    You know. "Preserving evidence" and all that.

    How about they pull you over, tow your car, and just wait until they get a warrant the following day before they open the door?

    That's preserving evidence, isn't it?

    The feds will be over soon to impound your guns.

    That's "preserving evidence" until they obtain a warrant to run the serial numbers, right?

    These are legitimate examples according to you, right?
    House- they freeze it. Meaning no one in no one in until they get a warrant. Again NOT days. Few hrs maybe.

    Car- yes they do impound it and wait for warrant before they search.

    This really isn't some ground breaking ideas. Been practice for a long time.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Not according to the constitution.

    You are correct SVG...

  13. #13
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    It would seem the Founders blew it with the word unreasonable. The "supreme court" and their self appointed judicial review privilege has gutted the Constitution.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    "The Court has held that some searches are reasonable even without a warrant. Some exceptions to the warrant requirements include searches of individuals who have consented to a search and people who have been lawfully arrested. Additionally, police can legally frisk people behaving suspiciously. A warrant is not needed for discovery of evidence while police are “in hot pursuit” of a suspect, or if an officer sees incriminating evidence in plain sight somewhere the officer is legally allowed to be.

    Landmark Supreme Court cases involving the Fourth Amendment include Mapp v. Ohio (1961), New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), and Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)."

    http://billofrightsinstitute.org/res...rth-amendment/

    And if that is not enough for you, LEO's can claim ignorance to usurp the IV.

    Supreme Court Rules You Have No 4th Amendment Protection Against Cops Ignorant of the Law.................Heien v. State of North Carolina
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I have to say I may not be with you on this one. It really depends on the timing which is not crystal clear to me. It seems like his phone was taken at the same time he was put into custody. If they had legal probable cause to arrest him I think denying him access to whatever belongings he had on him is legal. Then they did get the warrant before searching the phone.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    House- they freeze it. Meaning no one in no one in until they get a warrant. Again NOT days. Few hrs maybe.

    Car- yes they do impound it and wait for warrant before they search.

    This really isn't some ground breaking ideas. Been practice for a long time.


    Freeze my house and you'll likely get burned.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-01-2015 at 11:37 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post


    Freeze my house and you'll likely get burned.
    I know David theyd need the whole 101st to take you on and the 1stID in reserves for when you reload.

    You'd eat seal team 6 for breakfast right? Or is that a mid day snack?
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    House- they freeze it. Meaning no one in no one in until they get a warrant. Again NOT days. Few hrs maybe.

    Car- yes they do impound it and wait for warrant before they search.

    This really isn't some ground breaking ideas. Been practice for a long time.
    Very true, yet this does not make it right, legal, but not right. Cops have been found to lie to get warrants, execute warrants they knew were issued under false pretenses, and screw up executing warrants, this ruling does not surprise me. A citizen can have his freedom of movement revoked and his property seized, by cops, on a mere unsubstantiated allegation.

    If we are aggrieved by lying cops we can always be made completely whole by the issuance of a government backed check.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Very true, yet this does not make it right, legal, but not right. Cops have been found to lie to get warrants, execute warrants they knew were issued under false pretenses, and screw up executing warrants, this ruling does not surprise me. A citizen can have his freedom of movement revoked and his property seized, by cops, on a mere unsubstantiated allegation.

    If we are aggrieved by lying cops we can always be made completely whole by the issuance of a government backed check.
    Well the constitution lays this out for everyone. If you don't like it take it up with that my friend...

    Yes cops have lied of affidavit and done all this evil horrible heinous things. Ok. So what's your answer? Don't have guys get warrants anymore? Or don't let them seize any property to get a warrant (as laid out by constitution)?

    By getting a warrant said officers are on paper for their reasons. Of they are lying (since they are evil blah blah blah) then you'll see it on paper.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Well the constitution lays this out for everyone. If you don't like it take it up with that my friend...

    Yes cops have lied of affidavit and done all this evil horrible heinous things. Ok. So what's your answer? Don't have guys get warrants anymore? Or don't let them seize any property to get a warrant (as laid out by constitution)?

    By getting a warrant said officers are on paper for their reasons. Of they are lying (since they are evil blah blah blah) then you'll see it on paper.

    Answer?????

    DISSOLVE all "Law" enFORCEment agencies nationwide, reduce the size and scope of Government by 90%, disband the standing Armed forces and go back to State CITIZEN Militias. That's just a start.

  20. #20
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Answer?????

    DISSOLVE all "Law" enFORCEment agencies nationwide, , disband the standing Armed forces and go back to State CITIZEN Militias. That's just a start.
    Suicide. Both personal and for the country.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Well the constitution lays this out for everyone. If you don't like it take it up with that my friend...

    Yes cops have lied of affidavit and done all this evil horrible heinous things. Ok. So what's your answer? Don't have guys get warrants anymore? Or don't let them seize any property to get a warrant (as laid out by constitution)?

    By getting a warrant said officers are on paper for their reasons. Of they are lying (since they are evil blah blah blah) then you'll see it on paper.
    Cite.

    I didn't read anywhere were property can be seized because of cops hunches.

    And please use the constitution not a statist judges tortured rendition.
    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)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Cite.

    I didn't read anywhere were property can be seized because of cops hunches.

    And please use the constitution not a statist judges tortured rendition.
    Sure.

    "Unreasonable searches".

    http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4.html

    Doesn't say ANY seizures. Or NO seizures. Just says UNREASONABLE seizures.

    Now go ahead say it... "I don't find that reasonable". That's ok. You don't have to. Why? Because the same dudes who wrote that AMENDMENT (meaning wasn't originally there) also set up the process for determining what is REASONABLE. Guess what that is? A court.

    Notice it mentions warrants being issued? Know who issues the warrant? Not Walmart...... Your court.

    [emoji14]
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    <snip>

    Notice it mentions warrants being issued? Know who issues the warrant? Not Walmart...... Your court.

    [emoji14]
    May as well be Walmart .... how do you get stuff surpressed? Just look at the lack of PC for a warrant ... not hard to find.

    Many warrants are found to be lacking; what happens to the judge? Nothing. They should immediately be disbarred.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Suicide. Both personal and for the country.

    You should consider a screen name change as it is contrary to the opinions in quite a few of your posts. Especially this one.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    A reasonableness test, after the fact, is not reasonable. When a cop is found to not have acted reasonably, that fact is lost on the next cop who is found to have acted unreasonably, it is also lost on the courts. All cops rely upon this paradigm...a sort of legal system crap game.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

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
  •