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

davidmcbeth · Jan 31, 2015

www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2015/2015-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/

JustaShooter · Jan 31, 2015

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?

Primus · Jan 31, 2015

JustaShooter said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 31, 2015

Where was the warrant to seize the phone?

davidmcbeth · Jan 31, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
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...

JustaShooter · Jan 31, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 31, 2015

JustaShooter said:
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.

Superlite27 · Jan 31, 2015

Deleted.

Double post.

Superlite27 · Jan 31, 2015

.

JustaShooter said:
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?

Jeff. State · Jan 31, 2015

Only a Nazi, Genocidal, Statist lackey would see giving Government any more power like this in a positive way.

Primus · Jan 31, 2015

Superlite27 said:
.

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.

davidmcbeth · Feb 1, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
Not according to the constitution.

You are correct SVG...

SovereigntyOrDeath · Feb 1, 2015

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/re...americapedia-bill-of-rights/fourth-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

twoskinsonemanns · Feb 1, 2015

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.

davidmcbeth · Feb 1, 2015

Primus said:
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.

Primus · Feb 1, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
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?

OC for ME · Feb 1, 2015

Primus said:
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.

Primus · Feb 1, 2015

OC for ME said:
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.

Jeff. State · Feb 1, 2015

Primus said:
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.

SovereigntyOrDeath · Feb 2, 2015

Jeff. State said:
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.

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

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member