"Kop Busters" in Odessa, TX

reply to post by SuperTruper


You clearly did not read the whole thread SuperTruper. It seems highly probable that the police obtained their probable cause by unconstitutional methods, because the sting was specifically set up to fool cops into raiding based on something they would almost certainly not observe without illegal use of FLIR, which is a violation of the 4th ammendment.

The question is just as Mr Mxyztplk as put forward: can the police show that their actions were based on credible informant testimony, which either led directly to the search warrant or to a warrant to use FLIR before getting the search warrant they were busted on?

If the police did not begin this investigation by obtaining probable cause in some credible and legal form (and there are several questions to be answered before that becomes the most likely conclusion) then they have abused a citizen's constitutional rights and need to be dealt with for it.

Originally posted by SuperTruper
I must really, really be missing something here.

You might re read that OP carefully. Cause it threw me too at first.

But what is curious is this guy is a former cop, and has an insider's perspective on what the cops are doing that violates the law. So he knows exactly what to do to entice them. That guy is potentially going to be very rich. And very dead.

reply to post by SuperTruper

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
However, how does this stand regarding 'entrapment' in Texas? Surely this is 'entrapment' of sorts?

Doing something completely legal is "entrapment"? I don't think that would stand up in court.

Originally posted by NGC2736

This was an empty house/building. But what about those cases where "bad intel/criminal actions involve a home where real live people are in the way of those drawn guns? You find nothing wrong then either?

I do find something wrong there and it would be an unfortunate mistake, but either way the police officers would not be breaking any laws and that would not make them "corrupt", which is the whole premise of this thread.

Originally posted by NGC2736
The question is about the cops using "distortions" to gain warrants, which in a significant number of instances could endanger human life and always, under such methods, would be a violation of the Constitutional rights of the citizen.

Warrants don't work like that. There's no reason at all you would ever need to use a "distortion" (or lie?) to obtain a warrant.

You basically just ask the judge to give you a search warrant. You don't even need to give the judge a reason (you are SUPPOSED to, and they SUGGEST that you do, but you technically and legally don't need to give a reason when asking). If he gives you the warrant, you have the warrant. It's just how the system works, it might be a bad system but if you don't like it go get the constitution re-written.


In this particular case, the police thought a grow operation was taking place. So they asked a judge for a warrant, with the reason that they thought a grow operation was taking place in that building. The judge granted them the warrant, giving them full authority to search the residence.

They did everything by the book, they broke no laws. Don't hate the players, hate the game? Or rather, don't hate the police, hate the system.

At the end of the interview in the video, the reporter asks the Kop Buster guy what he thought about the people who say that this is a publicity stunt. He paused for a moment and said that people should watch his show. He should have said, "This is a publicity stunt. We are trying to garner media attention in effort to expose the corruption that is taking place". That would have been a more sincere way to get the point across without coming off as looking like a huckster.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by SuperTruper

 

You clearly did not read the whole thread SuperTruper. It seems highly probable that the police obtained their probable cause by unconstitutional methods, because the sting was specifically set up to fool cops into raiding based on something they would almost certainly not observe without illegal use of FLIR, which is a violation of the 4th ammendment.

Well, the police just don't go around raiding random homes hoping to nail a grow operation. Something made them want to get a warrant for this particular house.


Since the whole purpose of this "kopbusters" is a sting operation, and they obviously wanted to get the cops on film, they probably called themselves in and reported that a grow operation was taking place. I mean how else would the show be successful and work? Would Kopbusters just randomly buy a house somewhere and hope that the police raid it? If so, they better try the lottery. No, obviously they did something to entice the cops to raid their house.


So either

A) They made the grow lights visible to the police patrols.

or

B) They called and reported themselves to the police department.


Both A and B give the police probable cause to obtain a warrant.




[edit on 7-12-2008 by SuperTruper]

reply to post by SuperTruper


Read the court decision I cited earlier (there is a link to it in it's entirety). It completely blows away your contention that warrants can be granted on request. That's the whole point of Probable Cause.

If you are speaking from experience, then you have unknowingly observed criminal activity and should rethink your association with the organizations involved.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by SuperTruper

 

Read the court decision I cited earlier (there is a link to it in it's entirety). It completely blows away your contention that warrants can be granted on request. That's the whole point of Probable Cause.

If you are speaking from experience, then you have unknowingly observed criminal activity and should rethink your association with the organizations involved.

But as you can see from my post above, the police most certainly had probable cause.

Seeing grow lights from outside gives police probable cause.

And getting a call reporting suspicious activity also gives police probable cause.

Originally posted by SuperTruper
Well, the police just don't go around raiding random homes hoping to nail a grow operation. Something made them want to get a warrant for this particular house.

I have lived in an area plagued by drug crime.

Police invade the privacy of peoples homes with thermal imaging to locate grow lights, and access electric records without probable cause to identify conditions which are most commonly associated with growing operations.

This constitutes a search and cannot be done without a warrant, but they do it anyway, then they use that illegally obtained evidence to tell them who they need to build probable cause against for a legit search.

That was the whole point of the sting- set up grow lamps to see if the police are using the above described means to illegally search for grow lamps without a warrant.

reply to post by SuperTruper


The grow lights could not have been seen without an illegal search, hence they cannot be used as probable cause.

edit for typo

[edit on 7-12-2008 by The Vagabond]

reply to post by SuperTruper

Originally posted by SuperTruper

Seeing grow lights from outside gives police probable cause.

Isn't that one of the issues though? The police aren't actually seeing grow lights in the first place? That they're actually using thermal imaging cameras illegally?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Police invade the privacy of peoples homes with thermal imaging to locate grow lights, and access electric records without probable cause to identify conditions which are most commonly associated with growing operations.

Around here the police don't "access eletric records" at all. Instead the electric company themselves actually call the police on their own accord and notify the police that someone is using unusually high amounts of electricity. I'm sure this is probably how it's done there too.


As far as thermal imaging, that one's up for debate. There's no law saying police cannot use it, and while the constitution says we have right to privacy, it doesn't define what exactly breaches our privacy rights. The constitution is very vague. Does thermal imaging invade our privacy rights? This one is in the eye of the beholder I guess.


But yes thermal imaging is used and is very useful, especially when you are trying to find an armed perp trying to run from you in the middle of the night. If he broke into someones garage and is hiding there, the thermal imaging will show him in the garage crouched down hiding behind a car. It's pretty funny.
Usually it's not needed because the K9's take care of anyone hiding but sometimes K9 unit is too far away or tied up. I'm sure it can be used to find grow operations too.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by SuperTruper

Seeing grow lights from outside gives police probable cause.

Isn't that one of the issues though? The police aren't actually seeing grow lights in the first place? That they're actually using thermal imaging cameras illegally?

See, here's the thing. This kopbusters guy is not god, he can't see everything. How does he know that the police even used the themal imaging? The kopbusters might have cameras rigged in all parts of the house, but I'm guessing they don't have cameras rigged in the police cars. So, he's probably just assuming that the police used thermal imaging. But what if they didn't? Then that negates the entire point of the kopbusters and this thread to begin with.

Originally posted by SuperTruper
See, here's the thing. This kopbusters guy is not god, he can't see everything.

Why not? The police can, apparently.

again I ask my question, if the police obtain intel on a possible grow op from an informant would that not give the police probable cause to do a passive search using infer-red cameras, once the grow lights show up don't the two peaces of information equal probable cause fora warrant to search a residence

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Mr Mxyztplk]

reply to post by SuperTruper

Originally posted by SuperTruper
As far as thermal imaging, that one's up for debate. There's no law saying police cannot use it, and while the constitution says we have right to privacy, it doesn't define what exactly breaches our privacy rights. The constitution is very vague.

It's not up for debate according to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Kyllo v United States.
Here's the wikipedia article incase you don't like reading court documents.

reply to post by SuperTruper

Originally posted by SuperTruper
In this particular case, the police thought a grow operation was taking place. So they asked a judge for a warrant, with the reason that they thought a grow operation was taking place in that building. The judge granted them the warrant, giving them full authority to search the residence.

Aye there is the rub, what information did they Obtain and HOW, this is where the law WAS broken. why would anyone call the Cops in, they fly around in helicopters with FLIR over rural areas until they get a "hit" then pinpoint the address and go in. THATS the whole POINT of the Kopsbusters sting.

I don't live to far from Odessa/midland myself and have seen Police cops flying around outside of town on many days ( not for traffic reports either )

No that the LEO's and legal system has been caught they are "trying to find out if any illeagal was done" AFTER the fact and against Kopbusters.

and you don't see this as strange supertruper???


I was walking down the Strret of the twon I live in and a Cop pulled over in his Police car and ask me over, he then asked me for ID, I asked him in regards to what? specifically? he said he didn't need any reason to ask for ID, I said I regret to inform you that a Citizen walking down the street is NOT required to give ID on request UNLESS he fits the description of a crime.
The Officer said he could take me in for not following and Officers Orders, I then replied are you ordering me to show my ID? he than drove off..


the Police play on your ignorance, KNOW the law......

On the public road you need a license to operate a vehicle that is a Privilege, the sidewalk is public property and can be used WITHOUT license, you have the RIGHT to use it. So unless and LEO has a description of a "perp" that matches you, you do NOT have to show an ID on demand while walking.