"Kop Busters" in Odessa, TX

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
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

Yes that would give them probable cause.

Originally posted by NGC2736

The assumption of crime, based on such flimsy evidence is the problem here. How much electricity a person uses is not a sure indicator of using grow lights to produce an illegal substance.

Hell, they could have taken up welding and have insomnia.

That is the purpose of the raid, to find out if they have the marijuana. It's a raid, not an arrest.

reply to post by oldcop911


The guy that set this up is a former anti-drug cop. He knows how their system works, and does what he can to expose it. All he did was provide opportunity, the cops did the rest. They weren't "entrapped", they weren't "set up", the only way they could have gotten a warrant to raid the place would be to lie in order to get the warrant. If they did any kind of prior investigation, they would have saved themselves, and their department embarrassment.

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. Does thermal imaging invade our privacy rights? This one is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

In 2001, the United States Supreme Court decided that by performing FLIR surveillance of private property without a search warrant, law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)

It is illegal to use thermal imaging on a residence without first obtaining a search warrant.

The whole point was to set up a scenario where the only way for the police to detect the grow lights was by using thermal imaging. When the cops raided the house they were unable to produce a warrant.


[edit on 7-12-2008 by clay2 baraka]

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

The police suspected that a grow operation was taking place, they obtained a warrant, and then raided the house. As soon as they discovered that it was just christmas trees, they started exiting the building (or at least were going to until they saw the stupid poster by mr. "kopbuster", which they rightfully laughed at.)


What law exactly did the officers break? They did everything by the book.

This thread is silly, and this whole "kopbusters" thing is stupid and they obviously have no clue what they are doing. Stop making stuff up. The police here broke no laws and didn't do anything wrong, if you are going to accuse them of doing so then at the very LEAST, say what they did wrong?







[edit on 7-12-2008 by SuperTruper]

[edit on 7-12-2008 by SuperTruper]

the police did nothing wrong, they were simply doing the job they were instructed to do. it was the prosecutors office that made a hearsay determination of illegality, and a judge that signed off on it that are to blame. both of which should be held responsible for the incident. when you send in men with loaded guns and the authorization to use them, you have to be held to a higher standard. there are no do-over's if someone innocent gets put in prison, or worse, shot and killed.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by jimmyx]

reply to post by SuperTruper

reply to post by SpacePunk


Precisely. As was put forward earlier in the thread, entrapment is when you bring the idea and the encouragement to commit a crime to someone who is reluctant.

When you provide the opportunity to commit a crime but never interact with the criminal, it's not entrapment.

Leaving a bike on the streetcorner and waiting for a crackhead to steal it is not entrapment.
Leaving a grow lamp in a house and waiting for the police to illegally use FLIR and then raid the place is not entrapment either.

Some people prefer to be obtuse and just aren't going to get it, but I'm glad you do.

reply to post by jimmyx


Has that fact been documented somewhere and I just missed it?

I have seen no indication that the DA initiated this.

Informants go to the police usually, not the DA. The police could easily coach a bogus informant on how to make his hearsay stick, then take him to the DA, and the whole thing could get past a judge and DA who were doing their jobs 100%, IF the informant and cops were making a concerted effort to mislead them.

Originally posted by thedigirati

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..

If the officer suspects that you may have committed a crime, are committing a crime, or match the description of someone they are looking for, they can ask you for your ID (even if you are not in a vehicle) and yes it's illegal for you to deny them and they can arrest you.

At least here that's the law, probably similar or the same there.

Originally posted by thedigirati
the Police play on your ignorance, KNOW the law......

Exactly... too bad we have so many armchair law professors here that don't actually know the law but think they do.

Excessive use of electricity is not grounds for probable cause.
Owning and using these lights is not grounds for probable cause.

The cops are still investigating to see if any laws were broken. However they are not investigating themselves. No reason to as they are ABOVE the law.

I hope these folks increase your understanding of the tyranny you live in.

Keep up with this case because conspiracy to commit a crime is also a crime. A crime that needs no evidence to get a conviction. You can get folks convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime with hearsay. This is how I see this ending.

Originally posted by titorite
Excessive use of electricity is not grounds for probable cause.
Owning and using these lights is not grounds for probable cause.

Yes it is.

The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".


9 times out of 10, someone using unusually excessive amounts of electricity are marijuana growers, so it's pretty much inarguable that when it happens, it definitely gives a "reasonable belief".

i thought this was a great thread, had a lot i wanted to say but i forgot all of it basically because i just got incredibly frustrated by a troll who just wished to argue his situation rather then reading facts and admitting the truth


great thread but really hope the trolling stops and things get back on track

on a good note
GREAT job all of you who've been incredibly intelligent and mature in the discussion adding great comments to the situation

im really impressed with the mods in this thread





itd be interesting to see this type of "sting" used on a wider scale to expose more of whats really going on in law enforcement now a days

i wonder if something like this was tried in every city, how many different agencies would take the bait and allow themselves to look incredibly dumb, amongst many other things



i hope this case isnt just thrown out and lost in the rubble


one question i have though, in this type of situation where citizens who are obviously not guilty of any crime are harassed and raided in this type of very dangerous scenario, dont they have any legal rights for retribution?

isnt there any agency or group for lack of a better term who document cases like this where citizens are wrongfully pursued?

is there nothing that happens to investigate chain of command as to how police can make such a DUMB and ignorant mistake?

does anyone else have a serious problem with that much tax payers money being spent on prosecuting a christmas tree farmer?

and why arent those in charge responsible for the costs of such a failed operation on behalf of law enforcement

i know tax payers definitely shouldn't be paying for these things to be taking place

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Dramey]
edited for spelling and grammar, still not perfect but just a quick clean up

edited one last time to just say, please people dont just deny ignorance, ignore it especially trolls, as some people, well obviously you can give them nothing but mature facts and knowledge, you still get nothing back but a big green ugly dumb monster
[edit on 7-12-2008 by Dramey]

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Dramey]

The armchair law professors are the only ones going anywhere near the law here brother. If I'm sitting here getting it wrong, with a SCOTUS decision in hand saying in black and white that I'm right, go dig up a law or a court decision that contradicts me.

Frankly this entire discussion is emblematic of the problem. Some police officers seem to think that saying it makes it so, as if their word was law and the courts were merely a technicality.

I'm not threatening you brother, I'm citing history, when I tell you that the American people have a track record of shooting authority figures who act like that. The last bunch wore red coats, but god forbid, the next bunch might be the ones wearing blue.

Ahhh I love it. Way to turn the tables on those who would abuse the limits of their power. Certainly someone official is going to pay a price for this.

cool. good work kopbusters! and nice find. good to see some criminal justice coming to the people who claim to protect us from criminals.

reply to post by Dramey


Internle affares takes care of the over-sight of the police.
As for raids where it turns out that the residence is innocent I'm sure the vast majority of people that were raided have it explained to them thee series of events that lead to the raid and understand how the police could make the mistake that they did.

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that this guy wanted to be caught and I'm pretty sure that they went beyond just hoping that the police spotted their grow op with FLIR cameras

reply to post by Mr Mxyztplk

Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Has that fact been documented somewhere and I just missed it?

I have seen no indication that the DA initiated this.

Informants go to the police usually, not the DA. The police could easily coach a bogus informant on how to make his hearsay stick, then take him to the DA, and the whole thing could get past a judge and DA who were doing their jobs 100%, IF the informant and cops were making a concerted effort to mislead them.

ok...but if you were the DA in this, wouldn't you want more evidence? maybe a simple undercover watch of the house? or how about sending a plain clothes officer to the door and simply knocking? or check the status of the ownership of the house? asking neighbors?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
One thing people seem to be forgetting is that this guy wanted to be caught and I'm pretty sure that they went beyond just hoping that the police spotted their grow op with FLIR cameras

That is not necessarily true. If he wants to bust cops right wrong or indifferent, then sure, he would do what you propose.

However it is equally possible that he simply goes after police departments that he has good reason to suspect are doing wrong, and setting traps that his experience tells them will be very likely to be found if the police are skirting the rules.

You CAN stock the pond yourself, but you don't HAVE to if you know where the fish are and what they're biting on.

reply to post by NGC2736


So studying the avalibale information, forming the hypothisys that it was a illeagel grow op, then testing it by raiding the building to ensure there was no law being violated is the lazy way out?
But turns out that it was an illeagel saerch as The Vagabond showed.