In Texas, Search Warrants Can Now Be Based on a "Prediction of a Future Crime"

In Texas, Search Warrants Can Now Be Based on a "Prediction of a Future Crime"

Someone said he was 'going to cook meth' so that was enough for police to enter a property and arrest and then later seize..all without a warrant and they made arrests.

Precedent folks.

If you see something...tell someone. We have all heard that one and it is not 1939 it is 2013. Almost 2014. The new way that things will be done.

What if a neighbor calls cops and says they think you will do something with one of our weapons. Based on this ruling the police could kick in the door, seize your weapons and see how things turn out. Is that the way we want the justice system to work. Each day more and more rights and liberties are stolen and restricted and there are those who still turn a blind eye.

Link

The Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth wasn't so eager to overlook what appeared to be a clear case of police misconduct and overturned the lower court's ruling.

But it's the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that has the final say, and last week they agreed with the trial court. In a majority opinion, Judge Elsa Alcala wrote that, while Texas' "exclusionary rule" bans illegally seized evidence from trial, federal precedent dictates that it can be introduced if it was first confirmed by an independent source.

They had time to secure a warrant and did not. This is precedent folks. Just be ready. They are predicting what you will do know and acting upon it.

reply to post by matafuchs


Ironic that Texas the bastion of conservative thought would be the first state to institute "thought crime"...
Why am I not surprised?

I guess all the laws against "bearing false witness" are null and void.

This is happening a lot lately....

reply to post by matafuchs


I say we find out every cop and politician's addy and inform the other pigs of their intent to do any crime imaginable.

I bet it would stop this practice real quick.

You know, people who live in Texas should live in Texas.

careless talk costs lives. walls have ears. keep mum.

wartime propaganda re-animated. cold war paranoia revisited.

reply to post by matafuchs


Oh gawd. These guys can't understand what I already did, much less predict what I might do in the future. Makes me wanna trust computer programs.

reply to post by matafuchs


Don't they already do this in some cities too?

New York for one yeah, but they call it "Stop and Frisk" so nobody catches on.

Pre-Crime by any other name and method smells as bad.

matafuchs

What if a neighbor calls cops and says they think you will do something with one of our weapons. Based on this ruling the police could kick in the door, seize your weapons and see how things turn out.

Happens all over the country. Been happening for years now.

Just a phone call is all it takes and you can pretty much railroad anyone you want to.

I was in CT when they started using any and every excuse to take firearms from people. This was long before Sandy Hook even.

The cops showed up and took everything you had without a warrant.

The work-around for them was that since they didn't arrest you or officially confiscate your firearms they didnt overstep their boundaries. So all you had to do was wait for the system to work and you'd get everything back no harm no foul.

The catch is that that system has a generations long backlog and an infinite number of excuses to delay or postpone you ever getting anything back.

Apparently holding you and your property in perpetual limbo for years and years and years is perfectly fine and constitutional.

It's the tyranny loophole.

Minority Report. Now that movies a conspiracy.

You're absolutely right about the neighbors. People will eat each other alive with this kind of power in their hands. Once folks realize they can cause a raid on a house with a little malice and a phone call, the cops won't have time to do anything else.

We shouldn't need many more nails for our collective coffin now that this is legal.

It could be worse. In NY under the auspices of the SAFE Act, we are encouraged to rat out neighbors and coworkers for owning weapons or magazines banned under the new legislation with a caveat that goes beyond Texas. If we call the anonymous tip line we get $500 whether the tip generates an arrest or not. It's basically a free money line and there are no repercussions for throwing innocent people under the bus. And Cuomo sill thinks he can get the Dems nomination for 2016. My brain hurts from dealing with this country of late.

reply to post by matafuchs


Surely if someone said they were going to 'cook meth' then that's an admission of intent to commit a crime rather than a prediction?

I mean if some said im going to kill the president wouldn't you expect them to be investigated?

PhoenixOD
...Surely if someone said they were going to 'cook meth' then that's an admission of intent to commit a crime rather than a prediction?
...I mean if some said im going to kill the president wouldn't you expect them to be investigated?
...

The way it was worded in the OP had me confused, as well.
The "tip" came from a confidential informant...stating that "Wehrenberg and several others were 'fixing to' cook meth".
So - it wasn't an admission of the guilty - but rather...a prophecy from another.

reply to post by matafuchs


While I understand the issues this causes, there is a difference between information provided by an informant and information provided by a neighbor. The use of informants requires a history of reliable information from that informant. Usually their reliability is determined by the court when dealing with the aftermath of informant information.

Law Enforcement has had the ability to enter a residence without a warrant with the purpose of preventing evidence from being destroyed. That information must be articulated in the reports to justify the exigent circumstance. The only places that can be "searched" prior to a warrant would be areas that could contain persons (officer / 3rd party safety). Nothing else can be searched until the arrival of the search warrant.

In this case im not sure why law enforcement presented their information in the manner they did. There was a 3 to 4 hour window between receiving the info and law enforcement action. The general rule of thumb is if you can obtain a search warrant, then obtain one. If the property / evidence is secured, then there is no longer an exigent circumstance, meaning you have the time to obtain a warrant.

Better to cross the t's and dot the lower case j's rather than having a case thrown out for 4th amendment violations.

In this case we have a discrepancy between Texas state Law, which does not support the actions of law enforcement, and Federal Law, which does support their actions. I can see this one going up the appeals ladder for a more definitive guideline.

should be interesting... Does anyone want a quick overview of the 4th amendment and how it applies?

Depends, if someone says they are going to kill themselves or someone else, then police should have full right to a warrant to prevent something from happening.

However, if they just say, I'm going to sell drugs or something else that doesn't directly harm another human being then they should have to do a lot more work and be able to get proof that they are involved with known drug users/dealers.

It should be there to GENUINELY protect people, not to start a minority report style of policing.

olaru12
Ironic that Texas the bastion of conservative thought would be the first state to institute "thought crime"...
Why am I not surprised?

Did you read the entire post? It clearly states FEDERAL law trumps state law in this case.

I don't know if I'm right to say this. But let's look at it different.

For this I'm going to use a school as a location, not for any particular reason. Ok so mass shooting by a student at a school, several fatalities. Now when the incident is over and news reporters get their grubby hands on some info. A story pops up to say that a student went to police to inform them that another student is talking about killing or shooting up his school.
So student goes to police they say they can't so anything no evidence no reason to search. Shooting happens. Then all of a sudden people are up in arms saying that the police were aware but failed to act.
Now say if the police were able to search on suspicion then in my example the police, after getting told by another student, could of gone to the killers address and prevented the shooting

I dunno just a thought, I'm a Brit so the lifestyle over here is slightly different

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


In a free society there is no crime committed until there is a crime committed.

If we rounded up and investigated every person who ever uttered any threat there'd be nobody left on Xbox Live.

While powerful for emotional manipulation the image of dead children is not enough to accept chains.

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


In contrast, what if the student who went to the police, was just an asshole and wanted to get one of his peers in trouble? The police listen to his "tip" and search the other kid's house. Let's say that kid really does have some weapons in his house that he uses for hunting. This kid's whole life could get turned upside down and he had no plans to do anything dangerous at all. THAT is what is wrong with your position. Innocent until proven guilty. It is a way of life here.