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

thisguyrighthere
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.

Thanks for replying I'll be honest I always tend to forget different ways of seeing things. Your point is taken on board

Can't be having no one on Xbox live now can we

Whoda thunk Texas would turn out like East Germany?
Double plus ungood. Double double plus.

reply to post by matafuchs


Haven't cops always been able to do this? I think it's called reasonable suspicion or something like that. If someone sees, hears, smells or suspects criminal activity and reports it there have always been legal loopholes that allow law enforcement to use reasonable suspicion for warrantless searches. Technically I believe the intent of the clause was for law enforcement to act on first hand observation without having to wait for a warrant to stop a crime in progress but it was almost immediately twisted for use in every way imaginable.

Just turn it back on the cops. It looks like people are going to have to play the justice system at it's own game.

If I were a criminal and involved with other criminals, I would devise a plan to place various calls to the police with accusations towards innocent citizens all over the state. Then, whilst cops are all kept busy busting doors down and shooting family pets dead, my miscreant buddies and I will be free to get on with whatever crime we choose to commit, undisturbed

Corrupt people are the only ones to benefit from corrupt laws, so let's all be corrupt and take advantage of them.

Krazysh0t
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.

Hey Krazy thanks for your reply. Agree with your comment can understand where you are coming from I have a problem that I never think of the bigger picture

I only said what I said as I read a lot on ats about police. When I read how they try and prevent crime in the first place they get slated for it and when something does happen the police are slated again for not preventing it

It was just my view on things but thanks again with your reply helps me understand better

reply to post by littled16


There is probable cause which it what you are most likely referring to. I understand also that many of you have made good points that if there is a known crime to be committed that there should be reasonable effort to stop it with or without a warrant.

However, this is giving a legal precedent on a federal level that allows the police to conduct non warrant search and seizure even if there is time to get a warrant. I know it happens but that does not mean it should.

When you are pulled over you do not have to consent to a search nor do you have to open your door to police without a warrant. In many states though they have passed laws that if you refuse you can be arrested...for nothing. A common way is to say they 'smell pot' or a neighbor heard fighting.

I mean, are we all not concerned that this is showing on a Federal level LEO's can show up and simply enter your home and do whatever they want?

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


Tis true, the police can be damned if they do and damned if they don't. But keep in mind that this aspect goes with the job. You have to be able to take heat for not responding properly. The idea that crime is preventable is a foolish one. Crime will always occur and police will always be on the scene after the act has occurred. Police trying to change that with "see something report something" end up having this system abused with totalitarian tactics. The problem with these ideas is that civilians aren't trained to detect crime, so what they may view as someone acting shady or suspicious could just be the person trying to do something unconventional to fix a problem with their house.

You Americans should do something about that nazi government down there .. But then again I think America is way past the point of no return .

reply to post by Krazysh0t


How many police commit crimes and get nothing for their actions . I bet there is a tiny percentage that get a punishment we see it on the news . Others well it is us against them and everyone is a guilty criminal .

Amazing to see how far the us and them have come in my 35 years years on this planet

reply to post by iRoyalty


Just to play devil's advocate here, cooking meth is extremely dangerous and can put lives in danger, depending on where it's being cooked. If in an apartment it can ignite fires and explode things, thereby harming residents e/g kids, the disabled, etc. Even in a home, with other people or children there, and the neighborhood in general.

It would definitely be different if the call was something like "he's about to smoke pot," or something similarly stupid.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

True that.

But back to the OP. Yeah, if a CI says that meth is about to be cooked, as a reliable source of a crime about to be committed, they have their PC. This type of stuff happens ALL the time. That doesn't mean it's *right* but PDs and courts operate on the CI information for busts, etc, in residences.

Now this is the disturbing part, which is already, apparently, precedent:

Wehrenberg's lawyers argued during materials that the seized materials had been taken illegally and shouldn't be allowed as evidence. The motion was denied -- the trial court cited federal "independent source doctrine," which allows illegally seized evidence a third party told them about beforehand

emphasis added

But for the fact that a neighbor/ANY third party can call and complain about or report something and the local LE can use that to trample rights without ANY bit of evidence (or oftentimes a warrant) is a completely different but disturbing discussion.

reply to post by matafuchs


IMHO this is just another way to suppress our freedom of speech!
I believe we are being trained to not speak our minds for fear of
punishment! Just another tactic to use fear to suppress our opinions
just because we might be persecuted by the unjust judicial system!
(and no I did not misspell the word prosecute!)
First we had to worry about crooked Cops and prosecutors but now it
seems the once impartial judges are protecting the establishment!
As corruption permeates through out the three branches of our
republic America pisses and moans but fails to do anything that will
change the coarse of this cesspool that is our federal, state and city
government!

peter vlar
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.

This is not a well thought out program; collusion between neighbors on a large scale could quickly bankrupt this program "oh yeah officer that was my kids toy gun, sorry for the misunderstanding" split the $ with your neighbor 250.00 ea. (just DO NOT be holding the toy gun when the police arrive)

Secede pretty please Texas and take Florida wih you.

ThePeaceMaker
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

Actually that scenario could never happen now because the perpetrator can be arrested just for saying he is going to
shoot up his school! I actually believe that there is no way possible to create a safe environment until we understand
why it is these things happen in the first place! This is the only way to stop the violence! Just like putting someone
in jail for a crime they allegedly perpetrated! If we put people in jail for non violent crimes do we really expect
them to be rehabilitated when they are released? The truth is those that go to jail as nonviolent offenders usually
come out of these institutions as hardened criminals prone to violence!
So what do we do? We need to understand why any of these crimes happen in the first place! This is the only key to
stopping crime! Most persons in jail are non violent drug offenders! Whether they are selling drugs or using drugs the
same rules apply! We need to figure out why they are doing these things! The US has the highest rates of incarceration
in the world! The real reason behind our incarceration nation is because these penal systems are cash cows for certain corporations. This is the same reason why marijuana is still illegal! We really need to understand that this is a very complex subject and the only real way to know the who, how and why is to put the time and research in! We are a very complex species and I believe there are more aspects to the criminal justice system then just black and white! I also believe there are many violent persons in jail that just don't belong there! Many of them belong in maximum security insane asylums! This may be the only way to rehabilitate those that are violent! I also believe that those that can't be treated should be executed as humanely as possible! I also believe that those whom are untreatable are in a very small percentile! I know in my heart that the key to stopping most violent crime is through education! We must identify those individuals with a predisposition towards violence early on and then treat their affliction as we would any destructive disease! I hope I have raised some eyebrows and may we all find our way out of the darkness and into
the light!

matafuchs
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.

They can already predict what you're going to do. The NSA has that capability. A lot of research has been done in behavior analysis based on peoples purchasing habits. Thanks to programs like PRISM the government gets all the private companies data which can be combined for massive databases on individuals. They can figure out if you're likely to commit a murder just by a change in buying or driving habits. That's to say nothing of things like Kinect or cell phone monitoring, or even scanning your email.

Now that they have legal precedent to act on future suspicion everyone is in danger.

ThePeaceMaker
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

This is essentially the "think of the children" argument. Here's the thing, in order to protect you also have to restrain in some form. If we go down the route of implementing thought crime in order to protect 10-30 kids a year from dying in school shootings, what type of society are we building for those kids to live in? I guess what I'm getting at is what's better? A world of liberty that 99.99% of children live to see, or a police state that has implemented thought crime which 100% of children live to see?

I know which I would prefer, liberty has never been and will never be bloodless. This is the most basic lesson of our American Revolution and it's amazing how few actually understand it. Note, this doesn't mean I'm in favor of dead children or school shootings, but adhering to a process that preserves individual liberty on a macro scale is important, even when it occasionally leads to tragedy on a micro scale.

thisguyrighthere
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.

This is because property has no legal rights or constitutional protections. The system was actually designed this way intentionally, not that it's a good thing. Once they separate you from your right to be secure in your documents and effects, they can hold anything of yours nearly indefinitely.

As long as I can remember us Coloradans affectionately refer to the state our shtkicking neighbors to the south dwell in as Tex-ass.

Mmm...

Another thought provoking report

Unsure as to how far I wish to be worried about crack cookers rights when you consider the misery they cause as a result of their lawbreaking.
Human rights should be there to protect the innocent, not the lawbreakers, break the law and forfeit basic rights to privacy etc., agree that other basic rights e.g. Life are inviolate, but then aren't the crack cookers killing people indirectly?
In the European Union there is legislation known as ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) collectively known amongst LE and the Legal Profession alike as "Every Criminal Has Rights" based on the strong belief that within the criminal system the rights of the law breaker are above those of the victim.

Don't forget that some will say that crime prevention is as important as crime detection and all that follows.

Well if you would read the entire article the search was not based upon "pre-crime." The whole term that started this was the controversy weather or not the independent source had credible evidence. But if you ask me, the independent source having observed the illegal chemicals is credible evidence to support the suspicion. The officers should have waited for the warrant but the article does not elaborate how they entered. Was it by force or was it by consent? When the persons answered the door were the chemicals visible? If so they could have entered without a warrant based on plain sight. There is just not enough information to take a stance on this.

Shuftystick
Mmm...

Another thought provoking report

Unsure as to how far I wish to be worried about crack cookers rights when you consider the misery they cause as a result of their lawbreaking.
Human rights should be there to protect the innocent, not the lawbreakers, break the law and forfeit basic rights to privacy etc., agree that other basic rights e.g. Life are inviolate, but then aren't the crack cookers killing people indirectly?
In the European Union there is legislation known as ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) collectively known amongst LE and the Legal Profession alike as "Every Criminal Has Rights" based on the strong belief that within the criminal system the rights of the law breaker are above those of the victim.

Don't forget that some will say that crime prevention is as important as crime detection and all that follows.

Rights of the accused are very important, all it takes is an accusation from someone or a stroke of a pen to open an investigation against you.

Well, based on the claim here? I am going to claim that I'm going to sit here at home and turn Lead into Gold to blow the world markets and crash life as we know it. (There would be a law or two against that, I'm guessing).

Hmm.. Now, did I just talk stupidity to get a rise, impress someone or maybe get the eye of a girl somewhere..

or..

Did I really master the secrets of the known world to solve one of the most vexing questions of Alchemy since the concept was first thought up?

I really agree with the general sentiment of the Court here. The cops DO need to establish and not just have a HUNCH ..which one of those two things IS actually true. Guess work is called a good start...not end point, IMO.