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

reply to post by Aazadan


Yes, rights of the accused, innocent until proved guilty, but who looks after the rights of the victim/s?

No smoke without fire, it is crack cooking after all;
" Well Judge, I was just sat by this kids chemistry set minding my own business when..."
"What were you doing defendant?"
"Trying to turn base metal into gold your honour"
"Unlawful search and seizure, set the accused free, and as this is the twentieth time you have appeared before me this year, try not to make a "habit" of it, eh, there's a good fellow, now, off you go and good luck in your transmutation business"

Land of the Free, home of the Brave, whatever happened to their Constitution?

Shuftystick
reply to post by Aazadan

 

Yes, rights of the accused, innocent until proved guilty, but who looks after the rights of the victim/s?

That's the point of a trial.

Actually this is the kind of thing in which I expect someone to get arrested and have absolutely no problem with it.

The guy stated he was going to "cook meth" a highly illegal, higly combustible problem. One wrong move and the whole block gets blown up.

I have a problem with someobody saying that in a year or less s they believe someone will say they are going to cook meth so its time to arrest now, but he blatantly admitted that is what he is going to go and do. His intent was made clear to do so that day.

I hate the see something say something attitude of our times. People who have done nothing are getting arrested, houses are being raided and people are getting hurt all because either someone has a grudge, wants that extra cash promised to narcs, is simply cruel or and rarely they actually felt they had a reason.

There is a difference here though, intent was implied and as stated when done wrong the block blows to smoke. A house that has had too much meth cooked in it and was lucky enough to not blow to smitherenes will often be sold to an unsuspected family who will grow sick until they move out and/or have a hazmat crew come in and clean it out.

I fail to see how stated implied intent has anything to do with a future where someone has no clue if they will break a law or not. Not the same thing at all. The cops were wrong for not having a search warrant first so the dude and his cronies will probably get off anyhow.

Agree totally, and do not let TPB do away with the enshrined right to Trial By Jury!

Good, Independent Judges are hard to find, many Judges accepting the Political constraints of their appointment.

However, Legislation, Politics and receipt of taxes relies upon the majority accepting rule by the few. If the few are so transparently corrupt as the current incumbents, wherever they rule, then the majority eventually wake up and one way or another there is change.

The UK legal system of old, was the banner standard of many modern emerging Nations across the globe, usually following the old pink coloured Commonwealth Nations on a world map. Many emerging Nations utilised this model for their own systems. Even now, when it works properly, the UK system is the best in the world, at times, it's rulings baffle the most open of minds. Jury trials, unless misdirected or totally hoodwinked usually return a just verdict.

Back to the OP though, predictable crime is nothing new, it is the product of actionable intelligence and frankly, anyone sat there with a working meth lab in front of them when The Old Bill or The Fed's knock the door down, with or without a warrant deserves to be placed in front of a jury of their peers as soon as possible, once they have worked out their defence and screwed the legal aid system that is! It's no use crying over spilt milk with regard to these people, they have no regard for the health and welfare of their victims do they?

Still not sure? Consider this, a growing problem, made worse by seasonal inebriation in the UK, is that of illicit alcohol, made with the likes of Ethanol and other such delicacies, it can blind, maim or even kill those that drink it. Those that make it don't give a flying fig about that, they are only interested in the profit, created by the desire of people needing cheap alcohol. Predictable crime, damn right when you consider excessive duty rates, diminishing wages or unemployment, addiction to alcohol etc. etc., moonshine my rear end, it's illegal, f'ing poisonous and reduces the amount of tax required to pick up the resulting mess. Knock down a few more doors without warrant, let the courts decide on the legality of it all and miss out the inept Crown Prosecution Service or CPS in the process, in the good old days The Old Bill would prosecute their own cases in the Lower Courts and save a fortune in taxpayers money as a result.

Unless you live in the UK you will not have a clue what a mess the PC/liberal brigade have created. The legal system is weighed too heavily to one side on the scales of justice and the balance needs to be returned to where it was - have a look at the top of The Old Bailey in London if you are unsure.

In closing, a CI, snout, informant or whatever, is historically as much of a part of the legal system as anything else, and like any other part, can be misused if safeguards are ignored. Used correctly, they remain a justifiable part of the LE armoury as the Constitution itself. If people didn't break the law in the first place they would not be required, I know that's Utopia, but one can hope surely?

reply to post by brandiwine14


In your opinion when does intent become illegal? In the US you can intend to do something all you want. I have a voodoo ritual I intend to perform that will manipulate the stock market making me billions while bankrupting millions of people. It's not illegal for me to do until I do it and it has results. Similarly I can intend to set a bomb off outside a government building. I can buy the diesel fuel, the ammonium nitrate, the detonator, and a truck. It's not actually illegal until I detonate the bomb.

There is a loophole to this called conspiracy, where an agreement between multiple people to carry out an act is considered a crime on par with committing the crime itself. However when acting alone there can be no conspiracy. The law is set up this way because in a free and just society someone isn't guilty until they actually commit the act. Conspiracy was added to the criminal code in 1910 as a way catch people that hadn't broken the law. For the most part it was only used lightly but for the past decade, and maybe 2 decades conspiracy charges have been on a sharp increase.

So what if the guy declared intent? Until he actually does something he hasn't broken the law.

reply to post by Aazadan


Revisited the link from the OP.
The "facts" as reported, as opposed to any subsequent speculation or "they saids" speak for themselves.
The Police had been undertaking obs.
More than one person was involved in intending to commit a crime, making this a conspiracy
The intended crime involved the making of illegal drugs using methods that are dangerous with regards to Hazmat, Fire & Explosion in a domestic setting!
On top of this a "Humint" tells a tale - and you can speculate as much as you want but at this stage what would you have done?
If the Police at this stage had done nothing and the meth lab had blown, not an unusual circumstance when you have crack heads cooking meth in domestic circumstances, imagine the subsequent possibilities for litigation in your litigious society. Morally the Police had no alternative, the Legal system has pronounced upon the legality of what happened and the rest is history.
Public Safety? I don't know, I was not there and not part of the decision making progress, but I have been around long enough to know that when sufficient facts are placed before you the decision is also there to see.
No smoke without fire, thankfully in this case.
Crack = illegal
Use & possession of = illegal
Production of = illegal
Sale of = illegal
Conspiracy to commit any of the above...
I'm sure you get the picture by now.