Dallas Officer Kills Man After Walking Into Wrong Apartment: Police

a reply to: howtonhawky

It does have that feel to me as well, my question is..did they really need a search warrant?, to secure and document the crime scene?
Maybe they do, as it was a personal residence.

a reply to: vonclod

There is no murder scene exception to the 4th Amendment.

SCOTUS has ruled on the issue in three separate cases, one of which was the murder of an undercover cop. The article in the hyperlink uses an example identical to the Jean case. Anything after the initial search for evidence in plain view would have been a search in violation of the 4th Amendment. The evidence couldn't be thrown out at trial, because the killer has no legal ground to motion to suppress the evidence, but it would still be a search in violation of the 4th and a potential avenue to appeal.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ok, thank you for that info.

So I'm left wondering if the warranted search was needed? I suppose that's impossible to say without seeing/reading the officers statement in whole.

The problem is that nothing relative to the investigation was taken from the home.

Unless the goal is character assassination of a murdered victim.

Holla at us when they do the same for the murderer.

No doubt that it is legal for them to do but they could take a dump on your head and it would be legal somehow.

No warrants for her computer history nor the electronic door data.

They call that street one way.

a reply to: vonclod

Yes, because the initial search is supposed to be confined to a search that's covered by one of the exceptions to the 4th Amendment.

Example: you're an officer responding to a homicide that just occurred. Upon arrival at the scene you enter the residence to locate the victim, search for any further victims, and assess whether there is an ongoing threat. During this search you observe a firearm on the floor next to the victim and you secure it for evidence. That's entirely permissible and covered by exceptions to the 4th. You secure the scene for two hours until detectives arrive. One detective finds where slugs have burrowed into a wall of the residence and digs it out. This is not covered by an exception to the 4th, and it's a violation of the 4th for the detective to dig out and collect it.

Rangers just returned several other warrants, during which they tested Jean's door and walls for gunshot residue, collected CCTV evidence from the complex, did laser trajectory analysis, and alsotook the locks off both Jean's and Guyger's door for analysis. None of that would have been a permissible act during an initial search of the scene, and getting a warrant to do them is simply by-the-book investigation.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ok, thank you for the info.

a reply to: vonclod

No problem.

Bottom line, this is what an “open and transparent” (that people are clamoring for) investigation looks like. They got warrants to eliminate any question about search legality. They continue to get warrants for the same reason.

They list what items were seized during searches because a) they’re required to and b) because the fallout for NOT doing so would be massive, both legally and in regard to public relations. If they found weed in the apartment and didn’t seize it, the defense would be all over that. If they seized it and didn’t list it and that ever came to light, the defense would have a field day with it. If they seized it, listed it, but redacted it in the paperwork, everybody would have a field day with that. Not to mention the public asking what else they found but didn’t take, or found but didn’t list, or found and redacted.

Her trial is currently underway.

Link

Ex-Dallas officer who killed neighbor found guilty of murder

Adding the verdict to the thread.