|
||||||||
|
|||||||
| Politics and Society Current affairs, political and social theory |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
UNeyeR1
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,612
|
Illegal Search?
Ok our latest ranch invasion by the feds to protect us from these various cults has taken yet another turn.
Its the Jeffers compound and the raid that took away all the children. They couldn't identify the girl that called in the original complaint, and now they've established it was a hoax? And they've determined that now that they've been in there they have evidence of abuse and they are doing dna and more analysis to figure out exactly what they have. But who precipitated the hoax, and the determination that the warrant is still valid? I'm not currently on the side of anything but the protection of the innocent and our percieved constitutional rights. In what situations could the evidence obtained from a warrant which was issued due to a hoax call be admissable and in which situations not? Say the police or a family member, or a former family member with a grudge innitiated it, they didn't have the evidence or probable cause so they created it...would that cause it to be thrown out? As with the Branch Davidians the story of the raid has as many implications of wrong doing as the stories of those in the compound. Slippery slope? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Old Man
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vacaville, California
Posts: 132
|
Re: Illegal Search?
Definetly slippery. And I dont think the media helps when they call it a compound. It looks to be more of a small village. It had almost a hundred buildings? including many businesses (mostly craftwork). Worded that way it gets pretty hairy. That a single anonymous caller can generate a raid on everyone in a small town. Where they can take ALL of the children away until they decide if something wrong has been done?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
UNeyeR1
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,612
|
Re: Illegal Search?
New Supreme Court decision. I heard driving home last night. Couldn't find it googling, my understanding of the particulars:
Man pulled over for traffic stop. He was arrested for violation. Car impounded and searched. Drugs found. Later his arrest and the impound of his car were deemed illegal because his violation did not warrant an arrest but only a traffic sitation. Search ruled admissable. By supreme court. I am not condoning the drugs, but this appears completely contrary to our established system, must find more info because if this is so the slope is so slippery we'll all find ourselves sliding. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Search engine that donates... | Snoopy | Lounge | 0 | 04-11-2008 07:08 PM |
| In search of the God | akbar | Belief and Spirituality | 3 | 11-11-2005 05:00 AM |
| c) Posts that contain illegal material | Curios Mike | Feedback | 2 | 08-28-2005 04:43 PM |
| Religion search engine | pedja | Belief and Spirituality | 13 | 10-18-2004 07:09 AM |