Whiteboy7thst's possession charges dropped after being swatted last month - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Korova;46011290]Yeah it's really difficult to actually go after someone who does it. These SWAT events cost the tax payers like thousands of dollars too if it's serious. Like helicopters, [B]At some point though, the police need to check first before sending all available units because some fuck called and said "I LIVE AT 1234 AND NORTHERN AND I AM GOING TO KILL MY GIRLFRIEND". It's really dumb. [/B] Also, just to make it clear to anyone reading my comment from before, I know that these people should not be tried on possession charges. I'm an advocate and I have my medical card. I'm just saying that if these cops are so overzealous that they'll bust down your door and point guns at you, they're going to try and make it worth their while. Don't be surprised when you are charged and the system doesn't work out like it did for this kid.[/QUOTE] How are they supposed to check without endangering [I]actual[/I] victims? They have to go in with guns, because this isn't the kind of thing that you can afford to get wrong.

[QUOTE=Korova;46011290]Yeah it's really difficult to actually go after someone who does it. These SWAT events cost the tax payers like thousands of dollars too if it's serious. Like helicopters, At some point though, the police need to check first before sending all available units because some fuck called and said "I LIVE AT 1234 AND NORTHERN AND I AM GOING TO KILL MY GIRLFRIEND". It's really dumb. Also, just to make it clear to anyone reading my comment from before, I know that these people should not be tried on possession charges. I'm an advocate and I have my medical card. I'm just saying that if these cops are so overzealous that they'll bust down your door and point guns at you, they're going to try and make it worth their while. Don't be surprised when you are charged and the system doesn't work out like it did for this kid.[/QUOTE] Its not being over zealous, you can't check these things out first. "Hey I just gunned down two people at my house" Ok lets send a lone patrol car over to a potentially armed persons house to make sure its not a joke.

I wish police would ask for a name and address when receiving a tip.

[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;46011439]I wish police would ask for a name and address when receiving a tip.[/QUOTE] They give them the name and address of the person they are swatting

[QUOTE=5/3/4/3;46009474]this is sure gonna rile up the "well he deserved it for owning weed" crowd[/QUOTE] Eh why not If you are breaking the law don't be surprised if you get in trouble for it. This guy was very lucky. I'm pro legalization but am not going to touch any marijuana. Also fuck swatters for burning through people's money. And it's not like the "boy who cried wolf" scenario where the police can stop responding, they have to.

So how long till Kondor comes in and shits the thread up because he isn't being executed for being a evil pot smoker?

How was the weed obtained illegally?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;46010046]Possession is illegal but the evidence was obtained illegally and therefore can't be used against him. Not much else to say.[/QUOTE] So if it were some harder substance like cocaine, I take it that it'll be the same?

[QUOTE=CuppethCake;46010892]Evidence found during illegal searches can't be used in court, because it was found illegally. Technically they had no search warrant, it was a false flag, given the circumstances any substances found can't be used in court.[/QUOTE] I'm sure this isn't an illegal search, they had probable cause for firearms and not searching could have put peoples lives at risk. [url]https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/know-your-rights-can-you-be-searched-without-a-warrant[/url]

But now they can file a search warrant for him.

I'm glad he didn't get charged, but this leaves a question in my mind: "What if it wasn't weed?". I mean, it's just weed who cares, right? but what if they found a body? Would the charges be dropped because they didn't have a right to be there in the first place? Where does the law draw the line? just wondering.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46012170]But now they can file a search warrant for him.[/QUOTE] they probably already confiscated the drugs, i don't think they'd give it back :v:

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46012170]But now they can file a search warrant for him.[/QUOTE] They need probable cause to get a warrant, and that can't be provided by illegally obtained evidence.

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;46012066]So if it were some harder substance like cocaine, I take it that it'll be the same?[/QUOTE] I was actually thinking about that shortly after posting and I don't know.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46012170]But now they can file a search warrant for him.[/QUOTE] they already confiscated his weed?

Wow that's pretty lucky.

[QUOTE=Downsider;46010137]why don't you just not have weed if it's going to get you in trouble? if ice cream was illegal I would just sack up and move on[/QUOTE] So giving up something you enjoy which was made illegal completely arbitrarily because you might get in trouble if youre a dumbass and get caught is sacking up? I would think itd be the other way around but I guess everyone that has Cannabis illegally is just a pussy then by your logic.

[QUOTE=Korova;46010015]Regardless, having marijuana in your house as a streamer is a stupid thing to do. This swatting thing is quite regular for the bigger guys to the point where some of the police know them by name and apologize throughout. If I were some sort of streamer, I'd bury that shit.[/QUOTE] "having a vibrator in your house as a woman is a stupid thing to do. Getting raped is pretty regular for the cuter girls to the point the pharmacist recognizes them from the last time they've had to buy Plan-B. If I were some sort of girl, I'd hide the fact I ever think about recreational sex"

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;46012126]I'm sure this isn't an illegal search, they had probable cause for firearms and not searching could have put peoples lives at risk. [url]https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/know-your-rights-can-you-be-searched-without-a-warrant[/url][/QUOTE] They had no search warrant, it was a falsely made call. Prosecutors even agreed that it would be unlawful to use any substances they found since they had no warrant.

[QUOTE=dai;46014414]"having a vibrator in your house as a woman is a stupid thing to do. Getting raped is pretty regular for the cuter girls to the point the pharmacist recognizes them from the last time they've had to buy Plan-B. If I were some sort of girl, I'd hide the fact I ever think about recreational sex"[/QUOTE] Weed is not a vibrator.

[QUOTE=lockdown6;46015038]vibrators aren't illegal[/QUOTE] taking advantage of someone based on their private recreational choices under side-circumstance is great, isn't it? To go beyond the blatant reference of rape being illegal regardless of whether the person raped is sexually active on their own [granted the equivalent of consent in this case is given by... the rapist's boss? Bad analogy in the long run, I know], charging someone for something found in their home when you didn't have a search warrant under the presumption it was there is also illegal due to the way police need to handle processes. if you say it's his fault for [u]not expecting to get swatted because he streams games[/u] and claim he deserved to get felony charges because the police tore through his house [u]without a warrant[/u] looking for shit to book him for anyways, you're an idiot I can bet they'll get a warrant with reasonable suspicion to check him at a later time because he's likely to get more stuff, and I'd also bet he'll be smart enough not to keep anything around for them to find. The fact the first response was under falsified claims means any action they did without going back for a proper warrant the first time get nullified. Their exception to the rules to get there in the first place were under a set of circumstances and it's an abuse of the power to end up using a massive rule-bend to get someone for reasons outside of it.

[QUOTE=Adlertag1940;46009257]would be unconstitutional if they did. [editline]18th September 2014[/editline] its like going in looking for apples, but they aren't any, so we throw down for the oranges even though they're two totally different things.[/QUOTE] Hardly. They were in the house under an exception to the 4th amendment (exigent circumstances) and then once inside they found the marijuana in plain sight. Rightfully, at the time of spotting the marijuana I would have locked the house down and got a search warrant for the drugs in which then you search the house completely (while taking the previously found drugs)

[QUOTE=Code3Response;46015231]Hardly. They were in the house under an exception to the 4th amendment (exigent circumstances) and then once inside they found the marijuana in plain sight. Rightfully, at the time of spotting the marijuana I would have locked the house down and got a search warrant for the drugs in which then you search the house completely (while taking the previously found drugs)[/QUOTE] That sounds like it could be an awful loophole. Doesn't this mean a corrupt agency could just storm a house under false circumstances, find the evidence they were after, detain the suspect, wait for the warrant, then arrest and charge him?

I would have thought the good faith exception would have applied.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46015617]That sounds like it could be an awful loophole. Doesn't this mean a corrupt agency could just storm a house under false circumstances, find the evidence they were after, detain the suspect, wait for the warrant, then arrest and charge him?[/QUOTE] But what if they found something truly dangerous like illegal weapons, harder drugs like cocaine, or even child porn? Should he be let go?

I don't see how people can support putting people in jail for a fucking plant. When them themselves have cirrhosis and severe painkiller addiction. Say whatever you will about weed, but it must be fully legalized. Logic simply does not support the system we have today.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;46016413]But what if they found something truly dangerous like illegal weapons, harder drugs like cocaine, or even child porn? Should he be let go?[/QUOTE] If evidence is illegally obtained, yes. Why should it flex because some crimes are more offensive than others? The system needs to be consistent; if not, then what is the point?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46015617]That sounds like it could be an awful loophole. Doesn't this mean a corrupt agency could just storm a house under false circumstances, find the evidence they were after, detain the suspect, wait for the warrant, then arrest and charge him?[/QUOTE] "fruit from the poisonous tree" in court the officers still have to show their PC for breaking down the door. In this case they have human life at risk from an apparent 911 call. If the courts see that the officers didnt have enough PC to do what they did, all evidence gained from that is inadmissible in court. If this happens, most of the time they drop charges unless they have other things to hit them with prior to the bad evidence. I'm sure somewhere in some town in the US this is a loophole, but in 99% of cases its not. Defense lawyers love to fight this stuff too -- So if it happens, dont go cheapo on your lawyer. [editline]18th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;46016413]But what if they found something truly dangerous like illegal weapons, harder drugs like cocaine, or even child porn? Should he be let go?[/QUOTE] See above [editline]18th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mingebox;46015698]I would have thought the good faith exception would have applied.[/QUOTE] Good faith exception is more geared for warrants and magistrates. If the magistrate signs the warrant, it means its a good warrant. Later on in court they could argue the PC for the warrant was bad (from a bad undercover or CI)... but because the officers were acting [I]in good faith[/I], the evidence will still be admissible in court

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;46017152]If evidence is illegally obtained, yes. Why should it flex because some crimes are more offensive than others? The system needs to be consistent; if not, then what is the point?[/QUOTE] "Oh sorry it was a mistake! Hey is that a dead body in the corner? Oh well, were not supposed to be here anyways so we can't do anything about it".

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46017818]"Oh sorry it was a mistake! Hey is that a dead body in the corner? Oh well, were not supposed to be here anyways so we can't do anything about it".[/QUOTE] Well being that the SWAT team was called due to a potential dangerous suspect holding a hostage(s) then something like finding a dead body would be admissible. However; if they entered the residence and were looking for a potential armed suspect with a hostage(s) and instead started searching places like cupboards, drawers, computers, etc.. and found evidence for other crimes not pertaining to the one they were responding to then that evidence should not be and in most cases would not be admissible. Their probable cause (IE Hostages) cannot fit in a kitchen drawer so they shouldn't have been looking in the first place without a warrant issued by the county/municipal court judge.