Above my pay grade: TX, Search warrant can now be on prediction of future crime...

[BaiHu]

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfa...earch_warr.php

Police in Parker County had been watching Michael Fred Wehrenberg's home for a month when, late in the summer of 2010, they received a tip from a confidential informant that Wehrenberg and several others were "fixing to" cook meth. Hours later, after midnight, officers walked through the front door, rounded up the people inside, and kept them in handcuffs in the front yard for an hour and a half.
The only potential problem, at least from a constitutional standpoint, was that the cops didn't have a search warrant. They got one later, before they seized the boxes of pseudoephedrine, stripped lithium batteries, and other meth-making materials, while the alleged meth cooks waited around in handcuffs, but by then they'd already waltzed through the home uninvited. They neglected to mention this on their warrant application, identifying a confidential informant as their only source of information.

[John Ralston]

I am guessing this might go to an even higher court...

[Chuck Haggard]

Umm, yeah. They did a few things out of sequence there.

[jlw]

Umm, yeah. They did a few things out of sequence there.

Yup.

[Joseph B.]

It was explained to me many years ago that a warrantless search required a commission of crime within the LEOs view (I.e heard screams from the house and as I walked up to investigate a possible domestic, I witnessed individuals within the home preparing to make what appeared to be meth, believing a felony crime was in progress, I made entry into the home and detained all parties, and than made a search of the home finding X-Y-Z).

At least that is how it was explained to me by a San Antonio drug TF cop. Use of a CI, can give probable cause, but would have to.be brought before a judge, and if the CI was believable and probable cause was legally existent, a warrant would be issued, etc.

Yeah I would imagine this will be tossed out at a higher court, and I would also imagine a civil rights violation lawsuit will be forthcoming.

[Chuck Haggard]

It was explained to me many years ago that a warrantless search required a commission of crime within the LEOs view (I.e heard screams from the house and as I walked up to investigate a possible domestic, I witnessed individuals within the home preparing to make what appeared to be meth, believing a felony crime was in progress, I made entry into the home and detained all parties, and than made a search of the home finding X-Y-Z).

At least that is how it was explained to me by a San Antonio drug TF cop. Use of a CI, can give probable cause, but would have to.be brought before a judge, and if the CI was believable and probable cause was legally existent, a warrant would be issued, etc.

Yeah I would imagine this will be tossed out at a higher court, and I would also imagine a civil rights violation lawsuit will be forthcoming.

You would imagine correctly.


This is botching basic rookie cop search and seizure 101 if the facts in the story are true.

[ToddG]

It's important to keep in mind that, while they are often intertwined, the exclusionary rule and 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search & seizure are not inexorably linked. There are instances in which a 4th Amendment violation occurs but the evidence is not excluded. The easiest example is if the police illegally search my house and find evidence that JV is running an illegal gambling ring on my home network. Even though the search was illegal the evidence isn't excluded as to JV.

I haven't read any of the decisions at discussion here, but at least from what the linked article stated it appears that TX is simply enlarging its exclusionary rule to include a more permissive interpretation of an exception that already exists at the federal level.

The "future crime" thing is also possibly misleading. Assuming that possession of the base materials with intent to manufacture and/or sell drugs is a crime, then the crime was being committed the moment the defendants were in possession; the police didn't have to wait until they got done cooking the meth.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not crazy about the expansion of warrantless search and seizure that is being authorized here: being able to act solely on the word of a confidential informant without any judicial oversight. While I realize it would turn the modern LE world upside down, I'm personally of the opinion that our Founding Fathers never would have allowed "confidential informant" as the source of information on a search warrant to begin with.

[SouthNarc]

Guys there could be any number of things that created an exigency during the surveillance that allowed the agents to make a warrantless entry. Then if it's plain view, seize what you have, lock the site down and have somebody at the office type underlying facts and circumstances for a paper.

The article is really vague. I'm as critical of the profession as anyone...more than most actually, but we have no idea that what has been reported is actually as simple as what happened.

Dope work rarely is...

[Dagga Boy]

I have hit meth labs prior to a warrant before. You just need to know how to write. Trust me, when Beavis and Butthead are getting ready to do a cook in their house of apartment working off a recipe on mixing the chemicals on a 3x5 card they got from some other tweaker, you better pray that the cops will hit the place just on exigent circumstances if you happen to live next door. I can also tell you first hand that getting chemical Pneumonia is not a fun experience that I would wish on any citizen.

I would venture that the officers may have had an indication of an active cook, and that is a very dangerous situation for the public that easily qualifies as an exigent circumstance exemption.

[oldtexan]

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfa...earch_warr.php

BaiHu, I couldn't tell from the original blog post how the police gained entry to the house. Do you know how they entered, as in broke into the house by force, or asked for permission to enter and were given it, or walked in through an unlocked door without permission, etc?