Alec Baldwin kills crew member on set with "prop gun"

[BehindBlueI's]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...?ocid=msedgntp

This article has more details.

TBH, I have no idea how that's handled from state-to-state. I'm federal, so I get a warrant for the appropriate venue and just go take your phone, wherever you are, even if it's on an anticipatory application....makes it a lot easier. So, I'm not exactly sure what's going on here.

Maybe @BehindBlueI's has some insight.

Some things have 'full faith and credit' sort of legal language and are good anywhere in the US (or among specific signatories) regardless of which court issued it. Protective orders, for example, are valid anywhere in the US regardless of what state/county/tribal court issued them. Suspended driver's license orders are good among all covenant states (most of them) so if you are suspended in TN you can't get a license in GA either.

Other things do not, and search warrants fall in to that category. Without some agreement in place, they are not valid outside of their originating jurisdiction with some limited exceptions. There are work arounds but what is needed and what works is probably not universal across every state/county. I know for me, I can swear out a search warrant anywhere in the state (all gov't employed cops here have statewide jurisdiction) but would need a judge/magistrate for the correct county to sign off on the warrant.

[TGS]

Some things have 'full faith and credit' sort of legal language and are good anywhere in the US (or among specific signatories) regardless of which court issued it. Protective orders, for example, are valid anywhere in the US regardless of what state/county/tribal court issued them. Suspended driver's license orders are good among all covenant states (most of them) so if you are suspended in TN you can't get a license in GA either.

Other things do not, and search warrants fall in to that category. Without some agreement in place, they are not valid outside of their originating jurisdiction with some limited exceptions. There are work arounds but what is needed and what works is probably not universal across every state/county. I know for me, I can swear out a search warrant anywhere in the state (all gov't employed cops here have statewide jurisdiction) but would need a judge/magistrate for the correct county to sign off on the warrant.

What's your procedure to get a cell phone off someone who may have jumped across state lines?

[BehindBlueI's]

What's your procedure to get a cell phone off someone who may have jumped across state lines?

It's never came up for me when there wasn't also an arrest warrant. With an arrest warrant, if the phone was on them it'd come back as personal property with them and then I'd do a search warrant for the jail's property room to retrieve it then a second warrant for the contents once I had it.

Hypothetically, there's a few ways to go about it but the ones I can think of off the top of my head require local assistance. The simplest would probably be have a court order, then have the jurisdiction where the phone actually is do a warrant for the phone based on contempt of court. If they'd cooperate. Not sure if you didn't have a cooperative department, local/county/state, that had jurisdiction how you'd move forward.

[TC215]

What's your procedure to get a cell phone off someone who may have jumped across state lines?

Been there. Either a federal search warrant signed in the appropriate federal district or type up the PC and send it to a local agency for them to swear to.

[UNM1136]

No; the warrant is a legally binding order by a judge, even the LEOs themselves would be in violation if they refused to go get it (the language generally includes, "I COMMAND you", and "You SHALL", it's very clear). There's also usually a time stamp on the search warrant, and if not served by that period will be considered "stale" and the warrant void. If the SW was issued Dec 16th, we're absolutely beyond that point as it's usually 2 weeks, but some judges can be even tighter. But, the article also says that the Sheriff's Office issued a search warrant for the phone, which is patently false as LEOs/departments cannot issue search warrants, only judges can.

This all makes me think that they only politely asked for the phone and there is not a SW, and this is just a matter of reporters not knowing what they're writing about. With that said, I'd be very surprised if the investigators didn't serve preservation requests to the providers of whatever electronic media is of interest, so depending on what they're looking for, the investigators might have time to develop PC for a SW (typically a preservation is good for 90 days).

Local media says the Sheriff and the DA's office had a meeting discussing going to a judge and asking for a Contmempt charge. I do know that many detectives I work with across several agencies go to great lengths to avoid writing paper. Their first question when you tell them you want a warrant is "can we get consent for a search?" A little over a year ago I was at the hospital when I guy came into the ED with a GSW, claiming to have been shot in a drive by in the county. His car was right outside, with bullet holes, and on the passenger seat was body armor, a rubber face mask, and a handfull of ammo in the console. Secured the car, and called the SO and got a patrol unit out, who called for a detective. Alleged victim was a felon. Detective got there, car was registered to Dad. Dad was contacted and asked for consent to search. Dad wanted to look out for Mijo, so the request was denied. Dad drove the car away and the case was closed as a drive by, unknown suspect. Not my jurisdiction, not my case.

I have requested investigative assistance in the past, wanting warrants, only to have the detectives go straight to the consent to search route. I get it. It is more work for arguably the most overworked division in the department. Consent is the easy button. This trend seems to be slowly reversing. My supervision is getting a little peeved with me, because now when I want a search warrant, I write one, get it signed, and serve it. I am on patrol, and it is good for my rookies to see that they don't have to be detectives to write warrants.

I suspect you are right. The detectives asked for the phone. Legal counsel told Baldwin that if they really wanted it they would have gotten a warrant. Baldwin blew them off. Detectives realized they weren't getting the phone and got a warrant. Baldwin was on TV the other day claiming that he was cooperating fully. I am sure that it was after he was told the Sheriff was going to ask for jail time on contempt. This is all speculation, based on my experience.

I would have thought that with a non resident of the state that the detectives would have scheduled a brief follow up interview and had the warrant waiting. Ask for the phone. If you get it, great. Receipt and return of service. If the suspect/witness doesn't want to give it up they won't be leaving the room with it. Then a warrant for the contents. It kinda hurts the whole friendly rapport, but evidence is evidence.You want it/need it or you don't. You can also look sheepish, and explain that it is simply a formality, a procedure to make sure that everyone's rights are preserved. And in today's world, especially with a high profile case, why not dot all the i's, cross all the t's, and do the extra work?

pat

[Coyotesfan97]

It’s a lot easier to defend a search warrant in a suppression hearing then it is to defend consent. If you’ve got an experienced Detective it’s usually 90 minutes to crank out a warrant. Our Detectives were writing warrants almost exclusively.

[UNM1136]

It’s a lot easier to defend a search warrant in a suppression hearing then it is to defend consent. If you’ve got an experienced Detective it’s usually 90 minutes to crank out a warrant. Our Detectives were writing warrants almost exclusively.

I agree. I don't understand the consent searches when the warrant will be cleaner, clearer, and less likely to get suppressed. But I am not a detective, so maybe I am not smart enough...

pat

[Coyotesfan97]

I agree. I don't understand the consent searches when the warrant will be cleaner, clearer, and less likely to get suppressed. But I am not a detective, so maybe I am not smart enough...

pat

Before warrants became standard for us I’d see the same thing. Let’s push that consent search!

[TC215]

I agree. I don't understand the consent searches when the warrant will be cleaner, clearer, and less likely to get suppressed. But I am not a detective, so maybe I am not smart enough...

pat

As a detective/agent, yes, just get the search warrant.

When I worked interstate interdiction, I used consent all the time. Some of many biggest seizures were on consent searches, and I’ve never had one suppressed. Consent must be documented appropriately, recorded whenever able, and be done the correct way in accordance with case law. We went for a stretch where we’d rarely have a K9 available, and it became very important to be able to talk to people the right way.

[TGS]

As a detective/agent, yes, just get the search warrant.

When I worked interstate interdiction, I used consent all the time. Some of many biggest seizures were on consent searches, and I’ve never had one suppressed. Consent must be documented appropriately, recorded whenever able, and be done the correct way in accordance with case law. We went for a stretch where we’d rarely have a K9 available, and it became very important to be able to talk to people the right way.

Different courts, different norms.

My current assignment with a national mandate has shown me that, big time. Stuff we do routinely in one federal district got me an audible gasp and "You want to do WHAT?!" from an AUSA in another district a thousand miles away.