- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Live PD Thread- A&E
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:28 pm to LSUsmartass
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:28 pm to LSUsmartass
True. So upset I missed the St. Tam Mardi Gras episodes 
0
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:29 pm to BamaChick
quote:
without getting in trouble for your bullshite.
Needs his arse beat for all the people he framed.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:30 pm to UpToPar
quote:Not my problem. Their problem.
There's your problem.
They freely consented.
What's hard to understand about that?
I asked for consent to search for contraband. Sometimes I found contraband.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:32 pm to MrLarson
quote:Framed?!
Needs his arse beat for all the people he framed.
That's a stretch. Again, I asked to search for contraband. Very often, contraband was found (stolen weapons, drugs, whatever). Hardly a frame.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:32 pm to bconne1
quote:
I asked for consent to search for contraband. Sometimes I found contraband
Troll arse frick
You are obviously setting up a strawman to take this in another direction.
#BLM
This post was edited on 3/25/17 at 11:34 pm
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:33 pm to bconne1
You can keep lying to yourself, but a lawyer would've torn you apart on the stand for what you're saying. They consented to a search for "stolen gems" when no such thing ever existed. They agreed to a search under false pretenses, making your search invalid.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:33 pm to MrLarson
quote:Cue the ad hominem tactics.
Troll arse frick
You're better than this. Don't be that person.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:38 pm to Ingeniero
quote:It was challenged, as I said. At least twice. Motions were filed but I was never subpoenaed for them (we were rarely subpoenaed for any motions, honestly). To think that a bunch of folks from a message board have a better grasp of law than multiple judges, city attorneys and defense lawyers is a little ridiculous, no?
You can keep lying to yourself, but a lawyer would've torn you apart on the stand for what you're saying. They consented to a search for "stolen gems" when no such thing ever existed. They agreed to a search under false pretenses, making your search invalid.
Think about what you're positing -
Defense: Your honor, we'd like to file a motion to have the results of the search excluded from the case.
Judge: On what grounds?
Defense: Here's this SCOTUS ruling I Googled.
Judge: Mmmmmmm...nah. Motion denied.
Come on people. Really?
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:38 pm to bconne1
Damn a Pimp and a bunch of prostitutes
This post was edited on 3/25/17 at 11:39 pm
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:40 pm to bconne1
quote:
Not my problem. Their problem.
It's your problem if it wasn't given freely, and courts have found that when a cop lies about what he is searching for the consent isn't freely given.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:41 pm to bconne1
From People v. Reeves (1964) 61 Cal.2nd 268 -
quote:
It is well settled by both federal and state decisions that "an entry obtained by trickery, stealth or subterfuge renders a search and seizure invalid" (People v. Roberts, 47 Cal.2d 374, 378 [303 P.2d 721]; to the same effect see People v. Albert, 182 Cal.App.2d 729, 737 [6 Cal.Rptr. 473]; Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 305 [41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, 651]; Fraternal Order of Eagles, No. 778 v. United States, 57 F.2d 93).
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:42 pm to BamaChick
good googlingPosted on 3/25/17 at 11:43 pm to UpToPar
quote:Again, it was not a means of gathering innocuous items to build a case. I asked to search for stolen loose gemstones (contraband) and, on occasion, found contraband.
It's your problem if it wasn't given freely, and courts have found that when a cop lies about what he is searching for the consent isn't freely given.
In the case previously citied police asked to search for drugs and seized legal documents. Way different scenario.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:43 pm to bconne1
quote:
It was challenged, as I said. At least twice. Motions were filed but I was never subpoenaed for them (we were rarely subpoenaed for any motions, honestly).
And you've still yet to cite a single case stating that lying to gain consent is valid.
quote:
Think about what you're positing -
Defense: Your honor, we'd like to file a motion to have the results of the search excluded from the case.
Judge: On what grounds?
Defense: Here's this SCOTUS ruling I Googled.
Judge: Mmmmmmm...nah. Motion denied.
Come on people. Really?
Actually, that's not that far off from how it would go, except for the motion denied part.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:50 pm to BamaChick
quote:You should read the facts of that case.
From People v. Reeves (1964) 61 Cal.2nd 268 -
From the onset an illegal search of person's body was conducted. Then the investigators cited some plain-view bullshite to gain entry into a hotel room when no consent was given.
"Martin testified that, when he saw the "roach," he and the other officers entered the room without the permission of Reeves"
In fact, the word "consent" doesn't even appear once in the ruling I read.
This case nothing to do with consent, and everything to do unlawful entry. Those are two different animals.
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:51 pm to UpToPar
at these drunk fools giving shout outs while they are getting arrested. "Hey Keisha! I'll be home soon baby!"
Posted on 3/25/17 at 11:56 pm to bconne1
quote:
In the case previously citied police asked to search for drugs and seized legal documents. Way different scenario.
Show me where the court limited its opinion to only situations where the cops lied about looking for illegal items and found "legal" items.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 12:11 am to UpToPar
quote:Try US v. Davis? Police ask to look for a "machine gun." Davis says "sure, come look for a machine gun." No machine guns were found, but other guns were. Davis, a convicted felon, was found to be in possession of contraband beyond what agents asked to look for. A district court suppressed the evidence, a US court reversed it.
And you've still yet to cite a single case stating that lying to gain consent is valid.
quote:So then your position is that no one - in 60 years - has read this decision outside of this thread? Even with a dim bulb defense attorney, a simple Google search should have brought this to light in courts across the nation.
Actually, that's not that far off from how it would go, except for the motion denied part.
I think it's a bit egotistical to think this is some secret only cracked by OT Lounge users. It's more reasonable to think people with juris doctorates and immeasurable time spent poring over the law would have a firmer grasp on such things, no?
ETA: US v. Andrews is another case where it was argued that consent was unlawful due to deception on the agent's behalf. Unlike Davis, the lower court denied the motion to suppress and the higher court affirmed it.
Look, this is beating a dead horse. Deception is legal, lawful, and it happens every day. There's no way around it and there's no arguing it. Certainly, positively, most assuredly prosecutors would stop filing those charges that they would know to be based on unlawful behavior.
This post was edited on 3/26/17 at 12:17 am
Posted on 3/26/17 at 12:26 am to bconne1
quote:
Try US v. Davis? Police ask to look for a "machine gun." Davis says "sure, come look for a machine gun." No machine guns were found, but other guns were. Davis, a convicted felon, was found to be in possession of contraband beyond what agents asked to look for. A district court suppressed the evidence, a US court reversed it.
Nobody here thinks that if cops find something outside of what they are looking for that the evidence is inadmissible. Once you receive voluntary consent given without coercion anything found during the search will be admissible. Did the cops lie about the machine gun or were they really looking for a machine gun?
quote:
I think it's a bit egotistical to think this is some secret only cracked by OT Lounge users. It's more reasonable to think people with juris doctorates and immeasurable time spent poring over the law would have a firmer grasp on such things, no?
Several posters have quoted cases stating that consent obtained based on a lie is not freely given. You've unsuccessfully tried to distinguish your situation. Also, did it ever occur that some on here may have juris doctorates?
quote:
US v. Andrews is another case where it was argued that consent was unlawful due to deception on the agent's behalf.
you're going to have to be more descriptive than "US v Andrews." You know how many different cases are named US v Andrews? How did the agent deceive the defendant to obtain consent? Did he lie about the object of the search? Posted on 3/26/17 at 1:06 am to UpToPar
quote:I think it was hearsay. Just the rawest of the belief that one may be there. In fact, one was never located. A bunch of other stuff was, though.
Did the cops lie about the machine gun or were they really looking for a machine gun?
My apologies. I'm about 15 minutes in on an Ambien and cocktail. Try Davis. There's your Davis.
Andrews. Say hello to Mr. Andrews.
Our decision is a narrow one. We hold under the facts of this case, that the government carried its burden in establishing that any taint which may have occurred through any misrepresentation by Dwight does not rise to the level sufficient to overturn this conviction.
The decision of the district court denying the motion to suppress is
AFFIRMED.
"The mere failure of the officers to give an encyclopedic catalogue of everything they might be interested in does "not alone render the consent to search involuntary." In United States v. Andrews, 746 F.2d 247 (5th Cir. 1984)
I'm a mess at this point.lol.
I do respect each and everyone of you. Sorry what started as a funny anecdote triggered so many people. I look forward to debating with you all more in the future. There is truly nothing like the swarm of humanity that exists when blood is in the internet forum water. I thought that it may allow some insight into the tactics you may not see and that you may share with others.
Enjoy your night. I will restrict any future LIVE PD comments to big titties, ol' baws, not driving in your own vehicle and other uncouth mumblings.
Good evening, all.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News