Two officers (Callahan and Bressler) have taken out a search warrant for the residence of Mr. Robinson. On their way to the to Robinson's house they realize that the address on the warrant for the property to be searched reads: 144 Brown St Apt. 420. Callahan and Bressler know Mr. Robinson well and know that his address is really 144 Brown St. Apt. 240. The two officers decide that they are tired of dealing with judges and decide to just serve the warrant on Mr. Robinson's residence without going back to the judge's office and having the address corrected on the search warrant.
The two crime fighters go to Mr. Robinson's true address and serve the search warrant and find a lot of good evidence to ensure that the villain is locked up for a long time.
Did the two officers make a mistake by not going back and correcting the address on the warrant? Why?
2007-07-29 18:54:37 · 15 answers · asked by El Scott 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The address mix up was a typo. The two officer's intended to and did serve the warrant on the residence of their suspect. The address was incorrectly typed on the warrant.
2007-07-29 19:04:04 · update #1
This is a scenario based on a true story I was not involved in.
2007-07-29 19:05:01 · update #2
I suspect the warrant is valid. They knew the correct address. I would think that in their probable cause statement, to support the warrant, the address was right.
I don't think the typo invalidates the warrant.
2007-07-29 19:07:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
1
2016-06-12 07:20:34 · answer #2 · answered by Gregory 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2
2016-12-24 23:37:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to case law, from most of the states and federal in the country, the failure of the warrant to specify the correct address renders it invalid for the search as conducted.
The proper procedure would be to call the judge and ask for a verbal authorization to correct the typo. Failure to do so, when the officers know the warrant does not identify the proper residence, negates any exemption for good faith that might otherwise apply for a typo.
2007-07-29 19:20:27 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Get a No Cost Background Check Scan at https://bitly.im/aNTEe
Its a sensible way to start. The site allows you to do a no cost scan simply to find out if any sort of data is in existence. A smaller analysis is done without cost. To get a detailed report its a modest payment.
You may not realize how many good reasons there are to try and find out more about the people around you. After all, whether you're talking about new friends, employees, doctors, caretakers for elderly family members, or even significant others, you, as a citizen, have a right to know whether the people you surround yourself with are who they say they are. This goes double in any situation that involves your children, which not only includes teachers and babysitters, but also scout masters, little league coaches and others. Bottom line, if you want to find out more about someone, you should perform a background check.
2016-05-20 02:09:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It could go either way. they should atleast called the judge and ask the judge to let them ammend the warran by drawin a line through it and initialing it then put the correct apt #. howerever in be articulated under good faith. if the warrant is for the residence for the two individuals and they serch the actual residence of the two individuals, then it could be articulated under good faith doctrine because they searched the residence under good faith. owever they had prior knowledge that the apt # was wrong. and usually the officers are the ones that type warrants. so it could go either way
2007-07-30 09:20:00 · answer #6 · answered by marionso14 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Considering the state of judges in this country, the case is probably poisoned by the error. They could have claimed a good faith but you say the one officer realized the mistake and didn't correct it. My guess is that the evidence is invalid as was the search. So are you one of the officers or Mr. Brown?
2007-07-29 19:00:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. Typographical errors are commonplace and can be easily defended in court. However, if the officers were smart, they would have covered their butts and returned to the judge or at a minimum called the judge and informed the judge of the situation. The officers do not necessarily need to have the warrant "in hand" when serving. As long as the warrant is on record.
2007-07-29 19:07:32 · answer #8 · answered by Coach 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, they made a Mistake, they HAVE TO Adide by what is in the Warrent ONLY. They should have gone back to the Judge! Anything they might find in the TRUE residence is no longer admisable as evidence in a court of law. It was illegaly obtained! UIt may be a glitch in the Law, but as the cops say the Law is the Law!
2007-07-29 19:03:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In general, if the officers are unaware of the administrative error on the warrant, any evidence they discover will not be excluded. If they knew the warrant was defective and proceeded anyway, the evidence is out!
2007-07-29 19:25:41 · answer #10 · answered by Michael O 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The answer is in the Bill of Right.... "particularly describing the ......"
The description is wrong, hence the warrant invalid. There is NO EXCUSE for being LAZY!!! If the Officers realized the address was wrong then they should have had it corrected.
2007-07-29 23:15:21 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋