& go to house to further investigate call. While talking to tenant, they ask if they can search backporch deck, yard, shed, etc. for items "commonly blah, blah, blah".
After 8 officers searched the a bag of trash, shed, etc. for apprx. 45 minutes, & found nothing even close to what they were there for, asked if they could search INSIDE the home. Never once had they said the caller mentioned activity INSIDE, just outside.
They were denied so they used "strong chemical/odor coming from s. side of home" for probable cause to obtain warrant.
They did obtain warrant & found nothing @ all to do w/ their probable cause for warrant.
Would that be illegal search & seizure etc.?
Officers never informed tenant of "such a smell" or was it stated in warrant.
Renter was informed of this "smell" only through the local newspapers article 2 days after search.
NO CRITICISM PLEASE! SERIOUS ANSWERS OR ADVICE PLEASE!
2007-09-02 18:19:34 · 15 answers · asked by avatar 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
"They did obtain warrant "
so, No
.
2007-09-02 18:23:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It sounds like the officers went through the proper channels to search. You stated that the obtained a warrant, which requires the authorization of a judge, so they are covered. The burden falls on the judge for any criticism if a warrant is issued.
2007-09-02 18:25:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the warrant was good, then no, but it is possible that they manufactured information to get the warrant. Don't beleive them just because they say they had a warrant. You should always ask to see it.
I bet they acted like assholes about it when they didn't find anything. What it is, is when cops are wrong, they get embarassed and instead of apolologizing like they should, they start acting like assholes. You are lucky they didn't frame you up.
Cops like to really punish people for not bending over and letting them search their house.
The cop mentality is that if you didn't have anything to hide, you wouldn't mind letting them in your house. It is disturbing that cops abuse their power so badly. What the problem is, in my opinion, is that most police are extremely poorly educated. I think that before people can become police, they should have to get a college education.
An anonymous tip is not probable cause. It has to be from a source that is credible in that they can "provide corroborating details." At least that's what the US Supreme Court says on the subject. Further, the police usually secure the area to make sure nothing is removed from the house when they go get a warrant under these circumstances. So, they were just wrong. Plain and simple. I am talking to you, Jean C. Like I said, lack of education and too much power.
2007-09-02 18:43:01 · answer #3 · answered by the hump 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
An anonymous tip and a strong chemical odor are both probable cause.
If they had a warrant, it was not an illegal search just because they did not find anything.
Who knows what could have been removed while the police were getting the warrant?
2007-09-02 18:44:01 · answer #4 · answered by oldsalt 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm not positive but yeah, I'm pretty sure that it would be considered an illigal search. I got pulled over one night and my passenger had 7 grams and in the trunk there was filters, a gas mask, and pills, and when they charged me with 'operating, maintaining lab. involving meth' I freaked out. Come to find out, in the arresting officers statement, he said he pulled me over because he had reason to believe that the car was assosiated w/ someone. So since I didnt break any laws he violated my 4th amendment. It was an illigal traffic stop. When they searched it was an illigal search n seizure. Everything found in my car, on my passenger, or on me cannot be used against me as evidence in court, so they don't have a case anymore. You didnt say whether or not the police charged u guys or took anything, but if they did, get yourself a lawyer and fight that ****. If Indiana is anything like Michigan there will be so many differant holes in the case that they'll toss it. All the laws involving manufacturing meth or anything other than possessing it are all so new that police don't know how to handle themselves when they encounter it. I wouldn't worry too much.
2007-09-02 22:42:01 · answer #5 · answered by kelly_michelle2007 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think you are too caught up in materialism and need to recheck your priorities in life. Image is nothing, substance is everything. Who cares if something needs a makeover. If it works, why waste the money to change it. But if you really want an answer as to what needs a makeover, I would suggest most Americans idea of reality needs a makeover. Maybe stop looking at all the garbage out there that we think we need, and start looking at ways to improve our society.
2016-05-19 23:22:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They can ""smell"" anything real or not that creates the probable cause. this is done all the time.
They can even call the fire dept for smelling smoke and suspecting a fire in the house . you cannot Deny the fire fighters access for the emergency situation. and they can do a search for the fire without a warrant
2007-09-02 18:29:28 · answer #7 · answered by Robert F 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Many places have corrupt law enforcement. I live in Illinois, and I was stopped by 3 (count them 3!) patrol cars full of officers because I had insulin needles in my vehicle! I am an insulin dependent diabetic. I carry prescriptions. I was 11/2 miles from my home. Go figure! and they can get by with anything!
2007-09-02 18:43:20 · answer #8 · answered by gerlawgoody1 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No... they were able to get a warrant so it was lawful. You should be glad it was cleared up and nothing was found although I am sure it was very inconvenient.
2007-09-02 18:24:42 · answer #9 · answered by Me 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that would be wrongful search and seizure. You might want to sue the police department.
2007-09-02 18:27:01 · answer #10 · answered by fuzz 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Go get the best lawyer you can't afford. That's my advice. It could save your ***
2007-09-02 18:27:07 · answer #11 · answered by sofacue 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋