The Supreme Court will decide whether police can follow and detain a
suspect while they wait for a search warrant, even after the suspect
leaves the area that the police want to search.
The high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from Chunon Bailey,
who was sentenced to 30 years in prison on drug and weapons charges, to
resolve a split between the federal circuit courts of appeal.
Bailey left a building with an apartment that police wanted to search
for a gun before the warrant arrived. An unmarked police car followed
Bailey for more than a mile, and police detained him and brought him
back to the building. The warrant arrived, police found drugs and
weapons and arrested Bailey, who had an apartment key in his pocket.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
12 comments:
I predict that the SCOTUS will find for the police in this instance for a few reasons. Probable cause existed as evidenced by the signed warrant based upon probable cause obtained prior to the detention of the defendant. The warrant was being applied for or was enroute to the scene at the time the detention was initiated. The defendant entered upon the premises to be searched, entered the house and left - perhaps taking evidence with him. This is a perfect example of exigent circumstances. Probable cause existed, and the defendant may have destroyed or removed evidence prior to the arrival of a warrant. Exigent circumstances are an exception to the warrant requirement - but one was on it's way anyway. Righteous bust. But it's whatever.
9:05 is definitely a cop, and probably believes they are above the law and never wrong. If the Supreme Court allows this to pass, regardless of the crime, there's no stopping law enforcement There has to be boundaries for those that enforce the law, just like there are boundaries that everyone else must cross to be considered breaking them. Trust and believe, those establishments don't exist for the sole purpose of the community's protection, it is a business just like everything else, and a huge money making business at that.
What did the warrant say was to be searched? The apartment only or inhabitants as well?
Since he left before the cops got there and begun the search, I would guess he could not be searched since he was not at the address that was to be searched.
Now if they were waiting for an arrest warrant to be brought to them, maybe they could follow him and ARREST him when they obtained warrant to do so and searched him incident to arrest.
Sounds fishy to me. That happens a lot when low level police are left to themselves to interpret the law and rules of procedure to themselves.
Cops certainly take it upon themselves to take liberties and play fast and loose with laws and interpretation thereof.
Simply said, they do what they want, sometimes in good faith and sometimes not. Neither instance guarantees it is legal.
That is what we have courts for. The proper judges rule what is legal or not legal.
A cop can say anything, even lies but that certainly does not make it legal.
Hence, that is where it is our constitutional DUTY to ignore and resist, with force if necessary, such unlawful orders.
But you better be correct when you exercise that RIGHT or else you will be in more trouble.
Cops are the enforcment arm of the law, not the judicial arm.
11:36 is definately a moron
STFU all of you, you are morons... It does not matter if the warrant was in route or not, it wasn't there at the time, and they brought the subject back to the premise and then searched him, that's illegal period...
That's what happened in OC... they wanted to search his car, they couldn't get a warrant or a drug dog to sniff around the car, let him go and then went back for him after the cop with dog came... which were hours later... That's illegal and was tossed out... here to should be the same...
If this isn't then whats stopping police from doing this every time? who will make sure they are not forging the warrant to have a time and date set up to do what happened in the post? they can't search something that's not yours or where your not at period...
8:07....it would appear that YOU are the moron. The circumstances you use as a comparison from O.C. are materially different. The Maryland Appellate Courts recently decided on a cases materially similar to this......and they ruled on behalf of the police. Williamson v. State, Brown v. State, Fromm v. State......so STFU!! But it's whatever.
9:05 is not a cop. Too literate.
6:03 obviously is.
11:36 /3:21 spot on.
9:14....roflmao......whatever
COPS DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WANYWAY I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS ON THIS SITE FOREVER. The courts can rule what they want. COPS find a way to break the law in their advatntage every single time.
11:36 here and proud to be a moron. At least I can think for myself and apparently there are others out there that feel the same way I do. 9:05/6:03/9:02/9:26 please tell me when was the last time you did something out of mere concern for your fellow man and to not meet a quota or hear yourself talk? That badge you carry doesn't necessarily make you a good, upstanding human being. In fact, judging by your comments, you're very ugly and a boisterous joke.
You tell people to STFU and I'M the ugly boisterous one? No. The fact is you speak of which you do not know. The law is what it is. The officers must work within those laws. I know that you may not agree with these laws and for what it's worth - there are many I don't agree with. The last time I did something for someone else, I performed CPR on a perfect stranger in an attempt to bring them back to life. Unfortunately I couldn't interfere with the good Lord's plan. The uniform never makes the man, the man makes the uniform. There are many who never make the uniform anymore than just an outer garment. The type of person I am...or what you perceive me to be has nothing to do with the etremely limited knowledge of the law you express. Sorry you feel the way you do.
5:56 I'm not the one that told you to STFU 8:07 did, but my point still got proven.
Post a Comment