Fruit of the forbidden tree? Peoria, IL judge says no.

[JonathanE]

From:





As far as i understand, a cursory glance of the closet (or any area large enough for a human to hide) to ensure that no threats are present within the home is justifiable.

I am not quite sure what your response means. Let me explain something this way. IF I have a search warrant where one of the things which I am possibly looking for is a thumb drive for a computer, I can look in any item where a flash drive could possibly be hidden. Could a flash drive be hidden in a box of Cheerios? Of course. Because it would not be logical to hide a flash drive in a box of cereal doesn't matter. As long as I can say, it is possible to hide something which I was looking for in there then I can search that item. Now if I am say looking for a jack hammer, I can't look inside a book bag style backpack because a jack hammer would not fit inside there. That is one reason why when searching for guns officers often include ammo because it means that ammo means you can look into smaller containers.

I hope that explains it better.

[Seventy2002]

One of my British acquaintances says "Never believe anything written in the Guardian." Another adds that is is sometimes referred to as the "Grauniad" because of its frequent typographical errors.

The US stories I read refer only to a "raid" - journalese for "serving a search warrant" - with no mention of SWAT.

As usual in these cases, no one seems to be asking the judge why he signed the warrants.

[Monty Ealerman]

The only way I see pot boy winning is if they can get the original search warrant ruled as bogus. Even then, if the officers executed in good faith, and the original affidavit was presented in good faith, it is still an uphill battle. Being Illinois though, who knows. (I am from there, I know how that wind blows from time to time).

In my opinion the best defense argument would be that the warrant was wrongfully granted in that it sought evidence to establish facts which even if stipulated to would not establish anything unlawful. Furthermore it could legitimately be alleged that undue influence was brought in the matter by an offended party holding public office. A motion for a change of venue for the hearing on the motion to suppress might be in order.

[kermit315]

The only way I see pot boy winning is if they can get the original search warrant ruled as bogus. Even then, if the officers executed in good faith, and the original affidavit was presented in good faith, it is still an uphill battle. Being Illinois though, who knows. (I am from there, I know how that wind blows from time to time).

[Monty Ealerman]

As far as i understand, a cursory glance of the closet (or any area large enough for a human to hide) to ensure that no threats are present within the home is justifiable.

If we're legitimately warrantedly searching for data media we can look anywhere down to the size of a few mm³.

[Monty Ealerman]

We can only hope it continues and at some point they raid Montys basement fortress

It's not a fortress -- its main significant content consists of a collection of somewhere around 15,000 books -- probably of interest mostly to literate people.

[Carbonfiberfoot]

Why are you so sure of that? Set aside the whole Twitter charges for a minute. What you have is a valid search warrant signed by a judge. That means that a judge read over the warrant and signed it saying the police had probable cause to search for items relating to the twitter account which I think involved flash drives and such. If the police find other evidence of illegal activity while searching for items spelled out in a search warrant you are almost always good to go.

The defense will have to argue that law enforcement was searching outside the scope of the warrant. That may sound easy but items like flash drives and such can be hidden in small places.

Now I do not have an opinion on whether the police should have been involved or not. But they executed a valid search warrant and found illegal drugs.

From:

This article has quite a bit more information that the first article.
Judge: Police had probable cause to conduct Twitter raid
http://www.pjstar.com/article/201409...06363720928348

...But Circuit Judge Thomas Keith also held police should have searched only for evidence of “false personation” and not drugs or other things when they went to 1220 N. University St. on April 15 and allegedly found marijuana linked to Jacob Elliott, 36. He has been charged with felony marijuana possession.

Peoria police officers will testify Oct. 8 to explain why they looked under Elliott’s pillow and in a closet in his room, where police said they found the drugs in a gift bag.

Keith’s ruling means police had to reasonably think they would find items related to the parody Twitter account such as phones, flash drives, computers or similar things in Elliott’s bed or closet...

As far as i understand, a cursory glance of the closet (or any area large enough for a human to hide) to ensure that no threats are present within the home is justifiable.

[JonathanE]

Yeah, I don't see how he'd lose the appeal.

Why are you so sure of that? Set aside the whole Twitter charges for a minute. What you have is a valid search warrant signed by a judge. That means that a judge read over the warrant and signed it saying the police had probable cause to search for items relating to the twitter account which I think involved flash drives and such. If the police find other evidence of illegal activity while searching for items spelled out in a search warrant you are almost always good to go.

The defense will have to argue that law enforcement was searching outside the scope of the warrant. That may sound easy but items like flash drives and such can be hidden in small places.

Now I do not have an opinion on whether the police should have been involved or not. But they executed a valid search warrant and found illegal drugs.

[jdthor]

We can only hope it continues and at some point they raid Montys basement fortress

[Pogue Mahone]

Man I am a felon. I confess right here. I have setup a Facebook page for my Cat. Glad I'm not from Texas or I might get arrested....

You're fine as long as your cat doesn't send out any game requests...

[So Fla Cop]

Man I am a felon. I confess right here. I have setup a Facebook page for my Cat. Glad I'm not from Texas or I might get arrested....

The fully armed Swat team is flying in as we type..... check for the black helicopters NOW !!!!!

[btfp]

Man I am a felon. I confess right here. I have setup a Facebook page for my Cat. Glad I'm not from Texas or I might get arrested....

[Carbonfiberfoot]

Since when does a SWAT team consist of four members? Better yet, what is "fully armed"? Is that sort of like half ***ed? Maybe a different kind of entry team? What is a "forbidden tree"?

But the whole thing is still silly.

Yeah... I believe the correct legal term is actually fruit of the poisonous tree. I be dumb sumtimes and forgetted stuffs.

[So Fla Cop]

Since when does a SWAT team consist of four members? Better yet, what is "fully armed"? Is that sort of like half ***ed? Maybe a different kind of entry team? What is a "forbidden tree"?

But the whole thing is still silly.

[Carbonfiberfoot]

That's not an entirely true statement... In Texas it is against the law to pass ones self off as another on a social media site, and is actually a Third Degree Felony.

"(2) with the intent to cause a recipient of the communication to reasonably believe that the other person authorized or transmitted the communication; and
(3) with the intent to harm or defraud any person."

It looks like the TX code exempts satire as well. The higher courts have been pretty clear in regards to parody\satire and fair use.