|
|
| Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! (521738) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Nov 23 12:18:31 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 11:53:27 2007. This is taken from NOLO.com with respect to what circumstances the police can conduct searches without warrants:Consent searches. If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you agree, the search is considered consensual, and they don't need a warrant. The police typically obtain a person's consent by threatening to detain her while they obtain the warrant. Searches that accompany an arrest. When a person is placed under arrest, the police may search the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer. If the person is taken to jail, the police may search to make sure that weapons or contraband are not brought into the jail. (This is called an inventory search.) Inventory searches also frequently involve a search of the arrested person's car (if it is being held by the police) and personal effects on the theory that the police need a precise record of the person's property to avoid claims of theft. Searches necessary to protect the safety of the public. The police don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. For example, an officer who suspected a bomb-making operation while walking his beat might be justified in entering immediately and seizing the ingredients. And in the famous O.J. Simpson case, the police justified their entry onto O.J. Simpson's property on the grounds that they feared for the safety of other family members. Searches necessary to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. A police officer does not need to obtain a warrant if she has observed illegal items (such as weapons or contraband) and believes that the items will disappear unless the officer takes prompt action. This exception arises most frequently when the police spot contraband or weapons in a car. Because cars are moved so frequently, the officer is justified in searching the entire vehicle, including the trunk, without obtaining a warrant. On the other hand, if the police learn about a marijuana-growing operation from a neighbor, they usually would need a warrant, as it is unlikely that the growing plants and other evidence of the operation will disappear quickly enough to justify a warrantless search. "Hot pursuit" searches. Police may enter private dwellings to search for criminals who are fleeing the scene of a crime. Unless consent is given, which in this case it appears NOT to have been the CONTENTS of a memory card do not fall under these categories. Therefore while the police may have been within their rights to determine that a camera existed they did not have the right to search its CONTENTS without a warrant. First of all - The contents of a memory card do not in any way pose an imminent threat to the public or to the officers. Secondly - the suspect was NOT under arrest. A bag search falls under the consent rule - again - they search the contents of the bag for weapons or contraband but cannot search the contents of memory cards, CD's, USB drives or anything similar they find inside. Regardless of whether the search was legal or not - deleting the photos was clearly ILLEGAL and INEXCUSABLE! The cops have no defense there - it was as if they searched the bag and decided to burn the money they found inside. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|