|
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1687168
Bryant's lawyers argued that evidence collected during a search of
Bryant's hotel room should be thrown out because investigators did not
tell him they had a warrant.
The defense said the T-shirt should not have been taken as evidence
because Bryant was wearing it during the search, and the warrant
authorized them to take only items from the room, not his person.
Bryant's lawyers also argued the search was invalid because it was
conducted after dark, but the warrant called for it to be done in
daylight.
The warrant was issued on the basis of "reasonable suspicion," a less
stringent standard than "probable cause," and under Colorado law could
be done only in daylight hours. A probable cause search can be done
any time.
"Cops are allowed to be tricky, but this may have crossed the line,"
said Denver defense lawyer Craig Silverman, a former prosecutor who
recalled rushing to beat sundown to execute searches.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1687168
Bryant's lawyers argued that evidence collected during a search of
Bryant's hotel room should be thrown out because investigators did not
tell him they had a warrant.
They are required to present the warrant. Toss it out.
The defense said the T-shirt should not have been taken as evidence
because Bryant was wearing it during the search, and the warrant
authorized them to take only items from the room, not his person.
They searched his body without a warrant. Toss it out.
Bryant's lawyers also argued the search was invalid because it was
conducted after dark, but the warrant called for it to be done in
daylight.
They lied to the judge and did not have a valid warrant when they
searched. Toss it out.
The warrant was issued on the basis of "reasonable suspicion," a less
stringent standard than "probable cause," and under Colorado law could
be done only in daylight hours. A probable cause search can be done
any time.
A warrant for their search could not be issued under Colorado Law. They
conducted a blatantly illegal search. Toss it out, and prosecute the
deputies for assault and trespass. Knowing they had no legal warrant
that's exactly what they did. They ought to be prosecuted.
"Cops are allowed to be tricky, but this may have crossed the line,"
said Denver defense lawyer Craig Silverman, a former prosecutor who
recalled rushing to beat sundown to execute searches.
Sounds like total disregard for the constitutional rights of the
accused. It looks like the racist sheriff and deputies are completely
used to ignoring a suspects rights, becasue most suspects don't have
money for an adequate legal defense. They violated virtually every
stipulation on their search warrant in their zealous haste to "get the
nigger." It all ought to be tossed in the can, and the case dismissed.
The deputies who knew or should have known they had no legal warrant
ought to be prosecuted for assault, trespassing, and violating his civil
rights.
Bob
|
| |
| |
In article <3FDFA167.50005@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
s_knight8 wrote:
They are required to present the warrant. Toss it out.
They searched his body without a warrant. Toss it out.
They lied to the judge and did not have a valid warrant when they
searched. Toss it out.
A warrant for their search could not be issued under Colorado Law. They
conducted a blatantly illegal search. Toss it out, and prosecute the
deputies for assault and trespass. Knowing they had no legal warrant
that's exactly what they did. They ought to be prosecuted.
Sounds like total disregard for the constitutional rights of the
accused. It looks like the racist sheriff and deputies are completely
used to ignoring a suspects rights, becasue most suspects don't have
money for an adequate legal defense. They violated virtually every
stipulation on their search warrant in their zealous haste to "get the
nigger." It all ought to be tossed in the can, and the case dismissed.
The deputies who knew or should have known they had no legal warrant
ought to be prosecuted for assault, trespassing, and violating his civil
rights.
Bob
I'd take this a lot more seriously if it wasn't coming from a guy who
thinks killing feminists isn't murder.
|
| |
| |
The deputies who knew or should have known they had no legal warrant
ought to be prosecuted for assault, trespassing, and violating his civil
rights.
I love how you make points about how all the evidence should be tossed out,
instead of actually worrying whether or not Kobe is guilty. I guess when
you score 25 a game those things don't matter...?
|
| |
| |
I love how you make points about how all the evidence should be tossed
out,
instead of actually worrying whether or not Kobe is guilty. I guess when
you score 25 a game those things don't matter...?
Why would you think that? Maybe they DO matter, but perhaps the evidence has
just been talked about, examined, and re-examined time after time. It seems
to me the poster was making an observation and comment.
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
I'd take this a lot more seriously if it wasn't coming from a guy who
thinks killing feminists isn't murder.
If feminists don't like the war on men, they ought not to have started it.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Bob
|
| |
| |
QuiGon wrote:
I love how you make points about how all the evidence should be tossed out,
instead of actually worrying whether or not Kobe is guilty. I guess when
you score 25 a game those things don't matter...?
I love how you men hating #@&@
es don't ever worry about documented
assault and civil rights violation of a man.
Women=victim, men=villain. The bigot brained femroids know only one
chant.
Bob
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:20:55 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
s_knight8 wrote:
They are required to present the warrant. Toss it out.
The answer to every irregularity in a search is not to throw out the
evidence. Bryant would not have had the opportunity to do anything
different if he had been told about the warrant.
They searched his body without a warrant. Toss it out.
Maybe.
They lied to the judge and did not have a valid warrant when they
searched. Toss it out.
What was the lie to the judge? The problem here is really that the
standard for getting a daytime search warrant in CO is lower than that
for getting a night time warrant and the police only offered evidence
supporting a daytime warrant. The question is whether searching at
night was constitutional. If it was constitutional, but illegal under
CO law, the result might be to punish the police but not to exclude
the evidence.
Of course I though all search warrants had to issue on probable cause,
so I'm a little baffled by this point of law.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
The question is whether searching at
night was constitutional. If it was constitutional, but illegal under
CO law, the result might be to punish the police but not to exclude
the evidence.
Punish them how? I don't see how you could meaningfully punish them.
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
Punish them how? I don't see how you could meaningfully punish them.
You punish them be excluding the "evidence". BTW what is "reasonable
suspicion", is there something called unreasonable suspicion? LOL It's
SUSPICION pure and simple and is not justification for a search warrant.
The standard for probable cause is a joke but suspicion? The only thing I
could come up with (and I'm probably wrong) is that in the western states
where there were a lot of cattle ranches there was also "rustling". Perhaps
the reason for a daylight warrant based on suspicion was to allow the police
to enter a person's property during daylight when they could see clearly and
see if a rancher had any cattle that were not his. So in effect it's not
really a search warrant at all but merely permission to enter a property,
look around and then go back to the Judge for a real search warrant. Anyone
have any comments?
|
| |
| |
avenger wrote:
You punish them be excluding the "evidence".
I agree, but the first poster didn't want to exclude the evidence.
Given that premise, I can think of no useful punishment, at least
none that would actually be implemented.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:17:41 GMT, spammy <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
avenger wrote:
I agree, but the first poster didn't want to exclude the evidence.
Given that premise, I can think of no useful punishment, at least
none that would actually be implemented.
That's the reason why we have the exclusionary rule. But if you
follow the case law you'll see that the exclusionary rule isn't
applied every time some rule of evidence is broken. It's only
applied when two things are present
1) The breach is of the US constitution
2) The court sees that excluding the evidence will affect police behavior.
Pretty often criteria 2) is used to create a lot of 4th amendment
loopholes, but in this case criteria 2) seems to have been met.
The question is whether 1) has been met. If there is some breach of
state law but not of the federal constitution, the state gets to decide
whether the result is to exclude the evidence.
I'm just not aware of any federal requirement to require a higher
standard of suspicion for a night time search than a daytime
search.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
You punish them be excluding the "evidence".
Yes. an illegal search violates the rights of the suspect and can not
provide evidence.
Seems to me like the defense's 2 arguments might cancel each other out
though. If the police did not tell Kobe they had a warrant did he allow them
to search the room? Because permission would over rule lack of a valid
warrant?
--
Laurel T
"If God is so good, how come
he didn't give you a jump shot?"
Said Sir Charles to AC...
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:20:55 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
The answer to every irregularity in a search is not to throw out the
evidence. Bryant would not have had the opportunity to do anything
different if he had been told about the warrant.
The defense said the T-shirt should not have been taken as evidence
because Bryant was wearing it during the search, and the warrant
authorized them to take only items from the room, not his person.
Maybe.
What was the lie to the judge? The problem here is really that the
standard for getting a daytime search warrant in CO is lower than that
for getting a night time warrant and the police only offered evidence
supporting a daytime warrant. The question is whether searching at
night was constitutional. If it was constitutional, but illegal under
CO law, the result might be to punish the police but not to exclude
the evidence.
If the warrant was invalid under Colorado law, then its unconstitutional
to search without a valid warrant. When the police did that knowing the
law in Colorado they were guilty of assault and civil rights violations.
The gun thugs ought to be prosecuted for their crimes.
Of course I though all search warrants had to issue on probable cause,
so I'm a little baffled by this point of law.
Isaac
Good point. If the gun thugs did not have "probable cause" the warrant
would be unconstitutional any time of day. It is an opportunity to
challenge Colorado Law -- blatantly unconstitutional since it sets a
lower standard than "probable cause" and have the whole case dismissed.
The Constitutional standard is "probable cause," not "reasonable
suspicion."
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What part of "No warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause" is so
hard for Colorado judges to understand. Oh I get it now.
Q. What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A. Your honor.
Bob
|
| |
| |
spammy wrote:
Isaac wrote:
Punish them how? I don't see how you could meaningfully punish them.
Without a valid warrant they knowingly and illegally assaulted Bryant.
They ought to be charged and prosecuted for assault in state court, and
Violating his Civil Rights in federal court. Both are felony crimes.
Bob
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:17:41 GMT, spammy <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
That's the reason why we have the exclusionary rule. But if you
follow the case law you'll see that the exclusionary rule isn't
applied every time some rule of evidence is broken. It's only
applied when two things are present
1) The breach is of the US constitution
2) The court sees that excluding the evidence will affect police behavior.
Pretty often criteria 2) is used to create a lot of 4th amendment
loopholes, but in this case criteria 2) seems to have been met.
The question is whether 1) has been met. If there is some breach of
state law but not of the federal constitution, the state gets to decide
whether the result is to exclude the evidence.
I'm just not aware of any federal requirement to require a higher
standard of suspicion for a night time search than a daytime
search.
Isaac
Yep, the Constitution requires "probable cause" at any time. There is
no justification for a lower standard during daytime. Sounds like the
Colorado law is unconstitutional on its face.
Bob
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:23:16 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yep, the Constitution requires "probable cause" at any time. There is
no justification for a lower standard during daytime. Sounds like the
Colorado law is unconstitutional on its face.
Seems like that to me too. But I suspect there is more to it than that.
Otherwise, at least some portion of the press would jump all over that
point.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:54 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Isaac wrote:
If the warrant was invalid under Colorado law, then its unconstitutional
to search without a valid warrant. When the police did that knowing the
law in Colorado they were guilty of assault and civil rights violations.
The gun thugs ought to be prosecuted for their crimes.
I'm afraid it just isn't that simple. Sorry. I'm not expressing my
wishes about this. I agree with the posters who suggest that excluding
evidence is the only way to deter abuse of the 4th Amendment.
If the warrant meets the US Constitutional requirements but does
not meet Colorado requirements, Colorado law determines how it will
be handled.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:23:16 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Seems like that to me too. But I suspect there is more to it than that.
Otherwise, at least some portion of the press would jump all over that
point.
Isaac
But as long as they were only using the law against men the Colorado
press would ignore it, or applaud the results -- sending men to prison.
Bob
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:54 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm afraid it just isn't that simple. Sorry. I'm not expressing my
wishes about this. I agree with the posters who suggest that excluding
evidence is the only way to deter abuse of the 4th Amendment.
If the warrant meets the US Constitutional requirements but does
not meet Colorado requirements, Colorado law determines how it will
be handled.
Isaac
From a plain language reading of the US constitution, any warrant that
had less than "probable cause" is unconstitutional by day or night.
Bob
|
| |
| |
In article <3FE08E80.3000402@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Isaac wrote:
But as long as they were only using the law against men the Colorado
press would ignore it, or applaud the results -- sending men to prison.
Has Bob been reading the articles from the Colorado press that have
been posted here?
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <3FE08E80.3000402@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Has Bob been reading the articles from the Colorado press that have
been posted here?
"A dog fight on Colfax avenue is more important than a war in China."
Motto of he Denver Post.
|
| |
| |
In article <3FE0A0E0.8040009@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
tjab wrote:
"A dog fight on Colfax avenue is more important than a war in China."
Motto of he Denver Post.
Your point?
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:12:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Isaac wrote:
But as long as they were only using the law against men the Colorado
press would ignore it, or applaud the results -- sending men to prison.
I don't think the press would ignore any angle that would sell papers
or capture viewer eyeballs.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:12:32 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't think the press would ignore any angle that would sell papers
or capture viewer eyeballs.
Isaac
Do you have any evidence to support your vision of radical change by the
media?
Bob
|
| |
| |
Bob wrote:
spammy wrote:
Without a valid warrant they knowingly and illegally assaulted Bryant.
They ought to be charged and prosecuted for assault in state court, and
Violating his Civil Rights in federal court. Both are felony crimes.
Try and find a DA who'll prosecute, let alone prosecute with vigor.
That's what I mean by meaningful: a punishment that you know will never
be enacted isn't meaningful.
|
| |
| |
spammy wrote:
Bob wrote:
Try and find a DA who'll prosecute, let alone prosecute with vigor.
That's what I mean by meaningful: a punishment that you know will never
be enacted isn't meaningful.
The fact that the police state protects itself first regardless of the
law does not mean that they ought not be punished for their crimes.
Decent citizens would not support that kind of police state oppression.
Bob
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:51:07 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Isaac wrote:
Do you have any evidence to support your vision of radical change by the
media?
I don't beat my wife.
When will the Kobe's lawyers take up the argument? Or are they too
keeping quiet because of their desire to see a man go to jail?
The "probable cause" argument is simply too blatantly obvious not
to have been dealt with by some lawyer trying to get his client off.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<bro9ap$qb@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <3FDFA167.50005@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'd take this a lot more seriously if it wasn't coming from a guy who
thinks killing feminists isn't murder.
Is killing a slave-master murder?
|
| |
| |
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbtvs47.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:20:55 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
The answer to every irregularity in a search is not to throw out the
evidence. Bryant would not have had the opportunity to do anything
different if he had been told about the warrant.
THERE WAS NO WARRANT....THAT'S THE POINT, DUMBASS!
Goddamn, learn to @$#*ing read and stop embarrasing yourself.
|
| |
| |
spammy <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<n3TDb.295$2i.231@news.randori.com>...
Isaac wrote:
Punish them how? I don't see how you could meaningfully punish them.
Too easy:
Prosecute them for tresspass and theft, and committing crimes under
the color of law.
|
| |
| |
"avenger" <stead@avengers.uk> wrote in message news:<kLUDb.4526$Y8.3669@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
You punish them be excluding the "evidence".
Wrong. You PUNISH WRONGDOING COPS by PROSECUTING THE WRONGDOING COPS!
Excluding evidence doesn't change the criminal cops' lives one bit.
|
| |
| |
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FE08F10.5000009@hotmail.com>...
Isaac wrote:
From a plain language reading of the US constitution, any warrant that
had less than "probable cause" is unconstitutional by day or night.
You'll have to excuse Isaac. He just got done with "Dick and Jane" last year.
He's still working on figuring out what the words are. His teachers won't be
getting to Reading for COMPREHENSION for another couple years from now.
Bob
|
| |
| |
spammy <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<dk2Eb.540$2i.395@news.randori.com>...
Bob wrote:
Try and find a DA who'll prosecute, let alone prosecute with vigor.
They didn't seem to have the slightest bit of problem finding TWO DA's to
prosecute in the "LA Cops try to subdue Rodney King while he Resists Arrest"
case (one at the state level, and after the "wrong" result was obtained,
another DA at the federal level).
Why should they have any problem finding a DA to prosecute two white cops
violating a black defendant's rights in Colorado? Especially a FEDERAL DA.
That's what I mean by meaningful: a punishment that you know will never
be enacted isn't meaningful.
|
| |
| |
Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
spammy <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<dk2Eb.540$2i.395@news.randori.com>...
They didn't seem to have the slightest bit of problem finding TWO DA's to
prosecute in the "LA Cops try to subdue Rodney King while he Resists Arrest"
case (one at the state level, and after the "wrong" result was obtained,
another DA at the federal level).
Why should they have any problem finding a DA to prosecute two white cops
violating a black defendant's rights in Colorado? Especially a FEDERAL DA.
Exactly. Civil rights violation are a federal crime. The cops who
arrested Kobe without a proper warrant ought to be prosecuted in federal
court.
Bob
|
| |
| |
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FE10D18.2010205@hotmail.com>...
Magic Nose Goblin wrote:
Exactly. Civil rights violation are a federal crime. The cops who
arrested Kobe without a proper warrant ought to be prosecuted in federal
court.
Here we have a TRUE civil-rights violation--now where are Jesse Jackson and
Al Sharpton????
Missing in Action.....
Bob
|
| |
| |
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbu10no.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:54 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm afraid it just isn't that simple. Sorry. I'm not expressing my
wishes about this. I agree with the posters who suggest that excluding
evidence is the only way to deter abuse of the 4th Amendment.
Strange...when NON-cops violate someone's civil rights they find themselves in
a federal lockup, awaiting trial in a federal court. Are you saying that cops
should be given IMMUNITY from prosecution for violating civil rights... and
that the MOST that can be done to them is a judge saying "sorry, i threw your
scavanger hunt items into the fire...you boys can play again tomorrow, ok?"
WRONG!
When cops break the law (such as tresspassing, theft, etc.) they should be
prosecuted for the crime, just like anyone else.
And in THIS case, they did it "under the color of law" which is the legal
definition of using their uniforms, badges, and law enforcement authority
to the victim into believing that they were operating under lawful procedures
when, in fact, they were most certainly aware that they were in no way, shape,
or form acting within the law nor within their legal powers.
In most states, crimes committed "under the color of law" are automatic
felonies, and for good reason.
If the warrant meets the US Constitutional requirements but does
not meet Colorado requirements, Colorado law determines how it will
be handled.
Isaac
|
