Printable View
When RICO was bantered about, prior to becoming law, everyone said, who cares. Once they pass it the feds will be less restricted going after motorcycle gangs.
RICO morphed in to VFW and Knights of Columbus poker nights OOPS
Patriot Act was NO Biggie. Anyone really think the .gov can pull it off. OOPS
Now this.
WE ARE ALL OUTLAWS IN THE EYES OF AMERICA.
Quote:
Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.
-John Locke
scary stuff, but I'm sure it would never be used in a bad way.
If I found it "abandoned" on my land it would get re-tasked.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
The outcome will certainly be interesting. Best thing for the defense to do is get their objections and issues on the record and file an appeal if it does not go their way.
Sounds like BS to me, too. If the cameras were in a public place and could oversee the private property, then I can see this working as the search was done from a legal place without having to access private property without a warrant. This follows the same principles as plain view doctrine. However, seizing the evidence from that search may require a warrant.
I do not recall the case, but there is well established law where officers could not see over a privacy fence. They then obtained a ladder and climbed it next to the fence to look over the top. Search was valid, but seizure of evidence required warrant under 4th.
It may also be that this judge really sees the problem, but does not want to give into the bad guys as being right. So, the judge denies their motions at every turn. Being represented by counsel, presumably competent, the judge justifies his actions by saying they will need to appeal and their lawyer will have to properly preserve the record for appeal. Afterall, it is not frivilous to argue a good faith change in the law. Not saying this is the right thing to do, but plausible. The correct path is to require the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasoanble doubt, subject to evidenciary rules to allow and preclude evidence. If the People want a change in the law, then they should be the ones to appeal for such a change, with doubt being resolved in the favor of the accused.
With the TV shows like CSI, etc., photogrpaic and video evidence in more compelling than testimony of what a person saw. Photos and videos may cause some psychological phenomenon where accusers and juries are more predisposed to believe what they see and allow that prejuduce of their senses to ignore the fact that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. With technological advances today, how many potos have you seen that were doctored or just fake, that you thought were real. Very compelling nonetheless.