SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
An Indiana man may beat a drug prosecution after the state's highest court threw out a search warrant against him late last week. The search warrant was based on the idea that the man had "stolen" a GPS tracking device belonging to the government. But Indiana's Supreme Court concluded that he'd done no such thing—and the cops should have known it.
Last November, we wrote about the case of Derek Heuring, an Indiana man the Warrick County Sheriff's Office suspected of selling meth. Authorities got a warrant to put a GPS tracker on Heuring's car, getting a stream of data on his location for six days. But then the data stopped.
Officers suspected Heuring had discovered and removed the tracking device. After waiting for a few more days, they got a warrant to search his home and a barn belonging to his father. They argued the disappearance of the tracking device was evidence that Heuring had stolen it.
During their search, police found the tracking device and some methamphetamine. They charged Heuring with drug-related crimes as well as theft of the GPS device.
But at trial, Heuring's lawyers argued that the warrant to search the home and barn had been illegal. An application for a search warrant must provide probable cause to believe a crime was committed. But removing a small, unmarked object from your personal vehicle is no crime at all, Heuring's lawyers argued. Heuring had no way of knowing what the device was or who it belonged to—and certainly no obligation to leave the device on his vehicle.
An Indiana appeals court ruled against Heuring last year. But Indiana's Supreme Court seemed more sympathetic to Heuring's case during oral arguments last November.
"I'm really struggling with how is that theft," said Justice Steven David during November's oral arguments.
The appeals court[*] decision is available online as a pdf.
Also at: Washington Post and The Indiana Lawyer.
[*] Updated at 2020-02-26 01:16:51 UTC. Previously, this link suggested it was to the decision by the Indiana Supreme Court. This was, in fact, a link to the decision from the Indiana Appeals Court. We regret the error.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Booga1 on Wednesday February 26 2020, @01:11AM (4 children)
I don't disagree with your statement, but the court system is unbelievably overloaded many jurisdictions. There is a tendency to move things as quickly as possible, especially when there's evidence to prove a case. Often, the higher you go on appeals the deeper the look at the technicalities and specifics of individual portions of the case.
Here's a quick run down of how thing can go in a case like this.
Trial:
Defendant: "The cops had no reason to search my place."
Judge: "They had a warrant and they found evidence. Guilty!"
First appeal:
Defendant: "The warrant shouldn't have been issued!"
Judge: "Looks like they filed all the paperwork, so the decision stands."
Second appeal:
Defendant: "The judge that issued the warrant didn't verify the paperwork properly."
Judge: "Looks like the judge reviewed everything and we're not going to second guess them. The decision still stands."
Supreme court appeal:
Defendant: "We don't think the appeals court was using the right standards to review the paperwork for the warrant."
Justices: "You're absolutely right. The original warrant should never have been issued. The evidence gained from those warrants most be thrown out. The lower appeals court must review the case again with that in mind."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 26 2020, @01:44AM
Hey, I just had a Guardian Advocate hearing today - we got a whole 10 minutes of the Judge's time, and he even thought to ask what our lawyer did about requirements for the Guardians... after he got done rubber stamping them.
This is why you need a decent lawyer, who will put in the time to put the arguments together in a way that gets them heard in the available time - preferably shopped to the correct judge who will sympathize.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by epitaxial on Wednesday February 26 2020, @03:06PM (2 children)
If the courts start disagreeing with the cops too much then the cops throw a hissy fit and threaten to stop doing their jobs. It's the same reason why cops rarely get charged with crimes and if they do its always a grand jury who chooses to dismiss the case.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 26 2020, @07:09PM (1 child)
True story: two greasers in a stolen Mustang hit and ran on me one morning - I got a decent look at their faces, but nothing more.
Two weeks later, same two greasers are weaving through morning rush hour traffic on Biscayne Boulevard, presumably in another stolen car, this time with a 5 year old standing up on the front center console between them. I phone Miami police dispatch, get put directly through to the cops who work stolen cars (based on recent experience) and am told, point blank, by officer XYZ that "we don't really bother to catch car theives, the judges just kick them back onto the street since it's a non-violent crime."
Non-violent, crashing into me spinning my car into oncoming traffic and a city bus? Yeah, way to polish that image Miami.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:20AM
Miami certainly isn't alone. Check out this guy: Seattle City Attorney asks for freedom for man convicted 72 times [komonews.com]
So, the judge gives the guy a one year jail sentence. Both the city prosecutor and the public defender complain that the judge should have just let the guy go, again. The guy gets out of jail after six months(pretty standard) and two days later throws coffee on a two year old in a stroller [komonews.com]. He gets jailed again, but gets felony charges dropped because the coffee wasn't hot. Since then he's been gotten out, arrested, and convicted for more crimes. Grand total of 75 convictions and counting...
With crap like that going on, it's not surprising sometimes the cops get fed up. They do the work bringing people in, just to see them turned right back out on the street.
- -
The problem I heard about in Miami, though, was that they stopped arresting the crooks so the crime statistics look better. That way it doesn't scare off the tourists.