Pick them up for what? again, this was a SEARCH WARRANT, not an ARREST WARRENT The police would have no lawful reason to detain the guy at a red light Terry v Ohio allows a "stop and frisk" but it has to be if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
you are in correct. a few weeks ago police conducted a search warrant while the drug dealer wasnt home. He was picked up and brought to his house. He wasnt placed under arrest until they found the drugs in the house. This happens quite a bit with search warrants.
Pick them up for what? again, this was a SEARCH WARRANT, not an ARREST WARRENT The police would have no lawful reason to detain the guy at a red light Terry v Ohio allows a "stop and frisk" but it has to be if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
you are in correct. a few weeks ago police conducted a search warrant while the drug dealer wasnt home. He was picked up and brought to his house. He wasnt placed under arrest until they found the drugs in the house. This happens quite a bit with search warrants.
well the sheriff in this video thinks this whole death was wrong and not necessary. Hes right swat shouldnt be used for conducting simple drug search warrants. All they gotta do is serve these warrants when nobody is home and everybody stays safe.
15 second mark...when asked who shot him...sounds like she said ... "I don't know, I don't know, the police are outside" @ 207 mark " I think it's the SWAT, but they're....OH MY GOD..."
well the sheriff in this video thinks this whole death was wrong and not necessary. Hes right swat shouldnt be used for conducting simple drug search warrants. All they gotta do is serve these warrants when nobody is home and everybody stays safe.
15 second mark...when asked who shot him...sounds like she said ... "I don't know, I don't know, the police are outside" @ 207 mark " I think it's the SWAT, but they're....OH MY GOD..."
also you are forgotting that a search warrant also gives them the right to search the person. also drug search warrants always include a persons car. so if that person is out with the car that is part of the search warrant then they have the right to stop that car.
also you are forgotting that a search warrant also gives them the right to search the person. also drug search warrants always include a persons car. so if that person is out with the car that is part of the search warrant then they have the right to stop that car.
also the person whos home theya re searching is part of the search warrant and they can search the person.
also drug search warrants always include the persons cars, so if that person is out driving in the car that is part of the search warrant they have every right to stop that car.
also the person whos home theya re searching is part of the search warrant and they can search the person.
also drug search warrants always include the persons cars, so if that person is out driving in the car that is part of the search warrant they have every right to stop that car.
you are in correct. a few weeks ago police conducted a search warrant while the drug dealer wasnt home. He was picked up and brought to his house. He wasnt placed under arrest until they found the drugs in the house. This happens quite a bit with search warrants.
As DJ and Depeche about moving a suspect from the place of contact to another place... THAT IS CONSIDERED AN ARREST
this is why if a 7-11 gets robbed, the clerk gives you a description... 5'7....155...wearing a yankees hat, blue jeans, and a red shirt...
5 blocks away a guy like this is stopped... He is DETAINED and the WITNESS IS BROUGHT TO HIM.... If you take "control and command" of a person, and move them...they are under arrest
you are in correct. a few weeks ago police conducted a search warrant while the drug dealer wasnt home. He was picked up and brought to his house. He wasnt placed under arrest until they found the drugs in the house. This happens quite a bit with search warrants.
As DJ and Depeche about moving a suspect from the place of contact to another place... THAT IS CONSIDERED AN ARREST
this is why if a 7-11 gets robbed, the clerk gives you a description... 5'7....155...wearing a yankees hat, blue jeans, and a red shirt...
5 blocks away a guy like this is stopped... He is DETAINED and the WITNESS IS BROUGHT TO HIM.... If you take "control and command" of a person, and move them...they are under arrest
also you are forgotting that a search warrant also gives them the right to search the person. if specified in the warrant also drug search warrants always include a persons car. so if that person is out with the car that is part of the search warrant then they have the right to stop that car. I'm not sure if it would apply if vehicle was outside the property specifed or the curtilage area of the residence... will have to research that
also you are forgotting that a search warrant also gives them the right to search the person. if specified in the warrant also drug search warrants always include a persons car. so if that person is out with the car that is part of the search warrant then they have the right to stop that car. I'm not sure if it would apply if vehicle was outside the property specifed or the curtilage area of the residence... will have to research that
like i said the car is always part of the search warrant, so if the person is driving the car, they have the right to stop that car to conduct their search. They can also search the person, because he is part of the search. Now while they are doing that the cops back at the house are searching for the drugs.
My point was there is lots of safe ways for the police to conduct safe search warrants where there is no chance of anybody getting shot. Swat doesnt need to be going on drug search warrants.
like i said the car is always part of the search warrant, so if the person is driving the car, they have the right to stop that car to conduct their search. They can also search the person, because he is part of the search. Now while they are doing that the cops back at the house are searching for the drugs.
My point was there is lots of safe ways for the police to conduct safe search warrants where there is no chance of anybody getting shot. Swat doesnt need to be going on drug search warrants.
doesnt matter where the car is if its part of the search warrant, it can be stopped and searched.drug search warrants always include the cars or else the cops are dumbasses then. Thats where people like to hide their drugs thinking they are safe from the police searching them and thats just not true.
also searching the person is part of the search warrant, because that person can very well be hiding all the drugs on him, while the police are searching the whole house and finding nothing.
doesnt matter where the car is if its part of the search warrant, it can be stopped and searched.drug search warrants always include the cars or else the cops are dumbasses then. Thats where people like to hide their drugs thinking they are safe from the police searching them and thats just not true.
also searching the person is part of the search warrant, because that person can very well be hiding all the drugs on him, while the police are searching the whole house and finding nothing.
cd,you bring up very valid points of discussion, but NOTHING is a given in a search or arrest warrant, except that which is SPECIFICALLY explained by the "affiant" in his affadavit to the judge when requesting the search warrant.
If a vehicle is to be searched and is not at the location and is not specifically listed in the warrant, it requires its own search warrant. (ex: when a suspect's vehicle is impounded and is at a different location than the scene of the crime or the suspect's residence.)
Waiting until all person's are out of the house is a good idea in theory, but in this case they were serving multiple search warrants simultaneously.
In addition, a practical reason for wanting the occupant of the resident home is so you dont have to bust open the door, and if you do bust open the door, then you can leave the residence to the care of the occupant instead of calling the contracted board up company to secure the location.
Its also nice to have the owner/occupier of the home present, although common practice is for the police to film before and after video for liability purposes.
5ff, the contagious fire I mentioned when viewing the video is from the officer on the left side of the door who runs up when the gunfire is heard and he leans over into the doorway and blasts some rounds into the house.
cd,you bring up very valid points of discussion, but NOTHING is a given in a search or arrest warrant, except that which is SPECIFICALLY explained by the "affiant" in his affadavit to the judge when requesting the search warrant.
If a vehicle is to be searched and is not at the location and is not specifically listed in the warrant, it requires its own search warrant. (ex: when a suspect's vehicle is impounded and is at a different location than the scene of the crime or the suspect's residence.)
Waiting until all person's are out of the house is a good idea in theory, but in this case they were serving multiple search warrants simultaneously.
In addition, a practical reason for wanting the occupant of the resident home is so you dont have to bust open the door, and if you do bust open the door, then you can leave the residence to the care of the occupant instead of calling the contracted board up company to secure the location.
Its also nice to have the owner/occupier of the home present, although common practice is for the police to film before and after video for liability purposes.
5ff, the contagious fire I mentioned when viewing the video is from the officer on the left side of the door who runs up when the gunfire is heard and he leans over into the doorway and blasts some rounds into the house.
cd,you bring up very valid points of discussion, but NOTHING is a given in a search or arrest warrant, except that which is SPECIFICALLY explained by the "affiant" in his affadavit to the judge when requesting the search warrant.
If a vehicle is to be searched and is not at the location and is not specifically listed in the warrant, it requires its own search warrant. (ex: when a suspect's vehicle is impounded and is at a different location than the scene of the crime or the suspect's residence.)
Waiting until all person's are out of the house is a good idea in theory, but in this case they were serving multiple search warrants simultaneously.
In addition, a practical reason for wanting the occupant of the resident home is so you dont have to bust open the door, and if you do bust open the door, then you can leave the residence to the care of the occupant instead of calling the contracted board up company to secure the location.
Its also nice to have the owner/occupier of the home present, although common practice is for the police to film before and after video for liability purposes.
5ff, the contagious fire I mentioned when viewing the video is from the officer on the left side of the door who runs up when the gunfire is heard and he leans over into the doorway and blasts some rounds into the house.
Like i stated, it would be very dumb for the cops not to seek search warrants for the cars, especially when the cars have probably transported the drugs at one time or another. Here in ny the police have conducted search warrants while the person wasnt home, while at the same time stopping the persons car somewhere else and conducting a search of the car. Like i said a cop would have to be foolish not to get search warrants for the cars and house.
Also there really is no need for the swat unit to be doing drug search warrants, to many things can go wrong. Its only some drugs, not like bombs are being made. Its just time to change some of these laws and stop using military units on its own citizens
cd,you bring up very valid points of discussion, but NOTHING is a given in a search or arrest warrant, except that which is SPECIFICALLY explained by the "affiant" in his affadavit to the judge when requesting the search warrant.
If a vehicle is to be searched and is not at the location and is not specifically listed in the warrant, it requires its own search warrant. (ex: when a suspect's vehicle is impounded and is at a different location than the scene of the crime or the suspect's residence.)
Waiting until all person's are out of the house is a good idea in theory, but in this case they were serving multiple search warrants simultaneously.
In addition, a practical reason for wanting the occupant of the resident home is so you dont have to bust open the door, and if you do bust open the door, then you can leave the residence to the care of the occupant instead of calling the contracted board up company to secure the location.
Its also nice to have the owner/occupier of the home present, although common practice is for the police to film before and after video for liability purposes.
5ff, the contagious fire I mentioned when viewing the video is from the officer on the left side of the door who runs up when the gunfire is heard and he leans over into the doorway and blasts some rounds into the house.
Like i stated, it would be very dumb for the cops not to seek search warrants for the cars, especially when the cars have probably transported the drugs at one time or another. Here in ny the police have conducted search warrants while the person wasnt home, while at the same time stopping the persons car somewhere else and conducting a search of the car. Like i said a cop would have to be foolish not to get search warrants for the cars and house.
Also there really is no need for the swat unit to be doing drug search warrants, to many things can go wrong. Its only some drugs, not like bombs are being made. Its just time to change some of these laws and stop using military units on its own citizens
They pick people up all the time on search warrants away from their house. When they have reason to believe the person could have weapons, its a lot easier to just pick the person up with a cruiser while at a redlight, while hes at work or even out shopping. Then they can still do the search warrant and everybody is safe. Happens all the time in ny state.
People are not usually arrested on search warrants away from their house. If the police have probable cause someone has broken the law, they can obtain a Ramey warrant, or an arrest warrant signed by a judge.
You need to understand how an arrest warrant is normally issued. That is, a police report is written and sent to the district attorney. Assuming the DA sees enough probability of successful prosecution, the DA files a complaint with the local court and asks for an arrest warrant.
The problem with this is sometimes cops don't have time to wait around for some wishy-washy prosecutor to decide they can win a case before they will file the complaint.
Ramey warrants are drawn up as an affidavit taken directly to the issuing judge. In other words, a cop writes up an affidavit for an arrest warrant (just like she/he would for a search warrant), takes it a to a judge, and assuming the judge agrees there's probable cause to arrest the defendant, the judge issues the warrant. This procedure bypasses the district attorney.
If I have probable cause to believe a person has broken the law (including having weapons on them), I can legally detain them pending investigation. In your example, when I believe a person may have weapons on them in their car, I can use a traffic vehicle code violation as a means of detaining them and investigating further, AS LONG AS I can articulate why I my investigation needs to get into that vehicle (ex: I smell a strong odor of weed, I observe a butt of a shotgun on the back seat, etc...)
They pick people up all the time on search warrants away from their house. When they have reason to believe the person could have weapons, its a lot easier to just pick the person up with a cruiser while at a redlight, while hes at work or even out shopping. Then they can still do the search warrant and everybody is safe. Happens all the time in ny state.
People are not usually arrested on search warrants away from their house. If the police have probable cause someone has broken the law, they can obtain a Ramey warrant, or an arrest warrant signed by a judge.
You need to understand how an arrest warrant is normally issued. That is, a police report is written and sent to the district attorney. Assuming the DA sees enough probability of successful prosecution, the DA files a complaint with the local court and asks for an arrest warrant.
The problem with this is sometimes cops don't have time to wait around for some wishy-washy prosecutor to decide they can win a case before they will file the complaint.
Ramey warrants are drawn up as an affidavit taken directly to the issuing judge. In other words, a cop writes up an affidavit for an arrest warrant (just like she/he would for a search warrant), takes it a to a judge, and assuming the judge agrees there's probable cause to arrest the defendant, the judge issues the warrant. This procedure bypasses the district attorney.
If I have probable cause to believe a person has broken the law (including having weapons on them), I can legally detain them pending investigation. In your example, when I believe a person may have weapons on them in their car, I can use a traffic vehicle code violation as a means of detaining them and investigating further, AS LONG AS I can articulate why I my investigation needs to get into that vehicle (ex: I smell a strong odor of weed, I observe a butt of a shotgun on the back seat, etc...)
If I have probable cause to believe a person has broken the law(including having weapons on them), I can legally detain them pending investigation. In your example, when I believe a person may have weapons on them in their car, I can use a traffic vehicle code violation as a means of detaining them and investigating further, AS LONG AS I can articulate why I my investigation needs to get into that vehicle (ex: I smell a strong odor of weed, I observe a butt of a shotgun on the back seat, etc...)
better make sure they aren't taken out of the car... Once they don't have weapons in their "wingspan" you better get consent, a warrant, or find something during an "inventory" prior to towing
If I have probable cause to believe a person has broken the law(including having weapons on them), I can legally detain them pending investigation. In your example, when I believe a person may have weapons on them in their car, I can use a traffic vehicle code violation as a means of detaining them and investigating further, AS LONG AS I can articulate why I my investigation needs to get into that vehicle (ex: I smell a strong odor of weed, I observe a butt of a shotgun on the back seat, etc...)
better make sure they aren't taken out of the car... Once they don't have weapons in their "wingspan" you better get consent, a warrant, or find something during an "inventory" prior to towing
I think both of you are missing my point. Here in ny they serve alot of search warrants while the person isnt home and i would be willing to bet that 99.9 percent of the drug search warrants, the cops make sure they get a search warrant for the cars that person onws or else the drug dealers would just hide their shit in their cars and not have to worry about any house search warrant. So if the cops have a home search warrant and a car search warrant, they can stop that car where ever it might be and conduct a search of the car. They can also search the person , because i could be wrong but i doubt it, the person is actually part of the search warrant or else the person could just have the drugs stashed on him whiole the cops search the house or car. I never said that the cops arrest anybody while conducting both searches. Only after they find what they are looking for can they arrest anybody. They also do a lot of search warrants by just waiting for the person to come home and catching the person before they enter the house.
I think both of you are missing my point. Here in ny they serve alot of search warrants while the person isnt home and i would be willing to bet that 99.9 percent of the drug search warrants, the cops make sure they get a search warrant for the cars that person onws or else the drug dealers would just hide their shit in their cars and not have to worry about any house search warrant. So if the cops have a home search warrant and a car search warrant, they can stop that car where ever it might be and conduct a search of the car. They can also search the person , because i could be wrong but i doubt it, the person is actually part of the search warrant or else the person could just have the drugs stashed on him whiole the cops search the house or car. I never said that the cops arrest anybody while conducting both searches. Only after they find what they are looking for can they arrest anybody. They also do a lot of search warrants by just waiting for the person to come home and catching the person before they enter the house.
again cd, not trying to be argumentative with you, just trying to make certain points clear and not paint them with broad brush strokes.
People are not usually the subjects of search warrants, unless they are already in custody (jail or prison) and the police are trying to obtain a DNA swab from him for example, or the police can articulate by they need to perform a full body cavity search of a prisoner.
Otherwise, it is protocol for for all persons present at the scene of a search warrant service to be given a cursory pat down search for weapons for officer safety.
again cd, not trying to be argumentative with you, just trying to make certain points clear and not paint them with broad brush strokes.
People are not usually the subjects of search warrants, unless they are already in custody (jail or prison) and the police are trying to obtain a DNA swab from him for example, or the police can articulate by they need to perform a full body cavity search of a prisoner.
Otherwise, it is protocol for for all persons present at the scene of a search warrant service to be given a cursory pat down search for weapons for officer safety.
thx bake, i am curious about that mans assessment of issues in general and his video analysis. imo anyone in their right mind is polite and respectful to the police. therefore a reason to have the weapon up....either a bad person or someone defending his home vs suspected invaders with mal intent.
thx bake, i am curious about that mans assessment of issues in general and his video analysis. imo anyone in their right mind is polite and respectful to the police. therefore a reason to have the weapon up....either a bad person or someone defending his home vs suspected invaders with mal intent.
again cd, not trying to be argumentative with you, just trying to make certain points clear and not paint them with broad brush strokes.
People are not usually the subjects of search warrants, unless they are already in custody (jail or prison) and the police are trying to obtain a DNA swab from him for example, or the police can articulate by they need to perform a full body cavity search of a prisoner.
Otherwise, it is protocol for for all persons present at the scene of a search warrant service to be given a cursory pat down search for weapons for officer safety.
missing my point again. Lets say the cops conduct a drug search warrant on a person that is in the house. While they are busting in that person could hide all the drugs on himself. This is why the cops actually check that person to see if he indeed has what they are looking for right on himself. I believe and i could be wrong the cops dont have the power to search another person if they are in the house, but am pretty sure they can check the person to see if the drugs are on him.
again cd, not trying to be argumentative with you, just trying to make certain points clear and not paint them with broad brush strokes.
People are not usually the subjects of search warrants, unless they are already in custody (jail or prison) and the police are trying to obtain a DNA swab from him for example, or the police can articulate by they need to perform a full body cavity search of a prisoner.
Otherwise, it is protocol for for all persons present at the scene of a search warrant service to be given a cursory pat down search for weapons for officer safety.
missing my point again. Lets say the cops conduct a drug search warrant on a person that is in the house. While they are busting in that person could hide all the drugs on himself. This is why the cops actually check that person to see if he indeed has what they are looking for right on himself. I believe and i could be wrong the cops dont have the power to search another person if they are in the house, but am pretty sure they can check the person to see if the drugs are on him.
thx bake, i am curious about that mans assessment of issues in general and his video analysis. imo anyone in their right mind is polite and respectful to the police. therefore a reason to have the weapon up....either a bad person or someone defending his home vs suspected invaders with mal intent.
The point is even if the marine thought his home was being broken into, if he raised his weapon, the cops were justified in shooting him... The cops have no idea WHY the guy was raising a weapon no idea WHAT the guy was thinking, and the cops really can't afford to wait until he puts the weapon down, or FIRES the weapon, before THEY take action
It is a tragic death, but, if you were the SWAT member that apparently saw a man ( probably crouching in a manner taught to him in his marine training ) with a weapon pointed your way...you have to assume he is a hostile and take out the threat
thx bake, i am curious about that mans assessment of issues in general and his video analysis. imo anyone in their right mind is polite and respectful to the police. therefore a reason to have the weapon up....either a bad person or someone defending his home vs suspected invaders with mal intent.
The point is even if the marine thought his home was being broken into, if he raised his weapon, the cops were justified in shooting him... The cops have no idea WHY the guy was raising a weapon no idea WHAT the guy was thinking, and the cops really can't afford to wait until he puts the weapon down, or FIRES the weapon, before THEY take action
It is a tragic death, but, if you were the SWAT member that apparently saw a man ( probably crouching in a manner taught to him in his marine training ) with a weapon pointed your way...you have to assume he is a hostile and take out the threat
of course but the officers lack of professionalism put this in to action imo. why is this any different than a doc ignoring protocol in giving anesthesia and the patient dying through overt negligence.? people make mistakes, sometimes fatal.
of course but the officers lack of professionalism put this in to action imo. why is this any different than a doc ignoring protocol in giving anesthesia and the patient dying through overt negligence.? people make mistakes, sometimes fatal.
missing my point again. Lets say the cops conduct a drug search warrant on a person that is in the house. While they are busting in that person could hide all the drugs on himself. This is why the cops actually check that person to see if he indeed has what they are looking for right on himself. I believe and i could be wrong the cops dont have the power to search another person if they are in the house, but am pretty sure they can check the person to see if the drugs are on him.
While executing the search warrant, the officers are allowed to detain anyone who happens to be present. The police can pat down the people they’re detaining,3but cannot search any of them more intrusively, unless the warrant specifies that particular person by name. (The second of the sample search warrants includes a person to be searched, as well as a place.) However, it’s not unusual for police who are searching pursuant to a warrant, to discover things that give them probable cause to arrest some or all of the people present—and once a suspect’s been arrested, the officers can search her clothing, body, etc.
missing my point again. Lets say the cops conduct a drug search warrant on a person that is in the house. While they are busting in that person could hide all the drugs on himself. This is why the cops actually check that person to see if he indeed has what they are looking for right on himself. I believe and i could be wrong the cops dont have the power to search another person if they are in the house, but am pretty sure they can check the person to see if the drugs are on him.
While executing the search warrant, the officers are allowed to detain anyone who happens to be present. The police can pat down the people they’re detaining,3but cannot search any of them more intrusively, unless the warrant specifies that particular person by name. (The second of the sample search warrants includes a person to be searched, as well as a place.) However, it’s not unusual for police who are searching pursuant to a warrant, to discover things that give them probable cause to arrest some or all of the people present—and once a suspect’s been arrested, the officers can search her clothing, body, etc.
of course but the officers lack of professionalism put this in to action imo. why is this any different than a doc ignoring protocol in giving anesthesia and the patient dying through overt negligence.? people make mistakes, sometimes fatal.
what part of this wasn't professional? What part was negligent?
If the raid found 100 kilos of coke, a dirty bomb, and Jimmy Hoffa, would the shooting be a good shoot?
of course but the officers lack of professionalism put this in to action imo. why is this any different than a doc ignoring protocol in giving anesthesia and the patient dying through overt negligence.? people make mistakes, sometimes fatal.
what part of this wasn't professional? What part was negligent?
If the raid found 100 kilos of coke, a dirty bomb, and Jimmy Hoffa, would the shooting be a good shoot?
While executing the search warrant, the officers are allowed to detain anyone who happens to be present. The police can pat down the people they’re detaining,3but cannot search any of them more intrusively, unless the warrant specifies that particular person by name. (The second of the sample search warrants includes a person to be searched, as well as a place.) However, it’s not unusual for police who are searching pursuant to a warrant, to discover things that give them probable cause to arrest some or all of the people present—and once a suspect’s been arrested, the officers can search her clothing, body, etc.
Yes i realize that. My point is if the cops are conducting a drug search warrant, they would have to be total dipshits, if they didnt include the persons cars and the person himself. The warrant without a doubt is going to specfiy the persons name they are conducting the on. This is a no brainer.
While executing the search warrant, the officers are allowed to detain anyone who happens to be present. The police can pat down the people they’re detaining,3but cannot search any of them more intrusively, unless the warrant specifies that particular person by name. (The second of the sample search warrants includes a person to be searched, as well as a place.) However, it’s not unusual for police who are searching pursuant to a warrant, to discover things that give them probable cause to arrest some or all of the people present—and once a suspect’s been arrested, the officers can search her clothing, body, etc.
Yes i realize that. My point is if the cops are conducting a drug search warrant, they would have to be total dipshits, if they didnt include the persons cars and the person himself. The warrant without a doubt is going to specfiy the persons name they are conducting the on. This is a no brainer.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.