johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 i was wrong, goodell did exactly what you thought he would. if i could rep you 10 times in a row, i would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R7L9H81&show_article=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 i was wrong, goodell did exactly what you thought he would. if i could rep you 10 times in a row, i would. Much appreciated JGB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green DNA Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 i was wrong, goodell did exactly what you thought he would. if i could rep you 10 times in a row, i would. Since a multiple repping is out of the question, maybe ecurb would settle for a reach around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Since a multiple repping is out of the question, maybe ecurb would settle for a reach around. Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 Since a multiple repping is out of the question, maybe ecurb would settle for a reach around. i'm third in line behind garb and barton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Since a multiple repping is out of the question, maybe ecurb would settle for a reach around. Deal? Whatever those guys do on their own time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Much appreciated JGB Wait, what did you say will happen to Vick ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Wait, what did you say will happen to Vick ? indefinite suspension, once I read his plea deal today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Now hold on a minute...Why arent Vicks lawyers saying that these charges are unconstitutional.... From the article: The case began in April when authorities conducting a drug investigation of Vick's cousin raided a Surry County property owned by Vick and found dozens of dogs, some injured, and equipment commonly used in dogfighting. And from Amendment 4 of the constitution... 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. The article said the police had a warrant to search for drugs, not dogfighting equipment etc.... Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green DNA Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Now hold on a minute...Why arent Vicks lawyers saying that these charges are unconstitutional.... From the article: And from Amendment 4 of the constitution... The article said the police had a warrant to search for drugs, not dogfighting equipment etc.... Just sayin. So your saying if the cops search a house looking for drugs and they find a murder scene, the cannot charge the owner with murder because they were supposed to be looking for drugs? I don't see where the constitution comes into play there, or in Vicks case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 So your saying if the cops search a house looking for drugs and they find a murder scene, the cannot charge the owner with murder because they were supposed to be looking for drugs? I don't see where the constitution comes into play there, or in Vicks case. read the bold section of amendmant 4... And the answer to your question is no, in that scenario police cannot charge the person or any other person of murder unless there is circumstancial evidence that the murder was somehow related to the objects they had a warrant to search for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 read the bold section of amendmant 4... And the answer to your question is no, in that scenario police cannot charge the person or any other person of murder unless there is circumstancial evidence that the murder was somehow related to the objects they had a warrant to search for. untrue. if cops come in your house because they think there is a gas leak and you have a mound of coke sitting out, you're screwed. if it's in plain view, you lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 untrue. if cops come in your house because they think there is a gas leak and you have a mound of coke sitting out, you're screwed. if it's in plain view, you lose. Actually, it depends if you willingly let them enter your house or force them to get a warrant first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green DNA Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I'll go with JG Balls Esq., the house lawyer on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 Actually, it depends if you willingly let them enter your house or force them to get a warrant first... untrue. it's called, amazingly enough, the "plain view" doctrine. if cops are looking for a lost dog and you open the door and they see weed, they got you. if they have a warrant to search for dog fighting equipment and they find a human body, you're done. there are even cases where cops are chasing a suspect who runs into an apt that is not his. cops run in to catch him and see drugs in the apt. the inhabitants get nailed despite the fact that they were only caught because some ahole busted in their place evading the cops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 ganggreenman... you put up a good fight... but you lost... and what made you think that it would have gotten this far while violating the constitution? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 untrue. it's called, amazingly enough, the "plain view" doctrine. if cops are looking for a lost dog and you open the door and they see weed, they got you. if they have a warrant to search for dog fighting equipment and they find a human body, you're done. there are even cases where cops are chasing a suspect who runs into an apt that is not his. cops run in to catch him and see drugs in the apt. the inhabitants get nailed despite the fact that they were only caught becaue some ahole busted in their place evading the cops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine Interesting because I did some research on my own (okay, just googled Plain View Doctrine) and found this from Law.com plain view doctrine n. the rule that a law enforcement officer may make a search and seizure without obtaining a search warrant if evidence of criminal activity or the product of a crime can be seen without entry or search. Example: a policeman stops a motorist for a minor traffic violation and can see in the car a pistol or a marijuana plant on the back seat, giving him "reasonable cause" to enter the vehicle to make a search. Now, it doesnt say anything about if they entered a house with a warrant to find something else, but I highly doubt this evidence would have been found without entry or search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 ganggreenman... you put up a good fight... but you lost... and what made you think that it would have gotten this far while violating the constitution? lol i dont know, just trying to keep the discussion ineteresting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Interesting because I did some research on my own (okay, just googled Plain View Doctrine) and found this from Law.com Yes but the point is there is no NEW entry or search... they are already legally inside of the home... what they see is fair game at that point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 Interesting because I did some research on my own (okay, just googled Plain View Doctrine) and found this from Law.com no entry or search related to the inadvertently found evidence. if they are there for a lawful purpose such as a traffic stop, executing a search warrant for another crime, or even looking in a broken window to see if there has been a break in and they see evidence of another crime, it's lawful. debate all you want, but i'm tellin ya, you're wrong on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackbackblock Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Now hold on a minute...Why arent Vicks lawyers saying that these charges are unconstitutional.... From the article: And from Amendment 4 of the constitution... The article said the police had a warrant to search for drugs, not dogfighting equipment etc.... Just sayin. I defer to JGB on this. But I think this is how it works. Just because they originally went in to search for drugs doesn't mean they ignore everything else. If they find a cache of weapons they don't ignore them. They get the judge to expand or issue a new warrant based on what they found. Therefore the search is not unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 Yes but the point is there is no NEW entry or search... they are already legally inside of the home... what they see is fair game at that point... screw real estate classes, go to law school! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 I defer to JGB on this. But I think this is how it works. Just because they originally went in to search for drugs doesn't mean they ignore everything else. If they find a cache of weapons they don't ignore them. They get the judge to expand or issue a new warrant based on what they found. Therefore the search is not unconstitutional. i should start an online law school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 no entry or search related to the inadvertently found evidence. if they are there for a lawful purpose such as a traffic stop, executing a search warrant for another crime, or even looking in a broken window to see if there has been a break in and they see evidence of another crime, it's lawful. debate all you want, but i'm tellin ya, you're wrong on this one Okay I believe you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 screw real estate classes, go to law school! LOL That was originally the plan... but I ****ing hate school... so it wasnt a good match... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 LOL That was originally the plan... but I ****ing hate school... so it wasnt a good match... starting salary is $160k for big firms now... that's a lot of flippin' in this market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackbackblock Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 i should start an online law school You could show reruns of Matlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 25, 2007 Author Share Posted August 25, 2007 You could show reruns of Matlock. lol, we did watch "12 angry men" in ethics class. my worst grade in law school. i thought the firm that had already given me an offer would be pissed, instead, they gave me a raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 starting salary is $160k for big firms now... that's a lot of flippin' in this market. True... I guess I will find out in 5 years if I made the right move... as of now... Im happy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackbackblock Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 lol, we did watch "12 angry men" in ethics class. my worst grade in law school. i thought the firm that had already given me an offer would be pissed, instead, they gave me a raise. Watch a movie..get a raise. Very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 indefinite suspension, once I read his plea deal today Good call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.