Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas court rules that police may introduce illegally gathered evidence at trial
Coach is Right ^ | 3/15/14 | Doug Book

Posted on 03/15/2014 9:01:05 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax

Texas prosecutors are applauding a decision by the State Court of Criminal Appeals which provides police officers a second chance to present evidence which has been gathered contrary to Texas law and the 4th Amendment. The ruling literally offers law enforcement a “do-over;” an opportunity to secure a search warrant AFTER a home has been illegally searched and AFTER evidence has been improperly obtained.

In 2010, police in Parker County, Texas received a call from a confidential informant (CI) who claimed that Fred Wehrenberg and a number of associates “were fixin’” to cook meth. Hours after the call–at 12:30 A.M the following day–police entered the Wehrenberg home without a warrant and against the wishes of Wehrenberg. Police handcuffed all of the occupants, held them in the front yard and proceeded to perform what the officers described as a “protective sweep” of the residence. An hour and a half later, after finding no meth being made on the premises, police prepared a...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; evidence; legal; wehrenberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last

1 posted on 03/15/2014 9:01:06 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

NO!!!!


2 posted on 03/15/2014 9:03:20 AM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I don’t see this ruling surviving federal court scrutiny, under the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine.


3 posted on 03/15/2014 9:04:27 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

So, do y’all think America as you have known it still exists? If you do, you need to pull your head out of your posterior.


4 posted on 03/15/2014 9:04:37 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

“I don’t see this ruling surviving federal court scrutiny,”

You want the feds to be involved?

Again, Texas shows the way to fight criminals.


5 posted on 03/15/2014 9:05:44 AM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

             

Førward, baby !

6 posted on 03/15/2014 9:07:48 AM PDT by tomkat (3%+1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Yeah screw that pesky 400 year old constitution. /s


7 posted on 03/15/2014 9:07:53 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: sagar
"Again, Texas shows the way to fight criminals."

Kind of like the NKVD fought criminals in the old Soviet Union...

9 posted on 03/15/2014 9:10:22 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Again, Texas shows the way to fight criminals

Please refer to #6, above.


(they'll get to your house sooner/later)

10 posted on 03/15/2014 9:10:22 AM PDT by tomkat (3%+1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Again, Texas shows the way to fight criminals.

Are you freakin' kidding me? If you believe that this is a good idea you belong over on DU not on a freedom-protecting/conservative site. You're for a totalitarian/tyrannical government system.

11 posted on 03/15/2014 9:11:02 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Again, Texas shows the way to fight criminals.

Um, no; this just shows that Texas has no sense of jurisprudence — if they cannot have those who are tasked with enforcing the law to keep the law then they have surrendered the integrity of the whole judicial system.

12 posted on 03/15/2014 9:11:29 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Again, Texas shows the way to fight criminals.

Until Texas or the Feds decide that YOU are the criminal. Remember Waco.

13 posted on 03/15/2014 9:13:57 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar
"Again, Texas shows the way to fight criminals."

If you believe in the US Constitution as the law of the land, the criminals won this court case.

14 posted on 03/15/2014 9:15:39 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

“Kind of like the NKVD fought criminals in the old Soviet Union... “

You got that right.


15 posted on 03/15/2014 9:16:21 AM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sagar

No. Just no.


16 posted on 03/15/2014 9:16:27 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Pendulum swung so far to the side of the criminals for so long in terms of interpretation of what’s a reasonable search this was bound to happen.

Liberal/leftists had taken over the entire court system.


17 posted on 03/15/2014 9:16:28 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Mapp vs Ohio.


18 posted on 03/15/2014 9:17:24 AM PDT by Manic_Episode (GOP = The Whig Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

I don’t see this ruling surviving federal court scrutiny, under the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine.


Never thought I’d live to see the day when freezers would be calling for help and cheering on the leftist Democrat appointed Federal judges.


19 posted on 03/15/2014 9:17:42 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Freezers should be Freepers, of course.


20 posted on 03/15/2014 9:18:21 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sagar

>Again, Texas shows the way to fight criminals.

Reminds me of a Robert Vaughn line near the end of The Bridge at Remagen, just before he faces an SS firing squad (adapting):

“But who are the criminals?”
[engines overhead “Ours or theirs?” “Enemy planes.” “But who is the enemy?”]

IMO, that’s you (the SS firing squad).


21 posted on 03/15/2014 9:19:17 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE! --- ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

This is a terribly raw abuse, and should be appealed to the 5th Circuit on three grounds.

1) Unless there is an audio recording of the informant, there is no evidence that the information was not just fabricated by the police.

2) While information received is useful, it should be insufficient *by itself* for a warranted search, much less a search without a warrant. Warrantless searches are an abomination, and should only be used on rare occasions when time is critical. In which circumstances they must be specially justified after the fact. If they cannot be justified after the fact, than those who applied for them should be liable.

3) Seeking a warrant to justify a search based on evidence that was inadmissible should transfer that inadmissibility. The evidence was tainted, so it should remain tainted.


22 posted on 03/15/2014 9:21:46 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

You would think the Libs would be screaming. They love the 5th, but hate all the other amendments.


23 posted on 03/15/2014 9:24:33 AM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

You never know what a judge will do regardless of who appoints them.

It was a black female Clinton appointee who slapped the feds hard and acquitted the Hutaree of all charges here in Michigan.


24 posted on 03/15/2014 9:24:34 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

I agree that this is terrible—and Texas is my beloved state!


25 posted on 03/15/2014 9:27:19 AM PDT by basil (2ASisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Yeah.

There is a contingent of nutcase leftists who post here in a united front.

They are like the free Mumia people. Same dynamic.


26 posted on 03/15/2014 9:27:39 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Criminals or not, this is just plain wrong.


27 posted on 03/15/2014 9:27:43 AM PDT by Baynative (Got bulbs? Check my profile page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Most of the posters on FR have drunk the Kool-Aid.
It’s hard not to when the MSM drowns everyone in it.

I don’t have a problem dropping the exclusionary rule. But then you have to independently and aggressively prosecute official malfeasance.

As for state’s rights, the Constitution guarantees every state will have a republican - small r - form of government, which would not exist if states could abrogate the people’s rights. We did not embrace small tyrannies - until recently that is.


28 posted on 03/15/2014 9:29:12 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE! --- ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

The nutcases want the feds to be involved for internal Texas affairs.


29 posted on 03/15/2014 9:31:19 AM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Those folks might as well be frozen. LOL


30 posted on 03/15/2014 9:32:44 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

“But then you have to independently and aggressively prosecute official malfeasance.”

Yes.


31 posted on 03/15/2014 9:33:57 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I’ve always had a problem with the exclusionary rule. Evidence of guilt is still evidence of guilt. With the exclusionary rule, the wrong doers get a pass, both those on the perpetrator side and the law enforcement side. The one’s harmed are the victims and the general public.

I’d rather see the evidence used and those in law enforcement who violated the constitution punished appropriately. Yeah, I know...like that’s going to happen.


32 posted on 03/15/2014 9:34:35 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax; COUNTrecount; Nowhere Man; FightThePower!; C. Edmund Wright; jacob allen; ...

Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!

To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...

33 posted on 03/15/2014 9:36:26 AM PDT by null and void ( Obama is Law-Less because Republican "leaders" are BALL-LESS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Of course...


34 posted on 03/15/2014 9:39:20 AM PDT by null and void ( Obama is Law-Less because Republican "leaders" are BALL-LESS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Yes, the comments on this thread betray a woeful understanding of the exclusionary rule, invented by Federal judges around, I believe 1920, and initially applicable only to federal cases. There needs to be a way to control law enforcement, and deter them from violating the civil rights of citizens, but that does not necessarily require the exclusion of evidence of guilt. It is just the method that judges chose—performing as legislators in the process.


35 posted on 03/15/2014 9:40:53 AM PDT by Defiant (Let the Tea Party win, and we will declare peace on the American people and go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

You and I are on the same page.


36 posted on 03/15/2014 9:41:30 AM PDT by Defiant (Let the Tea Party win, and we will declare peace on the American people and go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Just remember though, Texas is the greatest conservative state in the union. Just ask any Texas FReeper.


37 posted on 03/15/2014 9:42:57 AM PDT by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar
I'm with you! In fact, warrants are soooo 18th-century! Criminals have gotten smarter, so should we! No warrants should be required at all! IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, YOU SHOULDN'T OBJECT! Just bust in people's houses, all hours of the night, with SWAT teams! You never KNOW what nefarious activities you will find!

DO AWAY WITH WARRANTS!!!

38 posted on 03/15/2014 9:44:38 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Wasn’t this decision issued back in Dec. 2103? Or is
this something as a followup to that decision?


39 posted on 03/15/2014 9:46:45 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I sense a disturbance in the farce...


40 posted on 03/15/2014 9:49:02 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

I’m not entirely positive about this. Doug Book is obviously greatly alarmed for very good reason, but I wonder if we’re presented with the information in a fair way.

If police suspect a crime is currently taking place, they do not need a search warrant. The judge *might* believe that the CI have risen to strong enough cause for that belief in this case. If so, then the judge must consider whether the report of the CI, plus whatever evidence put the CI in place in the first place, might have been sufficient cause for a search warrant.

IOW, the question MAY BE: If a search warrant *could* have been attained legally had not the police believed they were halting the commission of a crime, does the fact that they wrongly believed they were halting the commission of a crime nullify their chance to secure a warrant? If not, would you say the same thing if they were told someone was about to be murdered, and they found a serial killer’s lair?

On the other hand, for all I know the cops were absolutely acting in bad faith. I’m just looking not to rush to judgment.


41 posted on 03/15/2014 9:49:15 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

That Police State knows no region or level of government it seems. Fascism everywhere.


42 posted on 03/15/2014 9:51:46 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; Oldpuppymax
“Um, no; this just shows that Texas has no sense of jurisprudence — if they cannot have those who are tasked with enforcing the law to keep the law then they have surrendered the integrity of the whole judicial system.”

Some people on this thread are happy to stomp on Texas but it is FEDERAL LAW that caused this judge's decision. Texas law is second to federal law just as every state is.

According to this federal law, there has to be a confidential informant before this entering without a warrant can be done. Evidently the police knew this informant, likely “their” informant. Bubba down at the bar can't call and get police to enter someone’s house without a warrant.

Change the federal law that caused this.

“...who cited as his grounds to reject Wehrenberg’s appeal the federal Independent Source Doctrine, “…a legally questionable concept that permits illegally seized evidence that was mentioned to police by a third party beforehand.”

“Writing for the majority, Criminal Appeals Court Judge Elsa Alcala agreed that, “…while Texas’ “exclusionary rule” bans illegally seized evidence from trial, federal precedent dictates that it can be introduced if it was first confirmed by an independent source.”

43 posted on 03/15/2014 9:52:12 AM PDT by Marcella ((Prepping can save your life today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dforest

Bingo dforest. A sad Bingo but a Bingo nonetheless.


44 posted on 03/15/2014 9:52:23 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Yeah.

There is a contingent of nutcase leftists who post here in a united front.

They are like the free Mumia people. Same dynamic.
____________________________________________________________

And they have popped up in droves over the past few days even though they have been Freepers for years...

I am beginning to think they are a leftist sleeper cell that infiltrated the site years ago and it has suddenly been activated.


45 posted on 03/15/2014 9:52:26 AM PDT by FerociousRabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

So the police can come into your home, search through it scatter trash all over the place and if they find nothing proceed onto the next house to repeat the same process and leave the home in ruins with no recourse from the innocent homeowner.

Another mind numbingly stupid ruling from the courts and then it has the prosecutors applauding.


46 posted on 03/15/2014 9:52:31 AM PDT by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dforest

No. My America has been destroyed. It was nice while it lasted. Too bad my kids and future generations will not know what it was like to be free.


47 posted on 03/15/2014 9:55:03 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

“Never thought I’d live to see the day when freezers would be calling for help ...”

Ohhhhh! That’s cold.


48 posted on 03/15/2014 9:55:59 AM PDT by DaiHuy (May God save the country, for it is evident the people will not! Millard Fillmore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

I never thought that I’d see the day when freezers (Freepers) would applaud the trampling of the Constitution in the name of going after criminals. That’s what the Nazis did and it led to tyranny.


49 posted on 03/15/2014 9:56:42 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
I don’t see this ruling surviving federal court scrutiny, under the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

That's my thought as well. The "tainted fruit" precedent was established back in 1939. Not that that means anything to this Gestapo-ized administration, but at least it's a formal ruling that has to be overcome.

50 posted on 03/15/2014 9:58:12 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson