Glock Talk banner

Why you get a search warrant even when given consent

2K views 30 replies 15 participants last post by  ray9898 
#1 ·
#7 ·
Doesn't look good for the detectives? What do you mean? They aren't going to be disciplined. They got consent, the court didn't think it was voluntary and tossed it. Voluntary consent is always argued, and it often comes down to a matter of opinion. There is nothing to punish the detectives for.
 
#3 ·
Ummmm...yeah.

Regardless of your views on guns, the law and CA, building a felony case like this on consent is sloppy.
 
#5 ·
I always say, it's not what you're looking for, but what you may find.

Looking for some stolen truck tires, get a consent search and find a body.... :eek:

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: janice6
#4 ·
Yes you should,even when it can be a pain to do so.

On a side note, I hope Sandra had a gun with her in her safe room. If not, she is lucky that things turned out so well.
 
#11 ·
What about coffee time? :dunno:

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk
 
#8 ·
I'm struggling to understand why they would put detectives, that would handle a case in this manner on such a high profile case. One would think they would assign it to one of the more experienced detective's(and oversee it) to avoid this level of public embarrassment for the department.
 
#9 ·
I agree. Warrant is always best. I have had consent to search argued in court several times. Verbal consent given on camera and written consent have been argued, one time argued successfully and I lost a misdemeanor marjiuana case.

"My client didn't understand the consent he gave, and this officer intimidated him into giving consent with his reckless handsomeness, intimidating physique, and thunderingly masculine voice.

Apparently its not a given that you will be arrested if you give consent and the police find something illegal in that search.

"my client did not understand that his consent could lead to his arrest". We normally have a pretty good court in my area, but this was a total disappointment. I actually felt like the judge just threw his fellow attorney a bone because he made such a hard fought argument. He dropped the POM charge but convicted him of an accompanying paraphernalia charge.


We actually had a talk in roll call the other about how consent is not fool proof because of some recent cases where it has been argued.

Remember folks, all judges are attorneys.
 
#15 ·
Y'all must have better judges than us. Getting a warrant after hours is a PITA here. We have often done the same thing if we are in a hurry. No need for a warrant if written consent is given.

Might not be lazy police work, might be lazy court personnel. I don't know that for a fact but its a possibility.
 
#18 ·
What was the pressing need to search his residence?

The way I understand it the guy was in custody and not going anywhere anytime soon. So even if they couldn't get a search warrant immediately what was the issue?

And that is assuming getting a search warrant would have been a problem.
 
#21 ·
The article references an EPO.

Was an EPO issued, and did it specify that numbnuts couldn't possess guns? If so, that wasn't a 'search' so much as it was following through with a court order. If they had reason to believe numbnuts was in possession of guns (they did) and a court order was being lawfully served (?) and they found unexpected guns as a result of serving the order...it's all legit.
 
#25 ·
Even if they saw guns in plain view while serving an EPO, they can't seize them without consent or a warrant. An EPO is not authorization for law enforcement to enter and seize weapons. And the service itself can be accomplished without entry.
 
#22 ·
Consent from someone in custody is always debatable. But obtaining verbal consent without a video or audio recoding is just sloppy, piss poor police work. I might expect it of a rookie patrolman on a traffic stop, but a detective and especially one working what is going to be a high profile case should know better.


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
 
#27 ·
They should have gotten written consent instead of verbal consent. I would say that if they were serving a protective order and it specifies to seize guns that would be enough. But his comments during the interview would make me get a warrant. He invoked right to silence and attorney. While consent falls outside of Miranda, I would not rely solely on verbal consent in this instance.
 
#29 ·
The article references an EPO.

Was an EPO issued, and did it specify that numbnuts couldn't possess guns? If so, that wasn't a 'search' so much as it was following through with a court order. If they had reason to believe numbnuts was in possession of guns (they did) and a court order was being lawfully served (?) and they found unexpected guns as a result of serving the order...it's all legit.
...and now we get to the inflammatory and uneducated statements of the press:

"prosecutors charged the accused stalker with illegal possession of machine guns and other weapons he had stockpiled in his home."

"judge ruled the cache of high-powered weapons that the LAPD’s Threat Management Unit recovered"

"Detectives had known, through records, that Corbett was a onetime hunter and had a gun permit from another state. They suspected he kept weapons and questioned him repeatedly about it while in custody. "

Machine guns, or hunting rifles? Not that it makes a difference when your goal is to scare the uneducated into supporting gun control...
 
#30 ·
Serving a protection order at the residence and conducting a consent search on scene is one thing.

Having the guy in custody at the Station (unless I am reading it wrong) then going to the residence and conducting a search is something else. I find it hard to believe that they really thought a court would rule that ok.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Serving a protection order at the residence and conducting a consent search on scene is one thing.

Having the guy in custody at the Station (unless I am reading it wrong) then going to the residence and conducting a search is something else. I find it hard to believe that they really thought a court would rule that ok.
No kidding....a 'consent search' where one party is in custody at another location won't fly in any ones world no matter how many rainbows and unicorns it has in it. You are lobbing home run balls even for they guy who just graduated law school last week.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top