This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
Oh dear. Even if Charlie lied, the prosecutor’s belief in her statements was reasonable… and the entire point of the whole warrant requirement is to protect against unreasonable searches. Reasonable mistakes don’t seem like they make the entire search unreasonable. So Steve and Mike are screwed, aren’t they?
The search has to be specific as well as reasonable. My understanding, at least, is that because they were issued a warrant for a shoebox of drugs in the oven, that the drugs in the bedroom are off limits. The sword, however, was in plain view, so it’s fair game.
I find it a little hard to believe they’re going to charge the dude with having a sword when the cops busted into his house XD Seems like a waste of everyone’s time.
How exactly is it a waste of time? Possession of that weapon is apparently illegal in this area, so he was committing a crime. (The comments in an earlier panel talk about this – apparently it’s pretty common for something like that to be illegal, but something that police usually don’t bother with.)
Also, they didn’t bust into -his- house. He was a guest in the house who had an illegal weapon in plain view. Whether or not frustration at not having made the bust they thought were going to make entered into it, the arrest is good.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong (and I know the poster posted in 2013) but while a search warrant has to be specific, if it’s written up correctly, it would include anywhere that could potentially hide a shoebox sized container (or however large/small the drugs are supposed to be). The reasoning being that it wouldn’t be unreasonable to think the dealer has moved the stash around his house since it was last seen.
Thankfully, where I live we dont have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Always fun to live in a border region.
But the pot was planted…
The pot wasn’t planted. The drugs she brought out of the house were here own.
No, seeds were planted. The pot was harvested.
Seems like he could plausibly claim the pot was planted (if he thinks of that before admitting it’s his). A person known to be a drug dealer and to have lied to the police was in the house, unsupervised, with drugs in her possession. Sounds like reasonable doubt.