Raided

justugh said:

hey @tommybomb ...get a lawyer

1 if a robber broken in and sawl the stuff then they got caught and turned the info over to the cops ...the info they got is from a Illegal source as the info was found out in the commission of a crime ......they raided on the word of that person ...they did not set up and watch u and get info from a 3rd source to verify they acted on info that was illegally gotten during a commission of a crime it is fruit from the poison tree

they are going to try to plea deal u so that info never comes up in court ...........they are going to over charge u with any and everything they can think of (your lawyer will go to them see if can get something worked out ....they will hmm and haul and then make a offer so they look good for the conviction)

u need to go jury trial and make them admit the info came from criminal action

Click to expand...

The info can come from a criminal act. This happens all the time. Just because the guy learned of the grow while committing the burglary will not get that info excluded from a trial. It would only be suppressed if the police themselves committed an illegal act to obtain the info, then it's fruit of the poisonous tree. You have to have a government act to get to suppression under fruit of the poisonous tree. If it is a jury trial, the state will have to put the burglar on the stand to testify or else you would have a hearsay problem over what the guy told the police, a good defense lawyer can then bring out the fact that the guy is a scumbag thief, that he made a deal for a lighter sentence by giving the info, and discredit his testimony on cross examination. This guy just needs a good lawyer. My opinion is, he's screwed and a jury will convict, barring some unknown defect in the warrant or chain of custody of the evidence.

Yeah I was wondering, would you get a jury trial for something like this? I would definitely make it right if I were a jurist, I would hold out and hang the damn thing if necessary, to find you Not Guilty. With a judge, you'd probably be screwed.

Fish Weed said:

The info can come from a criminal act. This happens all the time. Just because the guy learned of the grow while committing the burglary will not get that info excluded from a trial. It would only be suppressed if the police themselves committed an illegal act to obtain the info, then it's fruit of the poisonous tree. You have to have a government act to get to suppression under fruit of the poisonous tree. If it is a jury trial, the state will have to put the burglar on the stand to testify or else you would have a hearsay problem over what the guy told the police, a good defense lawyer can then bring out the fact that the guy is a scumbag thief, that he made a deal for a lighter sentence by giving the info, and discredit his testimony on cross examination. This guy just needs a good lawyer. My opinion is, he's screwed and a jury will convict, barring some unknown defect in the warrant or chain of custody of the evidence.

Click to expand...

for them to use it since the person that gave them the info is already under arrest and saying sawl this in a crimal act...they need a 3rd party source or reason that comes independently and not from the snitch/CI

and for them to use the info like they did they would need to have him as a registered CI

the police acted on bad info .......if u can get this brought up during the case ur lawyer can have this dismissed

justugh said:

for them to use it since the person that gave them the info is already under arrest and saying sawl this in a crimal act...they need a 3rd party source or reason that comes independently and not from the snitch/CI

and for them to use the info like they did they would need to have him as a registered CI

the police acted on bad info .......if u can get this brought up during the case ur lawyer can have this dismissed

Click to expand...

I don't want to start anything...but. That's not exactly true. They don't have to register him as a CI and can use the info for a search warrant. No judge is going to sign a warrant based solely on this burglars info, so I'm sure there was some other corroboration done by the police before they applied for the warrant. Yes the burglary is an illegal act, but for it to be tainted it has to be a governmental act (the cops would have had to enter illegally, see the grow, and then use that info) for it to be poisoned. Info given by someone under arrest is used all the time by the police in exchange for lessor charges or even no charges. This is especially true in drug cases and conspiracy cases where someone rolls to save their own skin. This is just how it is, unless they lied to me for 3 years in law school and all the court here are just doing it wrong by not excluding this evidence/testmony.

Fish Weed said:

I don't want to start anything...but. That's not exactly true. They don't have to register him as a CI and can use the info for a search warrant. No judge is going to sign a warrant based solely on this burglars info, so I'm sure there was some other corroboration done by the police before they applied for the warrant. Yes the burglary is an illegal act, but for it to be tainted it has to be a governmental act (the cops would have had to enter illegally, see the grow, and then use that info) for it to be poisoned. Info given by someone under arrest is used all the time by the police in exchange for lessor charges or even no charges. This is especially true in drug cases and conspiracy cases where someone rolls to save their own skin. This is just how it is, unless they lied to me for 3 years in law school and all the court here are just doing it wrong by not excluding this evidence/testmony.

Click to expand...

aslong as tthey have the 3rd party it is legally what they did...but from the guys info sounds like they have nothing but the snitches word during a crime

justugh said:

aslong as tthey have the 3rd party it is legally what they did...but from the guys info sounds like they have nothing but the snitches word during a crime

Click to expand...

I reread the op, it sounds like he's not sure exactly what evidence they used to get the warrant. Once discovery is complete he will know what they have on him. Discovery should include the warrant application, which has to provide enough info for a judge to determine that a search warrant should be issued. It's a low threshold, but just the burglars info would not normally meet that bar, there are certain situations where it may but that would take a huge post to explain and its a narrow exception anyway. In any case like this you attack the search warrant first, then how the search was done, then try to exclude the evidence seized, and finally you attack the person (here burglar) who provided the info. Sounds like this guy rolled and tried to save his own ass. It sucks for the OP, but I think there is more to this story that either he doesn't know yet or isn't privy to at this point. Anyway, thanks for the discussion 'justugh', criminal law is so much fun and is just a huge chess match when it comes to defense work.

Fish Weed said:

I reread the op, it sounds like he's not sure exactly what evidence they used to get the warrant. Once discovery is complete he will know what they have on him. Discovery should include the warrant application, which has to provide enough info for a judge to determine that a search warrant should be issued. It's a low threshold, but just the burglars info would not normally meet that bar, there are certain situations where it may but that would take a huge post to explain and its a narrow exception anyway. In any case like this you attack the search warrant first, then how the search was done, then try to exclude the evidence seized, and finally you attack the person (here burglar) who provided the info. Sounds like this guy rolled and tried to save his own ass. It sucks for the OP, but I think there is more to this story that either he doesn't know yet or isn't privy to at this point. Anyway, thanks for the discussion 'justugh', criminal law is so much fun and is just a huge chess match when it comes to defense work.

Click to expand...

np man
i see u still think they play fair ...........my court exp does not share that idea .......my last case they over charged me trying to freak me out to get a pled and jail time i had to get info on O vape pens and show it in court saying the charges of 33 grams is shit .....i had at best 0.4 ml under a half a gram ........because i proved what they were charging was wrong i got off with a simple fine and unsupervised probation ......the distribution case/traffic case when away to simple poss

I think your situation is the norm, police or the prosecutors will over charge to try to force a plea deal. I don't think they play fair or unfair, it's just become the norm, which is really sad. The laws for criminal law are set as bright line rules, but because every case can be just a little different it brings in a lot of grey areas that unfortunately have to be argued in court. I'm glad you were able to prove your side of your case, sometimes it takes that kind of info to educate a judge about certain things. This is especially true with older judges and technology, most older judges have no idea what Skype or FaceTime or the newest tech is because they didn't grow up with it and don't use it. Sound like the same thing with the vape pen, I'm sure the judge had no idea about the differences, and you probably helped some future defendant by giving that judge the info. There is no way for every judge to know or understand everything there is to know, and with the growing number of ways to consume cannibis I'm sure there are plenty of judges, prosecutors, cops and people in general who have no knowledge of all of them.