TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Paladin wrote:Wow... great neighbors... with no evidence of wrongdoing, police feel it's justified, they blame the victim

Yep, and the scary part is these folks could well be the type of people any of us could have on a jury - criminal or civil. And Rosenthal's lead appellate attorney testified that SB378 simply wasn't needed. (Of course, other DA's and ADA's did also, but I never miss an opportunity to point out Rosenthal.)

As well you shouldn't. As a Harris County resident, I am extraordinarily disappointed with Rosenthal.

Am I mistaken, or do I, as a gun toter, simply not remember his tenure as DA: Wasn't Johnny Holmes a more level-headed DA? Not prone to wasting my tax dollars fighting State-level legislative issues? Not prone to ignore State legislation and interpret law as he chooses?

Johnny Holmes was a great DA! I wish Harris County still had him.

Chas.

I agree...We were sold this idea that Chuck was cut from the same cloth (Mr. Holmes)...In some ways he was, but he got snake-bit, and became a bit too political for what thats worth...

I still have some mixed feelings about Rosenthal, but for the most part he really hacked off a lot of people that originally supported him...

Yeah, I'm kinda mad that he did turn his back on us on a certain issue, and he sure could have NOT taken the stance he did on it...I believe that stance turned a lot of the other "big" county DA's in this state against us on that same issue...

As a friend, I would tell him I hope he has his bags packed...

Ahhhhhhh, look on the bright side. Maybe they are / were drug scum, at least one of them is dead now :)

How's that for NOT being PC ...

HankB wrote:Hmmmm . . . the story says 10 lbs of marijuana was found. That's not a heck of a lot . . .

uuuuuuuuuuuuum, yeah, 10 pounds is A LOT of weeeeeed, man.
that's prolly, well, a quarter bag goes for, what, like $30 or something, and like, a quarter bag is like, 1/4 of an ounce, so like, thats 4 times $30 bucks, or something, and, like then you gotta figger out how.......
many ounces are in a pound, and then, like, times that by $120, and then like times like 10, cause, you know, there was like, 10 whole pounds, man.

10 whole pounds!!!!!

man.



I'm hungry......

Are you sure you want to tell us how you know this stuff?

- Jim

whoa, man, that's like, confidential, and stuff.


man.

and like, I know like, lots of musicians, and stuff, man.

seamusTX wrote:Are you sure you want to tell us how you know this stuff?

- Jim

He watches Cops and CSI.

C'mon, Casselthief, take up for yourself, Mon!

Anygun

casselthief wrote:

HankB wrote:Hmmmm . . . the story says 10 lbs of marijuana was found. That's not a heck of a lot . . .

uuuuuuuuuuuuum, yeah, 10 pounds is A LOT of weeeeeed, man.
that's prolly, well, a quarter bag goes for, what, like $30 or something, and like, a quarter bag is like, 1/4 of an ounce, so like, thats 4 times $30 bucks, or something, and, like then you gotta figger out how.......
many ounces are in a pound, and then, like, times that by $120, and then like times like 10, cause, you know, there was like, 10 whole pounds, man.

10 whole pounds!!!!!

man.



I'm hungry......

For those of you who dont want to do the math, thats $14,400.00 . Or in gun terms WWB box is going for like $15.00 for 100 rds of 9mm. That come out to 96,000 rds of ammuntion. Guess it all depends on point of view.

casselthief wrote:whoa, man, that's like, confidential, and stuff.


man.

and like, I know like, lots of musicians, and stuff, man.

And I bet Dazed and Confused ranks as one of you favorite movies too.

naw.

I was trying to add a little levity with a Tommy Chong voice over.










failed miserably, I see.

casselthief wrote:I was trying to add a little levity with a Tommy Chong voice over.

Dave's not here, man.

Skiprr wrote:

casselthief wrote:I was trying to add a little levity with a Tommy Chong voice over.

Dave's not here, man.

thanks, I needed a chuckle.

casselthief wrote:

HankB wrote:Hmmmm . . . the story says 10 lbs of marijuana was found. That's not a heck of a lot . . .

uuuuuuuuuuuuum, yeah, 10 pounds is A LOT of weeeeeed, man.

To a user, sure, but to a grower it's a couple of good yield plants worth fresh, (I'm assuming MJ prep is similar to tobacco here, so you stoners feel free to correct me) or maybe a small garden patch worth ready-to-use. Cops bragging about their bust will, of course, give wet weight, including the bags and whatever else they can toss on the scale (root ball and attached dirt, maybe) to boost the numbers.

In my opinion, why they decided to break into this guy’s house is immaterial to the discussion of whether it was a good shoot or not.

The homeowner and his family were home, someone breaks in, and the homeowner defended himself and his family. Of course I’m assuming a few things such as he didn’t invite them in, nor did anyone else in his family. I’m also assuming they actually “broke in� and a normal person in a similar circumstance would have felt threatened. If that is indeed the case, then it’s a righteous shoot in my mind.

Afterwards, drugs were found in the homeowner’s house, and not a small amount! 10 lbs is a little high for personal consumption

It doesn’t mater where I stand on the War On Drugs or whether I agree marijuana should be legal. At this point in time, it’s illegal so the homeowners got some explaining to do and whoever is determined to be responsible for the drugs being in the house is in trouble. But that doesn’t negate the validity of the shoot…

Sure the potential worth of the drugs could have brought the bad guys to his door, and through it, but so could a wide screen plasma TV, or a nice gun collection, or an expensive computer or stereo setup. The possibility drugs were the cause of the break-in doesn’t change the fact the act of breaking in is illegal.

HankB wrote:…wonder if it was in plain sight or if the local constabulary got a warrant to search through drawers & cabinets?

OK. OK, it was a crime scene so investigators have a lot of leeway to, well, investigate. But does this include a complete search of the premesis, including poking around in areas too small to hide a person?

This is a serious question - IANAL and frankly, I just don't know how far the police can go when they're investigating a residential shooting.

Can they go through dressers, search your attic, demand you open your gun safe, hand over keys to a safety deposit box, etc., without obtaining a warrant?

I too am interested in the answers to HankB’s questions. What are the limits to a search after a shooting?

HankB wrote:This is a serious question - IANAL and frankly, I just don't know how far the police can go when they're investigating a residential shooting.

Can they go through dressers, search your attic, demand you open your gun safe, hand over keys to a safety deposit box, etc., without obtaining a warrant?

I thought the others would answer this but it looks like it is up to me. The rules are kind of different in some ways for a shooting or any crime scene, but the same in other ways.

The basic rule is always going to hold true, that any search without a warrant is illegal, unless there is one of the exceptions that the court has recognized. In a shooting, there are two exceptions that are normally used.

The first is the rule of exigent circumstances. I clearly have an injured person present. It is reasonable to presume that there may be other injured people who need treatment, witnesses who are hiding until they know it is safe, or that the shooter may still be present and a threat to responding emergency workers. Thus, a quick search of the building for people is justified. This is limited to places where people can be hiding, but it includes places like where small children can hide. They have been known to get into some very unusual small places when scared and hiding. But it would not include things like inside a locked wallsafe (inside a gun safe is possible though).

The second rule normally used is that of consent. If one of the homeowners calls the police and welcomes them in, consent has been given for at least a limited search and presence. Consent always overrides objections to searches later, and is somewhat vague sometimes in what constitutes consent. Remember my last post about "Can I look around?". The same thing applies when you call the police and welcome them into your house. If they start to look in more than the area where the crime has occurred, you can make them get a warrant, but not objecting can be taken as an extension of the original consent to enter.

But, there is an interesting problem in some cases. If the husband just shot the wife in their house, then he can deny the search or collection of evidence. In this type of case, the husband has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his own home. Several cases have been lost because the officers did not get a warrant after the initial treatment of the scene by EMS. Remember that the initial search ends the first time all officers have left the scene. To come back again requires a warrant. A good officer will always have someone get a warrant for the crime scene if there is any possibility that the suspect is one of the residents or property owners.

This was all made very clear last year (or so) when there was a SCOTUS ruling on something like this. In this case, it was a family disturbance call with the husband and wife both present. She got upset and told the police where in the bedroom he kept his drugs and gave them permission to get them. He told them not to go in there. SCOTUS ruled that the cops getting the drugs was illegal because he was present and objected to the search and his rights were as strong as hers on the property. In cases of ties like that, the decision goes to the runner, so the police lost out.

srothstein wrote:

HankB wrote:This is a serious question - IANAL and frankly, I just don't know how far the police can go when they're investigating a residential shooting.

Can they go through dressers, search your attic, demand you open your gun safe, hand over keys to a safety deposit box, etc., without obtaining a warrant?

The first is the rule of exigent circumstances. I clearly have an injured person present . . . a quick search of the building for people is justified. . . . The second rule normally used is that of consent. If one of the homeowners calls the police and welcomes them in, consent has been given for at least a limited search and presence . . .

Hmmm . . . so as I understand it, if one calls the police after shooting an intruder who's DRT in, say, the living room, the police would be expected to enter and take stock of the immediate area, and perhaps make a quick check of the rest of the home to see if there were other people present . . . things in plain sight (bales of marijuana, a meth lab in the bathroom, a row of crack pipes on the counter) would be actionable, but they wouldn't have legal authority to go through drawers, download computer files, read my mail, etc., unless I tacitly gave them permission by remaining silent as their search proceeded?

Would their authorization for further snooping be limited if, upon their arrival, the homeowner who called them explicitly said something along the lines of "You can check out the dead guy, but you've no permission to search elsewhere?"

I can imagine that going over real well . . . but seriously, how does a homeowner who calls the cops establish that he's not granting blanket permission for an unlimited search?

I can't see any reason to NOT think that during a response to a shooting, or for that matter, any call to a residence or other structure, that anything in plain sight would NOT be taken into consideration for further investigation...

If its drugs, blood trail leading off into another room, a device with lots of blinking lights with a clock winding down towards zero, would be sufficient cause to call in the appropriate investigators to...mmmm...investigate...

Its kinda like those traffic stops where the troopers alway take an obvious "look" inside your vehicle to see if there is anything in plain sight to investigate...Or ask to search your vehicle, etc etc...We've been down this road before...

Know what I mean Vern???