I’m a little confused by the case. Destroying the house is a seizure claim, not a search claim, right? If a person says the cops can enter, and they enter w/ consent and then blow up the house, I would think that’s an unreasonable seizure, not a scope of consent to search issue.
-
-
-
You're the expert, but I thought I remembered a line of cases that analyzed searches conducted in a destructive or offensive manner as unreasonable searches rather than seizures.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I'm sad to say that in my house we've started having to short-hand these cases. E.g., "the dog bite case," "the dog/child shooting case," "the tear-gas bombing case."
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
It's an explosive cert petition.
-
This
@ij petition really drops some truth bombs. - Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Also concerning is that two police officers essentially testified that they heard a person in the house. Not sure that courts can do much about this kind of lying-policemen problem. Maybe refuse to accept any police testimony on sj mtn given an obvious propensity for dishonesty
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Assuming the cert petition is true, the putative consent should have been considered coerced based on the threat to arrest (more specifically, false arrest) the resident for harboring a fugitive. That seems at least as problematic and important as the grenades / pillaging to me.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
What happened to the dog? I didn't see it in the cert petition ...
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.