A judge will issue a search warrant if the police provide enough information to show that: it is more likely than not that a crime has taken place, and items connected to the crime are likely be found in a specified location on the property. The police usually provide information that is (1) based either on the officers' own observations, or (2) based on the secondhand observations of an informant. If providing secondhand information, the police generally must convince the judge that it is "reliable." Usually, this means that the information is corroborated by police observation. For example, a citizen's tip that someone regularly delivers drugs to a certain location would be corroborated if an officer observes the person's routine. Feel free to correct me with some actual evidence but until you do I'm not going to back down from what I believe to be correct just because you choose to be rude. Your words are no more important than mine
Based on the second hand information of the informant (dad) reading her social media and presenting it to police who's job it is to uphold the law, you arent very bright are you
Cases involving minors are subject to very different conditions than, as you indicate, a drug delivery.
Depends on the severity of the crime, minor crimes apart warrants and arrests tend to come hand in hand so to make sure the person detains never gets chance to tamper or destroy potential evidence. I think in this case the arrest was enough to obtain the warrant, for reasons such as preventing him or anyone else having the car cleaned, disposing of clothes or wiping hard drives etc Of course, the warrant doesn't have to be for the same place as the alleged incident. Just there be chance of evidence being there.
If you read again, it says that second hand info must be corroborated by a police officer's observation. At least try to know what you're talking about before slinging insults around. And just my own personal advice, as a mod you should be far less hostile towards other posters, you are the second mod I've had issue with today insulting a poster for no apparent reason. Tell me why I'm wrong, but there's no need to be rude, you wouldn't be in real life so why do it on here?
To be honest we are all just speculating and haven't got a clue what evidence the police had..So no real winners to be had with this argument..
Fair enough. If you could find me some evidence to support your statements I would appreciate that. I repeat, not because I don't believe you, just because what you're telling me differs from my own understanding. Yeah I understand all that bud, it's just that I didn't believe that a simple allegation was enough to make an arrest/obtain a warrant. If that is the case, then I think it's very worrying as surely hundreds maybe thousands of people every year will get their privacy invaded for the sake of a little white lie gone out of control, as Defoe in a row put it.
Hang on, so the informant presents evidence to police and the officer thinks aye theres something in this superindendant, aye check it out Rocket science it isnt
The officer can't just "think aye theres something in this" he has to have reason, probable cause. Really not rocket science you're right but I'm banging my head against a brick wall here.
The argument isn't specifically about the case, it's about the reasoning behind the issue of a warrant. What some people don't see to appreciate is that a warrant isn't always necessary if someone has been arrested. Policemen carry a warrant card and can enter a property, gather evidence, etc with that alone.
There are apparently postings and photos on social websites. It's just common sense that in an allegation like this, that the police would want every one of AJs electronic devices to clarify whether there are more private communications between the 2. Therefore searching his house for every device is just plain common sense. I can't understand why you do not see that.
I can see that and agree with you...but the fact remains that as far as I'm aware to obtain a warrant they need more than an unfounded and uncorroborated allegation...this isn't about common sense it's about the law.
A warrant does have to be issued in the first place though, and they must only be issued on reasonable grounds that either a crime has taken place or that evidence can be gathered from the property relating to a crime..
The Police don't need a warrant to search the premises of a person arrested for an indictable offence: Search without a warrant Section 17 of PACE allows the police to enter and search a premises in order to carry out an arrest warrant. This section also gives police the powers to enter and search a premise in order to catch a person unlawfully at large, or to protect the public from injury or harm at large. Section 18 of PACE states that the police have the right to search premise directly linked to a suspect that has been arrested of an indictable offence. They can exercise this right if they reasonable believe it is a necessary step to obtain evidence contained within the premises. Section 32 of PACE states that when a person is arrested for an indictable offence, the police have the right to search the premises they found the suspect in immediately prior to the arrest taking place. The police can exercise this power if the police constable reasonably believes the premises may contain evidence linked to the offence in question. Code B states that all searches of premises should be carried out at a reasonable hour (where possible), that only reasonable force is to be used when necessary and the police officers conducting the search should give consideration to the privacy of the premises occupier. Under section 19 of PACE, once a police offer has entered the premises they may search and retain any information or evidence that is linked with the offence in question.
"If the police do arrest you, they can also enter and search any premises where you were during or immediately before the arrest. They can search only for evidence relating to the offence for which you have been arrested or to some other offence which is connected with or similar to that offence, and they must have reasonable grounds for believing there is evidence there. They can also search any premises occupied by someone who is under arrest for certain serious offences. Again, the police officer who carries out the search must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is evidence on the premises relating to the offence or a similar offence." http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/your_rights/legal_system/police_powers.htm#h_powers_of_entry
