In my opinion you should only search somebody’s property if you believe that it would provide additional information regarding the crime.
If the police already know she was drunk and stoned out of her mind from what they saw when they arrived on the scene, there is no reason to search her apartment.
It could have turned up a motive for a deliberate murder.
They are already devoting all their time looking for evidence against the victim-how much more can you expect of them?
I would think it would be because of this:
“It could turn up,” is not the standard needed for a search warrant.
Neither is “He was murdered”, but guess what?
I didn’t mean that was the standard. I thought it would be standard to look at the apartment of a person who kills someone like this. Just as, like, something that police regularly did.
Bricker and Gray Ghost:
Thanks to both Bricker and Gray Ghost for this analysis. What’s the case in Texas if it’s too dark in the apartment for her to see his hands or if he shows compliance? Again, lights off, almost totally dark (according to arrest warrant), and she’s entering from a lighted hallway.
:rolleyes: If there wasn’t a search warrant for the scene of a killing by a police officer for things such as shell casings, home surveillance video that may exist, etc., you’d be complaining about that, too.
That’s why the big announcement was that they found a little pot.
:rolleyes: right back atcha.
Who cares what the media announced? You claimed “they are already devoting all their time looking for evidence against the victim” and that being murdered isn’t a standard for a search warrant, inferring that is the reason there was one. If there was not a search warrant issued, you wouldn’t be complaining about that for the reasons I posted?
It’s not about what they announced. It’s about what they found. If they were just looking for evidence from the cop, then they would not have found the pot. Finding the pot thus suggests their reason for the search is to find a way to blame the victim.
Now maybe they just have procedures that say that, if they stumble upon pot, they have to include it, and they won’t actually use it to try and defend the cop. If so, great. But, if they do use that, then I share Czarcasm’s outlook.
The victim being on pot would not in any way change the material elements of the story as given. It would only be brought up to make jurors think the victim is a druggie and use their natural prejudice to get them to side with the cop.
Followed by:
The second quote does not follow the first. Finding the pot suggests their reason for the search is to find a way to blame the victim…unless they have procedures that say “they have to include it.” That’s a big “if.”
It’s irrelevant if “they” use it. If it’s something that has to be included in the report, then it has to be included regardless of what a lawyer does with the information in defense of his client at some future time.
What I commented on regarding “Czarcasm’s outlook” was his claim that “they are already devoting all their time looking for evidence against the victim” and the inference that that was a reason a search warrant was issued. No, “he was murdered” is not the standard needed for a search warrant, and no one claimed it was.
People that are complaining that a search warrant was issued would be complaining much more if they found out that one wasn’t issued and evidence such as the type I mentioned was not searched for or could be suppressed.
This is called “Wednesday” at my house.
So, why exactly hasn’t she been fired yet? Yes, yes, we’re still waiting for all of the facts to come in… but her own story, even if we believe it completely, already shows more than sufficient justification for firing her.
And about that noise complaint filed the same day as the shooting, at what time was that complaint made? During the time that she was supposedly on shift? After she got off shift, implying that she did in fact stop at her own actual apartment?
Yes, why is the dead guy who was in his own home getting tested for drugs, but not the woman who couldn’t remember where her own apartment was?
This would occur in most normal jobs. But many LEOs are members of a union, and there are a bunch of convoluted rules & procedures that must be followed before you can fire one.
Unions can be cooperative in such matters if they want to be. But white cop / black victim means the Blue Wall goes up pretty much automatically.
Yeah, any mention of whether the victim had marijuana or not is (or should be) completely irrelevant to the incident. It has nothing to do with the circumstances under which the cop shot him.
It is a big deal. The two shell casings found inside the apartment help to establish where the shooter was when she shot the victim. That is a significant fact in determining the sequence of events.
And, they need a search warrant to do that. The victim is dead, but someone still owns that apartment. Absent exigent circumstances, which didn’t exist here, they needed a warrant to search the apartment.