Why would I care? The difference is nil, legally speaking, since an anonymous tip-off is seriously underwhelming evidence and not generally considered sufficient for police action.
Yeah, seeing as they refused to show the warrant my money is on “some bogus shit”.
Has as already been mentioned, the only way the police could have found out about this, considering the time frame of events, is if they were given an anonymous tip-off. As other posters have already said, how many anonymous tip-offs do the police have to receive before they decide to go in mob handed? On this evidence, it seems they only need the flimsiest of excuses to carry out such actions, and that can’t be an efficient way to allocate resources.
Actually, an anonymous tip, when combined with corroborating detailed evidence, is a perfectly good way to establish probable cause.
For example, imagine an anonymous tipster calls the police and says, “There’s a guy that’s going to sell 20 kilos of heroin today to someone else in the southwest corner of Walmart’s Centreville parking lot. The guy with the heroin is about six feet tall, blond hair, and he’s driving a 2006 blue Toyota Camry. He’s supposed to be there at noon, and the heroin is in a red American Tourister suitcase on the passenger seat next to him.”
If the police watch the parking lot and see a man with blond hair drive a 2006 blue Toyota into the corner of the lot near noon, they are justified in briefly detaining him. If they observe a red suitcase next to him, they will have probable cause to search it.
Ah, if I were an enterprising but bored trooper in the war on drugs, I’d probably stake out the local garden supply store and jot down the license plate of any college-aged males buying grow lights. Now granted that this was a recently rented house, it doesn’t seem likely that either license plates or credit card receipts would lead back to the “scene of the crime”.
Another possibility is that they took care to set up the grow lights in such a way that they were visible from the outside. I suspect it’s a fairly distinctive spectrum.
Evil weed growers must be stopped.
There are no evil weeds; you are simply ascribing human attributes to these poor, maligned plants!
But if we get rid of them we can plant carrots. Carrots help you see reality. Weed makes you see something else.
The HEAT from them is. Thats’ what’s causing the problem in the first place.
For myself, I’d really like to see that warrant before drawing any conclusions. So all that follows here is WAG and supposition.
In setting up their “sting”, they’re going to be very careful to avoid anything that would allow the police or their supporters to cry fowl. The short window from being ready to having the police serving a warrant is very suspicious. It’s reasonable to suspect that there was an anonymous tip that there was a grow room in the house or something similar. Such a known false statement would be illegal, at least where I am. A more gray possibility would have been for them to arrange for a known snitch to get the same information knowing he would pass it on. No law against me lieing to some stranger in a bar about where he could score some fresh weed.
But in either of those cases, probable cause for a warrant is far from being met. Now for the hearsay supposedly involved in the warrant. Informants, undercover officers, whomever reporting to have purchased drugs there. IR surveillance indicating grow lights. These things don’t happen in a 24 hour period. If the PD had performed due diligence, they would either have documentation supporting the raid or, more likely, would have discovered that something was amiss with the supposed operation.
Refusing to show the warrant isn’t looking good.
Another reason for the short delay between setting up the sting ad beginning the raid, is that they knew that they were using the FLIR in a particular area, and set up up the house so that it would be viewed.
Its also possible that they did in fact arrange some kind of tip (possibly indirectly as the previous poster mentioned), but made carefully made sure whatever they said stopped short of “probable cause”. There would presumably be no need to lie, just saying “I saw some suspicious looking stoners carrying glow-lamps into the house at 1234 So-and-so street” wouldn’t be a lie, as they saw had indeed seen just that. But if the affadavid says “anonymous tipster brought drugs at 1234 So-and-so street”, then then cops have been caught red-handed lying.
Not sure if this was mentioned but I commented on one of the Youtube videos and Kopbusters gave this reply back:
Am I the only one who caught this reference to The Wire? Well done, Bricker.
Yeah, after a couple of hours with that post getting no traction, I was tempted to add that the affidavit was signed by Sgt. Ellis Carver. But I see I wasn’t too subtle after all. 
Never go broad when you can go subtle. You want to end up like me?
I think that if the stings were to catch crooked cops on the take etc it would be a good idea but this seems to be rather a dumb idea IMO.
How is catching lying cops that lie on affidavits about probable cause a dumb idea?
No. Anyone hurt in such a crime should sue the cops, for trying to bust someone for drugs on the basis of (I assume) an anonymous tip, and the presence of grow lights that they shouldn’t have been able to know about to begin with, instead of doing their jobs.
If the cops don’t step over the line, then everyone’s fine.
Because everyone always has a camera aimed at their front door, just in case the cops break it down. :rolleyes:
It wouldn’t be very hard at all to get one’s acquaintances stopped and searched.
Of course, they wouldn’t have heroin in the suitcase, but it wouldn’t be that hard to get someone searched, if that’s all it takes.
This seems to define an anonymous tipster’s detailed description as probable cause. There are lots of times we can describe someone, their movements, etc. to this degree of detail, so I personally think that’s bullshit. I’m good on a “totality of the circumstances” test, but seems to me that the only ‘totality’ in this example, or in Illinois v. Gates, is that an anonymous tipster was able to describe someone, their possessions, and their movements quite well.
I’d certainly like the police to have at least one clue, other than a tipster’s allegation, that those incidents had a potential connection with contraband. I could even buy into it if the tipster had a record as a reliable informant. But “I can describe you, and what you’re going to do, and I’ll call the anonymous tip line, and you’ll get searched” seems to be ripe for abuse. I might even call an anonymous tip line on myself sometime, just to see if I get surrounded by a SWAT team in the middle of BWI.
Cops lie. That is the problem. They have all the power,they should uphold the law not break it.