1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Jan 20, 2021.

  1. Jake from State Farm

    Jake from State Farm Well-Known Member

    And to hear Dana Fucking Perino, who was W’s press secretary and knows better, parrot this shit is maddening
     
  2. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Maybe the search party simply has to give/get a receipt ...

     
  3. BitterYoungMatador2

    BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

    Not just casinos, casinos in Atlantic City, which has a beach and are less than a two-hour drive from New York, Philadelphia and Washington. Additional, he had a virtual monopoly at that time since casinos hadn’t yet been passed in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York and West Virginia. If he had gone tits up with a casino in Topeka it would add up. Instead, he drove the place into the ground, sold the properties off to his criminal friends (Icahn) and they’re just now showing signs of life after years of malfeasances.
     
    matt_garth, wicked and Woody Long like this.
  4. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Probably already posted, but still, the sad thing is - I doubt it even registers with these people.

     
  5. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    She didn’t. That’s a quote from 2016 about Hillary. Oddly, SHS hasn’t deleted it yet - because folks are hammering her about it. (Not that she cares about what the people think.)
     
    garrow likes this.
  6. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    Would seeing a dog locked inside a car on a 98-degree day allow for cause to break into the car, and would seeing financial info related to the case on the front seat make it kosher to do a search? Lennie Briscoe and Jack McCoy would say sure, but they're Lennie Briscoe and Jack McCoy and bend the rules. And yes, I know that's an off-the-wall hypothetical.

    Are search warrants sealed? I saw here that they weren't, but my Google searching seems to indicate they're only in a database to which common folk don't have access.

    As you can tell, I was never a cops or data reporter.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2022
  7. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    The warrant is being audited. Plus it’s really complex and most people wouldn’t understand it. But he will release in a couple of weeks or so.
     
  8. Woody Long

    Woody Long Well-Known Member

    As to your dog hypothetical, it depends. What are you searching for? If it were evidence of cruelty to animals, I'd say that's probable cause. See, e.g., Beck v. Ohio. If you busted the window to get the dog out and the car smelled like a rastafarian in a state where cannabis is illegal, you'd have probable cause to search for illicit drugs.

    Search warrants, generally, can be sealed, especially in an instance where the supporting affidavit would alert broader investigative targets, giving them a chance to destroy or spoil evidence.

     
    2muchcoffeeman and sgreenwell like this.
  9. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    Thanks. This is why I hang around this place, because smart people answer stupid people's questions without being too condescending.
     
  10. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    We know the Fox News response - if the DOJ laid out the facts about the search and investigation, they'd be accused of "trying the case in public" and not respecting the "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Maybe we can send Trump to Russia for Griner and a case of vodka.
     
  11. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    To piggyback on Woody's on the money response - Police also tend to have very wide latitude when it comes to deeming something "exigent circumstances," for better or worse. In your car example, with a dog or a baby? They're shattering the window, and probably not making that much of an effort to find your dumb ass. But obviously, plenty of officers can "hear a disturbance" from an apartment, and suddenly they're entering without a warrant. Whether this results in the officer getting in trouble depends on the political climate of your area, and what they find, or don't.

    re: Search warrants, at least in Rhode Island they were pretty much 99 percent available if an arrest had been made. I believe they were supposed to be available for review after their execution by the public after 14 to 28 days at the department's designated courthouse, but as Woody mentions, there were plenty of ways to extend this deadline or attempt to "hide" officer actions. (i.e. You break down some innocent person's door, trying to find a drug operation; oops, officers raided 1000 Smith St. instead of 10000 Smith St. If the occupants of 1000 are convinced to stay quiet and to let the PD's insurance pay them out, you're probably not seeing that warrant until the search is done at 10000 Smith St. Or, it'll just get lost forever.)
     
    Woody Long likes this.
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You are obviously correct.

    But why would anyone do that?

    The warrant is an incomplete picture of what is going on. And with the public's penchant for jumping to conclusions based on an accusation (the warrant may only say what laws he potentially violated), I can see a rationale for why someone (let's say it wasn't Trump involved) wouldn't do what you are saying.

    This will never happen, and obviously with Trump it's all sliminess and bullshit and dishonesty. ... but let's say the accusations were all false, what I would understand him doing is: "I'll release the warrant, but only if they release the affidavit that supported the warrant."

    To get a search warrant, they needed to show a judge probable cause to get the sign off. If he's supposedly an innocent man, releasing the warrant does nothing to help his cause in the court of public opinion. But (factually) impeaching whatever they told the judge to get the warrant would be convincing.
     
    HanSenSE and Azrael like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page