While the proles bitch about shutdowns and Obamacare...

/MSG/

/MSG/

Uwaa OmO
REAL stuff kinda flies under your radar during these manufactured crisises.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/e...-confidential-files-during-raid/#ixzz2ik0tuB3

A veteran Washington D.C. investigative journalist says the Department of Homeland Security confiscated a stack of her confidential files during a raid of her home in August — leading her to fear that a number of her sources inside the federal government have now been exposed.
In an interview with The Daily Caller, journalist Audrey Hudson revealed that the Department of Homeland Security and Maryland State Police were involved in a predawn raid of her Shady Side, Md. home on Aug. 6. Hudson is a former Washington Times reporter and current freelance reporter.
A search warrant obtained by TheDC indicates that the August raid allowed law enforcement to search for firearms inside her home.


The document notes that her husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George’s County. The warrant called for police to search the residence they share and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms.
But without Hudson’s knowledge, the agents also confiscated a batch of documents that contained information about sources inside the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, she said​
​
Click to expand...

​
​
Yeah, that's not blatant violations of numerous Constitutional protections or anything...What a lovely act from this most transparant of administrations.
 
lol i just fucking made a bitch about obama care thread

im too lazy to read your paragraph right now sorry
 
` said:
lol i just fucking made a bitch about obama care thread

im too lazy to read your paragraph right now sorry
Click to expand...

Basically someone with press sources in DHS had their houses raided for a "gun violation" but had all their press files confiscated as well even though that's patently illegal.
 
NUDE ZOOK'EM! said:
Basically someone with press sources in DHS had their houses raided for a "gun violation" but had all their press files confiscated as well even though that's patently illegal.
Click to expand...

But a judge signed a warrant.

As we learned during the Bush years, a judge signing a warrant is like the hand of God Himself, making everything all legal and hunky dory.

Judges are all-wise and all-knowing. Donning a black robe elevates one to a superior level of human enlightenment.
 
Taft2016 said:
But a judge signed a warrant.

As we learned during the Bush years, a judge signing a warrant is like the hand of God Himself, making everything all legal and hunky dory.

Judges are all-wise and all-knowing. Donning a black robe elevates one to a superior level of human enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except the warrant didn't say anything about press related materials.
 
NUDE ZOOK'EM! said:
Yeah, except the warrant didn't say anything about press related materials.
Click to expand...

That's not going to matter. If it was sitting on top of a desk or something, in plain view, it's admissible in court.


Like if there was a kilo of cocaine, scales, and crack pipes on a coffee table.
 
Taft2016 said:
That's not going to matter. If it was sitting on top of a desk or something, in plain view, it's admissible in court.


Like if there was a kilo of cocaine, scales, and crack pipes on a coffee table.
Click to expand...

How about we save each other the trouble and you just read the article.
 
NUDE ZOOK'EM! said:
How about we save each other the trouble and you just read the article.
Click to expand...

I did. And nothing alters what I said about plain view. Anything seen in plain view can be seized even if not mentioned in the warrant.

Outraged over the seizure, Hudson is now speaking out. She said no subpoena for the notes was presented during the raid and argues the confiscation was outside of the search warrant’s parameter.

“They took my notes without my knowledge and without legal authority to do so,” Hudson said this week. “The search warrant they presented said nothing about walking out of here with a single sheet of paper.”
Click to expand...

There's a lot missing from the story. The police can't just apply for a search warrant to enter someone's house and search for a gun on the basis of that person was arrested 28 years ago. Well, I guess they *can*, but no judge will sign it.

I can't get outraged over this because at least half the story is missing at this point.

EDIT: oops, I found it. Missed the page jump first time.

So the police built a legitimate illegal firearms case against the husband, and while executing the search warrant saw some questionable documents and took them for investigatory reasons. She got them via Freedom of Information, so she'll get them back. No biggie here.
 
Last edited:
Yeah no biggie. Government only targeting the press who might be questioning their methods or means. Not a threat to th3 1A at all...
 
Taft2016 said:
That's not going to matter. If it was sitting on top of a desk or something, in plain view, it's admissible in court.


Like if there was a kilo of cocaine, scales, and crack pipes on a coffee table.
Click to expand...

The items you listed are illegal or related to illegal activity.

How are press related materials visibly illegal? Or illegal at all?
 
Lorca said:
The items you listed are illegal or related to illegal activity.

How are press related materials visibly illegal? Or illegal at all?
Click to expand...

Let's consider this logically....

When the police are executing a felony firearms search warrant and see internal documents from the FBI, CIA, DHS, or other government agency within the residence, do you think it is unreasonable for them wonder, "Hey, what are these documents doing in the home of a felony suspect?"

Do you think the police should just ignore them? Pretend they didn't see them? Or should they verify that they are there for a legitimate reason?

Even the most liberal loony kazoony judges in the history of this country have agreed to the plain view doctrine.
 
Taft2016 said:
Let's consider this logically....

When the police are executing a felony firearms search warrant and see internal documents from the FBI, CIA, DHS, or other government agency within the residence, do you think it is unreasonable for them wonder, "Hey, what are these documents doing in the home of a felony suspect?"

Do you think the police should just ignore them? Pretend they didn't see them? Or should they verify that they are there for a legitimate reason?

Even the most liberal loony kazoony judges in the history of this country have agreed to the plain view doctrine.
Click to expand...

They were unrelated to the search. DId the officers have the expertise to evaluate their content? How would they know it might be incriminating? And the content was AGAIN, not illegal and not related to the search.
 
Lorca said:
They were unrelated to the search. DId the officers have the expertise to evaluate their content? How would they know it might be incriminating? And the content was AGAIN, not illegal and not related to the search.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the plain view exception provides for: evidence outside the scope of the warrant.

The question is; was it reasonable for the police to investigate why a felony suspect had internal government documents?

I think any reasonable person would say "yes".
 
Taft2016 said:
That's exactly what the plain view exception provides for: evidence outside the scope of the warrant.

The question is; was it reasonable for the police to investigate why a felony suspect had internal government documents?

I think any reasonable person would say "yes".
Click to expand...

No....unless you're a fascist perhaps.
 
Taft2016 said:
That's exactly what the plain view exception provides for: evidence outside the scope of the warrant.

The question is; was it reasonable for the police to investigate why a felony suspect had internal government documents?

I think any reasonable person would say "yes".
Click to expand...

Mmmm, no, not reasonable at all. However I cant dispute that it is law.

Not at all sure that it is a reasonable application of that law....perhaps the courts will still decide.
 
Suppose it was a drug kingpin whose residence they had a search warrant for.

Would it be reasonable for the police to wonder why a drug kingpin has internal government documents?

Of course it would.

Or an Al Qaeda figure? Of course again.

The law is flat and even. It doesn't depend upon individual perceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top