And it was ruled that they should not have been given that search warrant because the probable cause that the presented was not properly obtained. Basically they fooled the first judge in to granting them a warrant that they should not have been given. I see that as a bogus warrant, especially given that all evidence gained from it has been ruled inadmissible now. I'm just spit balling here but I don't think that would have happened to evidence gained from a properly obtained warrant. I think that is how it works.

 

My issue is you're acting as if they lied to the judge thus absolving all responsibility on whoever signed the warrant. They didn't "fool" him. They gave him their reasons, as misguided as they were and he approved it. Lord knows some road troopers should be more knowledgeable than someone who's been through law school and practiced for years upon years.

Ahhh, so you are saying that the judge that signed the warrant had never heard of curtilage then?

 

Either you're extremely obtuse or you just prefer to paint the troopers as evil, instead of mistaken on how far "plain smell" can take you in regards to a search. Perhaps they thought that since plain smell is ok with vehicles, it applied to a residence. I know that it doesn't, but that doesn't mean they do not. And smelling drugs can be used to get a search warrant in some cases.

I haven't seen this case at all. Can you link the the other article you were talking about stating the reason the evidence was dismissed. Every item I searched just said proper procedure not followed but doesn't say why.

So basically the couple were guilty but the case got thrown out on a technicality. Is that correct?

I haven't seen this case at all. Can you link the the other article you were talking about stating the reason the evidence was dismissed. Every item I searched just said proper procedure not followed but doesn't say why.

 

West Kentucky Star - News

Either you're extremely obtuse or you just prefer to paint the troopers as evil, instead of mistaken on how far "plain smell" can take you in regards to a search. Perhaps they thought that since plain smell is ok with vehicles, it applied to a residence. I know that it doesn't, but that doesn't mean they do not. And smelling drugs can be used to get a search warrant in some cases.

 

Oh I don't think they are evil at all, just poorly trained/ill informed.

Oh I don't think they are evil at all, just poorly trained/ill informed.

 

What's your thoughts on who ok'd the warrant?

What's your thoughts on who ok'd the warrant?

 

That is the guy that is most at fault the way I see it. The officers mistake I feel was made in good faith. The judge, however, made a mistake that anyone that has passed the bar should not have made.

West Kentucky Star - News

 

Thank you. A little more info in that one. All the others must have been AP story that was just copied.

 

From the second article, it doesn't sound like they lied. At least according to the story they went too far by going into the landscaping. And if they told the judge everything the article states, the judge is an idiot for signing the warrant if it is against procedure to step into the landscaping. I wonder if they would have got the warrant if they said we got a tip and when we went to the door we smelled marijuana but no one was home. How much evidence do you have to prove to the judge to get a warrant.

 

Sounds like a couple criminals caught a break on a technicality.

I read a bit about this on social media. My understanding was that the police knocked on the door, nobody answered, so they walked around back where they looked into the house and saw several marijuana plants. At that point they 'smelled' marijuana emanating from the house and got the warrant based on that.

 

At least that's what I read on Facebook. I guess the defendant is a news anchor and she has been posting a lot online.

So basically the couple were guilty but the case got thrown out on a technicality. Is that correct?

 

Unless you believe in that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.

Unless you believe in that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.

 

We both know people are guilty and sometimes not proven to be. That doesn't mean they weren't guilty, just unpunished.

I take more exception with the anonymous tipster and their axe to grind.

Unless you believe in that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.

 

I believe OJ Simpson was guilty and he was found innocent. I believe George Zimmerman was guilty but didn't have enough evidence to convict him. I know Mel Ignatar was guilty and they found him innocent. I believe some of the police officers acquitted were guilty. And I also believe a lot of the police officers in our controversial threads are innocent but many believe they are guilty.

 

So yes, I can have an opinion on whether I think they are guilty when they find all the evidence but not allowed to use it on a technicality.

Too lazy. Can someone explain "curtilage" to me, please.