And why, oh why!, would a judge sign something that blatantly went against the fourth amendment? That's the point. He wouldn't. It is subjective. Do we have a copy of that warrant? Because I am sure it doesn't just say nothing. "You may enter anywhere to look for anything on anyone". That is certainly not how it was written. I said many posts back that since there is no crystal ball then either a- evidence of a kidnapping or murder or b.- have a box check type thing that you can check what items you will be looking for should be appropriate. What is not appropriate is for law enforcement to gain a warrant before entry, the warrant is signed by a judge and then people get to claim fourth amendment rights are violated. I'm not sure why that is so confusing. There should not be a warrant that can be obtained by one judge that is then deemed not appropriate by another! No one is looking to violate any rights. They HAD a freaking warrant! They didnt just saunter on in grabbing stuff! That's how it is being talked about.
" and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
RBBM...
According to testimony in hearing
they could have taking anything they wanted. ....
From the Judges ORDER :
pulaski County Investigator Zachary Warren testified that he prepared an affidavit to
obtain a search warrant for the Randall Dr. home. That warrant was signed by Pulaski County
District Court Judge Wayne Gruber on September 28,2014, and it was executed by the
investigators that day. The affidavit prepared by Warren recited, in essence, the timeline above
and alleged reasonable cause to believe that
THERE IS BEING CONCEALED AT THIS TIME POTENTIAL PROPERTY/EVIDENCE,
TO WIT: l) CLOTHING 2) PERSONAL PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE VICTIM 3)
SHELL CASINGS, 2) (sic) PROJECTILES, 3) FIREARMS, 4) AMMUNITION, 5) DNA
AND BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE,6) HUMAN REMAINS, T) ANY ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT AND MEDIA STORAGE, 8) ANY ITEM THAT COULD BE USED AS A
WEAPON TO INCLUDE, KNIVES AND BLUNT FORCE OBJECTS, 9) ANY OTHER
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND INSTRUMENTALITY,S (SiC) OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
CONTRIBUTING TO THE FURTHERANCE OF A CRIME; TENDING TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED RELATED TO THE DISAPPEARANCE OF BEVERLY CARTER. AS
THERE EXIST (sic) REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE ABOVE FACTS
AND CONDITIONS DO EXISTS (sic), A SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT SHOULD
BE ISSUED. (State's Ex. l)
The language of the search warrant signed by Judge Gruber directed law enforcement to
search for these same things using the same language as the affidavit.
Warren testified that the search began at 2:35PM and took approximately one hour. They
discovered and seized various items, including the victim's cell phone, a Gateway laptop,
assorted jewelry, a white envelope with Google numbers written on it, multiple firearms, and a
credit card reader. The defense alleges that this warrant was overbroad, essentially becoming a
.,general warrant," giving officers free reign to search for and seize any item that could
conceivably be related to any criminal activity.
When asked whether the warrant allowed the investigators to search for any clothing or
simply the victim,s clothing, Warren testified that the warrant would have authorized them to
seize any clothing. When asked about shell casings, Warren admitted that they had no reason to
know whether shell casings would be present at the home. He testified that, "we didn't know at
the time. We didn't know how the crime was committed, what acts, whether it was by firearm or
any other weapon." He similarly admitted that they had no reason to know whether there would
be firearms, projectiles, or arnmunition at the home, though the warrant authorized them to seize
any objects of that type. When asked about DNA, biological evidence, human remains, clothing,
or personal property, Warren responded that the investigators had no idea at the time of
executing the warrant whether evidence of that nature would be present, or indeed whether the
victim had ever been taken to the residence. He testified that they also had no reason to know
whether there would be any electronic evidence located in the home, aside from a phone (that
had already been seized) that could conceivably allow access to the aforementioned TextMe app.
Regarding the directive to search for "any item that could be used as a weapon," 'Warren testified
that investigators had no evidence that a weapon had even been used, and specifically nothing of
the type (knives and blunt force objects) anticipated by the warrant.
Warren testified that the offrcers interpreted the warrant as authorizing them to seize
anything that could demonstrate that a potential criminal offense may have been committed
relating to the disappearance of the victim. During cross-examination, the defense asked the
investigator, "Is there anything in that residence that you couldn't have taken?" The investigator
answered that they would have been permitted to seize any item "[a]s it pertains to the
disappearance of Beverly Carter." He admitted that the investigators seized jewelry without
knowledge that it was the victim's, that they took a credit card reading device that they were
unsure had any connection to the victim's disappearance, and that they seized multiple firearms
that they had no indication were connected to the investigation.
One of the basic concepts of the Fourth Amendment is that searches and seizures must be
..reasonable.,, The Amendment itself states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affrrmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the person or things to be seized." U.S. Const., amend. IV. The critical element in a reasonable
search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable
cause to believe that the specific 'things' to be searched for and seized are located on the
property to which entry is sought. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 556 (1978). Valid
warrants to search property may be issued when it is satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate
that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises. Id, at 559
The warrant challenged by the defense is unquestionably a general warrant in direct
violation of the Fourth Amendment. The warrant itself listed no particular item believed to be
located at the address in question - it simply listed a broad category of things that might be
considered evidence or lead to the discovery ofadditional evidence, based on the investigators'
theory that the victim had been kidnapped and/or murdered'
Reviewing Investigator Warren's testimony at the omnibus hearing, it is clear that the
ultimate discretion of what items to search for and seize was directly left to the investigators. His
testimony confirmed to this Court that investigators ultimately could have seized anything in the
building if an argument could be made that it fell within the "nine categories"l specified in the
warrant. The broad discretion granted them is firther demonstrated by the fact that the
investigators seized multiple items that, though they may be either contraband or evidence of the
commission of some other crime, have no evidentiary value in this case'2 https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=W91IXRDASRGXJEZJK4QX4T3NOPNQ29
