tomkat
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,784
- Reaction score
- 3
Yes, that's what I was saying -- seems like two different stories are being told and guess maybe only time will tell where the truth lies. I also wonder if maybe (certainly not sure about this) even verbal permission for the search, if verified by witnesses, etc., might not help legitimize it. (Not saying I know that SM gave verbal permission -- but if he did.)
Also, very important, IMO, to keep in mind that, even with no express permission on the dog search, it seems likely that some of the exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (see the Wikipedia article I posted above) come into play here and will get much of the prosecution's evidence admitted anyhow.
I wondered about this, too. What I think would be true (again, not sure) is, as a renting tenant, he would probably have the same legal rights concerning his residence being searched by LE, etc., as he would if he owned his residence. I'm thinking that while the owner might be within his/her rights to unlock a door to a tenant's apartment and allow LE to enter, say, that would not guarantee that anything produced by such a "search" could not be successfully challenged as evidence. (All just my non-legally-educated musings here.)
I'd think that in the common areas, such as the laundry room, yes, the owner/manager could give permission, and, again, it might not have to consist of written permission, I don't know.
Don't know how all this would apply in the case of the rented-but-vacant apartment on the ground floor. (But, at any rate, that tenant is not on trial and so won't be challenging any evidence!)
That's an interesting scenario and a good question. The only difference I can see is that, in the case of the homeowner with the live-in adult son, there probably isn't a rental contract, etc. -- the son most likely is just to be considered a member of the household -- so, again just IMO, I think a search with the homeowner's permission would be harder to challenge than in the case of an apartment-dweller.
Yes, this is what I was talking about in my long post above about the first motion. That motion seems aimed mostly at just stopping any attempt to introduce the "dog results" as evidence in itself. (Not meaning have the dog/s there, in the courtroom -- but having the trainer or dog expert testify that during the search "the dogs did thus-and-thus and that means thus-and-thus, and from this we can assume, etc., etc." -- a sort of expert testimony. The argument against that seems to be that, in the case of dogs, they're the real experts -- but, since they can't speak our language to testify, a human has to interpret and explain -- sort of a second-hand expert testimony, which can pose problems. If only the dogs could talk directly to a jury!)
And you're right, to my knowledge (which is limited) -- evidence found by following up on dog searches is often admitted and often very valuable. That's what I meant when I said that I think the real battleground about the dog search in this case will be about the legality of the dog search -- because the dog results are largely what led to getting the search warrant, apparently. (And again, keep in mind those exceptions to the "poisonous tree" doctrine, which possibly could override the question of whether the dog search was with permission.)
I'm a Landlord, I would never let anyone in an apartment that is leased, vacant or otherwise, written or verbal, unless abandoned, power off by previous tenant. I have been in that situation. I do not think that a search warrant would be served to a Landlord if it's under lease, the warrant would be served to the occupant. Only for life or death emergency would it be opened by a Landlord or damage occurring at the time and so as anything, every situation is different.
JMHO