In reviewing this video , it seems the officer executing the search warrant REFUSED to show it to a person who was in possession (residing) at the building being searched. The person in possession ASKED to see the warrant. The Officer REFUSED to show the warrant.Code of Criminal Procedure
Title 1. Code of Criminal Procedure (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/)
Chapter 18. Search Warrants
Art. 18.06. EXECUTION OF WARRANTS. (a) A peace officer to whom a search warrant is delivered shall execute it without delay and forthwith return it to the proper magistrate. It must be executed with three days from the time of its issuance, and shall be executed within a shorter period if so directed in the warrant by the magistrate.
(b) On searching the place ordered to be searched, the officer executing the warrant shall present a copy of the warrant to the owner of the place, if he is present. If the owner of the place is not present but a person who is present is in possession of the place, the officer shall present a copy of the warrant to the person.
An officers says there is a search warrant, and the woman asks "Can we see that?"
She is told the officer doesn't have it, and another officers says it was served already.
The woman says "Not to us."
The officer says, it was served to the main person.
The woman says, "It's a different residence."
She may not be the "owner" of the premises, but she is clearly "in possession" of it.
Seems the Texas officers don't know their own laws regarding The Execution of Warrants.
Maybe they do have knowledge of the law.
Maybe they just don't respect it.
8 comments:
I've seen that videos many times. After viewing it, I believe firmly that all evidence should be thrown out. It violates rights that go all the way back to the Magna Carta.
Alinusara10
The warrant was presented to Merril, who was in charge of the entire property.
The warrant covered the entire ranch, including each and every building therein.
Nothing in the CCP states that each and every person has to be presented with a copy of the warrant.
The lady in the video had no right to see the warrant unless she owned the property or controlled the property. In this case, Merril controlled the property and was properly served with the warrant.
The officers executed the warrant in accordance with the law.
TxBluesMam, I'll have to disagree.
This woman obviously has direct occupancy, use and control of this private dwelling place.
As such, Merril had no right to act as the 'controller' of this property, and be served with the warrant in her stead.
The officers were searching a private place and seizing private items that she had control over, and she had a right to see the warrant.
I might respect the opinion of a "Hac" attorney, not a "Hoc" one though.
You may want to look at United States v. Butler which has been cited before in reference to the scope of the warrant and the size of the compound.
The ranch is one property, owned by one legal entity, with no separately identifiable residences.
Try that argument in court - the FLDS attorneys didn't because it is not a viable argument.
The warrant was executed properly.
Thanks, I will do that.
And further, you have not swayed my opinion. This woman's civil rights were violated. She had a right to see the Search Warrant.
Can We Stop Taking Legal Advice From This Guy Now?
Post a Comment