Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Bad ruling out of PA | Main | Raid seizes whisteblower records of reporter »

Fails the BS test to me

Posted by David Hardy · 26 October 2013 05:35 PM

Records of whistle-blower leaks seized during raid of investigative reporter linked to her husband who was convicted of resisting arrest. I dunno if resisting arrest is a felony in Maryland (the state has strange laws, include "common law misdemeanors" which are felonies under federal law (because the punishment is utterly up to the judge, a day of probation vs. life in prison)... but the Fourth amendments's requirement that for a residence the search warrant include a description of the property to be seized is still in effect.

· General con law

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Sailorcurt | October 27, 2013 6:04 AM | Reply

isn't there court precedent that if something incriminating is in "plain view" then it's probable cause for arrest?

So if, for example, you call the police for a domestic disturbance and while in your home in response to the call, they see a pile of coke on your table they can arrest you for it?

Does that hold true while executing a search warrant? Even if the search warrant is for something else, if they see something incriminating in another way while conducting the search can they arrest you for it?

My guess is that's what they'll claim. I saw a story that says some of the documents they seized were marked as low level classified (Law Enforcement Eyes Only, or Government Use Only type stuff). My guess is they'll claim that those markings provided probable cause to seize them, even though that's not what they were ostensibly there to search for.

With my tin foil hat on, I would imagine the gun thing was just a pretense and the documents (including documents that identified the journalists sources) were what they were really there for to begin with, but the markings and probable cause will be their cover.

Or am I misunderstanding the case law here? I'm no lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.

Leave a comment