USA V. JUAN PINEDA-MORENO

[Lissa]

Hi,

. . . but what I learned while serving on Federal Grand Jury is quite the opposite of what you are saying here Pete.

Then what you've learned is wrong. Perhaps you misunderstood, perhaps that jurisdiction's application of the law is unconstitutional.

When a person I respect tells me I'm wrong, I'll at least do a quick google or wiki search to try to determine the truth. I appreciate an equivalent amount of respect given to me.

In less than five minutes, with two quick searches, I came up with these two items. Each was the top item in its list.

Exigent Circumstances
Probable Cause

Now, if you still think your experience on a federal grand jury trump the definitions given on that site, then I suggest you find a forum or contact point there and argue it with them. My knowledge on the matter is exhausted. As am I.

Have a great day, Lissa. You're usually right. But not always.

--Pete

Pete, as Jester noted above, where do these two definitions show that I'm wrong? The definitions you just linked dovetail with exactly what I've learned and what I am saying. If an officer has probably cause and knows that evidence could be destroyed, they can react without a warrant to pursue the perpatrator of a crime. Sorry, but as you links just showed, Juan Pineda has no way to state that his 4th amendment rights were infringed. He was perpatrating a crime, the DEA knew he was growing a significant amount of marijuana for sales and distribution, and they acted so that evidence was not destroyed.

And the last time I checked Kandrathe, 50+ pounds of marijuana was a significant amount (given it's not tons like what has been seized in some places), but considering a personal amount is usually a few ounces (2 to 3), that's pretty significant and something DEA would definitely be interested in.