Hi,
In the example I gave, any competent attorney would argue:
Since the cops were waiting for a warrant, they had not searched the premises.
Since the cops had not searched the premises, they did not have probable cause that evidence was being destroyed. The papers being shredded could as easily have been old receipts or proprietary notes.
The cops cannot use evidence gathered after an action to justify that action.
And in the case that started this thread, you are ignoring the earlier part of the definition: "Exigent Circumstances refer to situations that demands unusual or immediate action and this allows people to circumvent usual procedures. In other words emergency conditions. The circumstances are such that it would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt action is necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers". {Emphasis mine}. I'd hardly consider the repeated tagging of his car over a relatively long period of time an emergency condition. If they had reason to think that he was about to try to escape by driving off into the great California (or whatever) wilderness, they might have had some small sliver of justification.
--Pete
(08-29-2010, 04:06 PM)Jester Wrote: Pete, the definition of Exigent Circumstances given in the link above appears to contradict what you said earlier about destroying evidence not qualifying.
You wrote:
Quote:Nope. That isn't even covered by exigent circumstances. Cops can sit outside of an office, looking in through a window and see the suspect shoving paper through a shredder, and they just have to sit there until a warrant is issued.
Your link says:
Quote:Exigent circumstances are said to exist when
(1) a person's life or safety is threatened
(2) a suspect's escape is imminent, or
(3) evidence is about to be removed or destroyed.
Does that not apply here? It would seem to be the obvious route to argue, anyway.
-Jester
In the example I gave, any competent attorney would argue:
Since the cops were waiting for a warrant, they had not searched the premises.
Since the cops had not searched the premises, they did not have probable cause that evidence was being destroyed. The papers being shredded could as easily have been old receipts or proprietary notes.
The cops cannot use evidence gathered after an action to justify that action.
And in the case that started this thread, you are ignoring the earlier part of the definition: "Exigent Circumstances refer to situations that demands unusual or immediate action and this allows people to circumvent usual procedures. In other words emergency conditions. The circumstances are such that it would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt action is necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers". {Emphasis mine}. I'd hardly consider the repeated tagging of his car over a relatively long period of time an emergency condition. If they had reason to think that he was about to try to escape by driving off into the great California (or whatever) wilderness, they might have had some small sliver of justification.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?