If the people who broke into Ryan’s house knew that there was not a legitimate basis for a warrant, for what reason should their actions not be regarded as home invasion robbery, with all the implications that entails?

The Judge’s refusal to reconsider suppressing the search warrant is a bit more technical than that. The request was for a HEARING on suppressing the warrant, in which Det. Roberts would be questioned under oath about when he knew his informant was the burglar.

In order for the judge to grant that hearing prior to trial, there must be substantial evidence before the court that a fraud was committed on the magistrate knowingly by the police. The evidence does not merely have to exist, it must have come before the court either as a statement by the prosecution, testimony at a prior hearing, or evidence already available to the defense and placed in evidence.

At some point, Roberts is going to have to testify, and it will come out then that he knew his informant was burglarizing houses to provide him information, but by then the search will have been placed before the jury and at most they can be told to disregard it.

But at this point, though we all know it to be the case, it has not officially come before the court.

I don’t know if Hopkins is banned for the duration. He’s not on either sides’ witness list for the trial, I think Ebert subpoenaed him for the proposed hearing that isn’t taking place. He really has no direct testimony to offer on the case other than hearsay from a witness who is available for direct testimony.

Logic and legal proceedings seem to have very little in common.

Immediately to the left of what you see in this photo is the driveway, leading to the gate, and the garage is behind that gate. The pool is in the right hand corner of the back yard.

On the right hand side of the photo, you can see the eaves of the house next door. That is exactly how tightly packed the homes are in this whole neighborhood. If you do a left face from this perspective, there’s a church at a cul de sac a block away. Do a right face, and the guy who was chief of police at the time of the shooting lives three doors down, from what I hear. Three doors further lives a city bureaucrat who works for the planning commission, or zoning board, or whatever. The prevailing theory is that she’s probably the complainant regarding the code violations.

“Toby Turner 12 hours ago wrote:
Regardless of whether the police screwed up or not, they would not have been there executing the warrant if the guy wasnt doing something illegal. Bottom line, he shot a cop, he should go to jail forever.”

Where is Darwin when u need him?

http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/curtilag.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n4_v67/ai_20576402

At the time of the shooting, Frederick had no idea the circumstances under which the officers obtained the warrant, so if one assumes that he knows (i.e., from an external announcement) that they are the police and that they are attempting to execute a search warrant, the police’s deceit of the magistrate to get it does not shed any light on what you say is the key question.

I am not a member of the Virginia bar, but the inadmissibility of the probable cause (e.g., the affidavits, oral statements, etc.) used to get a search warrant is pretty common. This rule usually benefits the defendant, who typically would be prejudiced by the repetition of the state’s justification for obtaining a search warrant. Since a warrant can be based on hearsay, admitting this evidence against the defendant can also raise substantial due process and confrontation clause concerns.

I’m sympathetic to Frederick’s case (as I’ve read about it here). The invalidity of the warrant might be quite relevant to the question whether the police officer was acting in “performance of
his official duties,” as required under the statute. Their misrepresentations to the magistrate might also be admissible for some other purpose (such as impeaching their testimony, or to establish a motive for them to lie after the arrest). But if he gets it in, I think it will be the exception that proves the rule.

I disagree with some of your premises, too. First, the statute appears to require actual knowledge (because the killing has to be for the “purpose” of interfering with the police officer’s performance of his official duties), and so I don’t think whether he “should have known” is really a question.

Second, Frederick’s knowledge of his own illegal conduct (i.e., whether substantial, if he were a grower, or minor, if he were just a casual user) is also irrelevant to his knowledge that the police were coming through his door with a warrant. (I think it’s safe to say that marijuana growers have a greater reason to expect criminal home invasions as well as a greater reason to expect a search warrant.)

Finally, even if the police lied to the magistrate in obtaining the warrant, that doesn’t make the shooting per se justifiable homicide.

I’m not sure on this, but my gut feeling is that it would not be allowed if the garage is within the curtilage of the home, but if far enough away to be considered in a field then yes.

Remember that curtilage is part of the home, such as a mow line or a fenced area. I like to think of it as the place you live when not inside your house proper.

If the garage was 30 feet from your home and you tinkered on your car in the garage on a regular basis I would consider that part of your home life, and so under the protection of the 4th Amendment.

This is exactly correct. And the garage is behind a gate,tucked into the left rear corner of the property, as you face the property from the street. The properties on this street are not large at all. Neighbors two doors down on the opposite side of the garage were able to hear Ryan’s dogs barking from inside the house the night of the shooting, if that helps you understand the size of the properties there. It’s a low income neighborhood, a few miles away from a heavily industrial area.

Another way to provide perspective on the proximity of the garage to the house is that if you look at the house from the sidewalk, directly in front of the gate, the right edge of the garage is concealed behind the left edge of the house.

IMHO, the government likes to suppress as “irrelevant” issues related to warrant justification and service, but IMHO the government often seeks to withhold such information not because they believe it isn’t relevant, but because they know it is.

You’re 100% correct. But this case is different, because the local populace is watching this case like hawks. Local officials are actually talking behind the scenes about the political fallout from this case. Most cases where the legal “relevance” is decided by a judge, there aren’t any reporters or cameras in the courtroom. This time, if the judge and prosecutor start monkeying around, the public outcry locally, will cause people to lose their jobs.

The Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, is running for Governor next year, and he’s from this area. He was my delegate at one time. He went to law school less than a mile from where I live. And if this Commonwealth’s Attorney goes any further off the deep end then he has and McDonnell doesn’t, there’s a very real possibility he won’t win his own home district. He won’t allow that to happen.

According to Barry Cooper, cops are allowed to use FLIR (heat) cameras without a warrant on detached garages. I don’t know if it’s true, but he said it on one of his “Never Get Busted” videos.”

I’m not sure on this, but my gut feeling is that it would not be allowed if the garage is within the curtilage of the home, but if far enough away to be considered in a field then yes.

Remember that curtilage is part of the home, such as a mow line or a fenced area. I like to think of it as the place you live when not inside your house proper.

If the garage was 30 feet from your home and you tinkered on your car in the garage on a regular basis I would consider that part of your home life, and so under the protection of the 4th Amendment.

We need the curtilage not just the inside of our homes to remain secure and safe. A policeman could stand in the road or any public place, and see you doing something illegal, and easily get a warrant because of what he saw. That same policeman could not stand in your backyard, and look into your windows to see if you are doing something illegal. Could you imagine if this was not the case? Just when you are about to reach the moon with your wife you notice a cop staring at you in your bedroom window, just waiting to see you were doing something he bust you for, that might ruin the mood.

I’ll look into this though, it is quite an interesting thought.

Some of these moderate badge lickers were shouting for the death penalty the night the shooting happened, but they started switching sides about three days in, when local outlets other than me finally started reporting that all that was found was tomato plants, banana trees, and Japanese maples. That really turned the worm. The “cop questioners”, if you will, don’t even have to work hard on this one.

Pesronally, I knew it was all over for the CPD, PR-wise, when, about two weeks in, my dad was starting to question cops critically, on old controversies over police tactics. Now, he’s barely less cynical than me.

IMHO, the government likes to suppress as “irrelevant” issues related to warrant justification and service, but IMHO the government often seeks to withhold such information not because they believe it isn’t relevant, but because they know it is.

If knowledge of a certain fact would cause an impartial jury to acquit a defendant, there are few situations where I would consider just a conviction that was secured by the concealment of that fact. If jurors were told that they should ignore any evidence secured in an unreasonable search, the government would have a hard time getting convictions unless it reformed some of its practices. Prosecutors would see that as a problem, but I’d see it as a good thing–if a jury of ordinary and impartial citizens would consider certain search practices “unreasonable”, then they are per the Fourth Amendment illegitimate and should be recognized as such.

…couldn’t they be charged with felony murder for actions that resulted in an officer’s/person’s death?

Were I to somehow acquire an office where I could do so, I would seek prosecutions against the murderers who receive government paychecks. If they can convince a jury that their actions were reasonable and legitimate, fine. I see no legitimate reason, however, why many such people should not be prosecuted, nor why an honest prosecutor should not be able to score convictions.

Incompetance and ignorance goes all the way to the top!

CIII

If it is true (and Frederick did was growing), the cops could have got a warrant and knocked on his front door without breaking in, and without incident.

As stated many times on this site, that wouldn’t be as fun as playing SWAT guy, violating people’s rights, shooting dogs, terrorizing families, and making guns go bang-bang!

If it is true (and Frederick did was growing), the cops could have got a warrant and knocked on his front door without breaking in, and without incident.