Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by mzmtg, May 12, 2007.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/ ... press.html
As much as I hate to see a drug dealer go free, the ruling looks good based on the article.
What about alcohol dealers?
They shouldn't be prosecuted based on improper searches either.
"because he gained entry by deceiving"
Is that not what vice units do? Dress up like prostitutes and johns and bust people? Pretend to be drug dealers and drug buyers and bust people?
How is this deception any more grievous?
According to the article, it was not the owner of the residence that allowed the police to enter. They deceived "someone else in the residence" of the owner into allowing them to enter.
Suppose you had a friend over at your house. You left them there while you ran to the store. While you were gone the police came and knocked on your door and asked for permission to enter and search your residence. Your friend allows them to do so. Would you consider the police entry into your home legal and valid?
So they can deceive the person but not a third party?
Right. They can deceive you to enter YOUR house, but not to enter someone else's.
A third party would not be able to give permission to search. It appears the court applied that standard.
So to gain entry properly, the police must remember to lie to the owner.
So a good way to tell if the guy is a cop sounds something like this
Drug Dealer: "Hey man what's up?"
Undercover: "Can I Score some stuff?"
DD: "Don't know what your talking about "
UC: "No really I wanna score some sh!7"
DD: "Ok man, come on in."
UC: "Hold on man, do you own/rent this place?"
DD: "No man...why?"
UC: "No reason, just curious, is the owner here?"
DD: "Yeah hold on let me get em....
dd: "Here he is