Police arrest lawyer for refusing to hand over

his clients cell phones.

 

Who's in the right? The police arresting him for obstruction or the lawyer for interpreting the warrant accurately?

 

Nobody is right.  The police are executing a warrant, it’s not their job to interrupt the legality of the warrant.  The lawyer is also right, but it’s up to a judge to decide if the warrant is legal

2 Likes

Barbasol -

Nobody is right.  The police are executing a warrant, it’s not their job to interrupt the legality of the warrant.  The lawyer is also right, but it’s up to a judge to decide if the warrant is legal

Don't they get the warrant from a judge? 

Barbasol -

Nobody is right.  The police are executing a warrant, it’s not their job to interrupt the legality of the warrant.  The lawyer is also right, but it’s up to a judge to decide if the warrant is legal

If the police overstep the boundaries of the warrant then the evidence will be unuseable at trial. So, they most certainly do need to know how to read a warrant and execute it correctly.

3 Likes

WikiTheWalrus -
Barbasol -

Nobody is right.  The police are executing a warrant, it’s not their job to interrupt the legality of the warrant.  The lawyer is also right, but it’s up to a judge to decide if the warrant is legal

If the police overstep the boundaries of the warrant then the evidence will be unuseable at trial. So, they most certainly do need to know how to read a warrant and execute it correctly.

Then surely that plays into the lawyers hands? If the warrant does not cover the phone then give it to them and they can’t use it anyway 

1 Like

If the warrant does not cover the phones the lawyer should shove them up his own @$$ for safekeeping.

Tmaguru -
Barbasol -

Nobody is right.  The police are executing a warrant, it’s not their job to interrupt the legality of the warrant.  The lawyer is also right, but it’s up to a judge to decide if the warrant is legal

I assure you the only thing covered by a warrant is exactly what is written on that warrant and if there is so much as a mispelled street name it is unenforceable.


 


I used to serve people as a PI for a while and unless they changed that shit...


 

This isn't neecssarily true. A typo on an address for a property that is otherwise described correctly will not make the search illegal. Also, the good faith rule may allow evidence from a defective search to be used.

2 Likes

kingj03 -
WikiTheWalrus -
Barbasol -

Nobody is right.  The police are executing a warrant, it’s not their job to interrupt the legality of the warrant.  The lawyer is also right, but it’s up to a judge to decide if the warrant is legal

If the police overstep the boundaries of the warrant then the evidence will be unuseable at trial. So, they most certainly do need to know how to read a warrant and execute it correctly.

Then surely that plays into the lawyers hands? If the warrant does not cover the phone then give it to them and they can’t use it anyway 

That would be the worst thing the lawyer could do. If he freely consents to giving the police the phone then it can be used. Since he isn't being compelled to turn over the phone from the warrant, the phone would be admissible if he handed it over. 

Both attorneys were acquitted (without even having to put up a defense!!!), so they were obviously correct-

https://abc3340.com/news/local/attorneys-acquitted-after-arrest-outside-blount-county-courthouse

Lawyer was correct, cops had no idea wtf was going on and the D.A completely overstepped.

I Think the lawyers are correct. Who's the stupid bitch in the video that determined the attorneys need to be arrested?

 

Edit: wait, that was the DA? Wowwwwwwwwww

The Fans?

TheDorkKnight -

I Think the lawyers are correct. Who's the stupid bitch in the video that determined the attorneys need to be arrested?


 


Edit: wait, that was the DA? Wowwwwwwwwww

No she called the DA and apparently he/she instructed them to arrest the lawyers.


 


Props to that lawyer for not giving in. Sounds like they'll most likely get a nice settlement out of it.

WikiTheWalrus -
Tmaguru -
Barbasol -

Nobody is right.  The police are executing a warrant, it’s not their job to interrupt the legality of the warrant.  The lawyer is also right, but it’s up to a judge to decide if the warrant is legal

I assure you the only thing covered by a warrant is exactly what is written on that warrant and if there is so much as a mispelled street name it is unenforceable.


 


I used to serve people as a PI for a while and unless they changed that shit...


 

This isn't neecssarily true. A typo on an address for a property that is otherwise described correctly will not make the search illegal. Also, the good faith rule may allow evidence from a defective search to be used.

Exactly. Similar to a misspelled name on a ticket, it does not make the ticket void.

1 Like

55579 -
WikiTheWalrus -
Tmaguru -
Barbasol -

Nobody is right.  The police are executing a warrant, it’s not their job to interrupt the legality of the warrant.  The lawyer is also right, but it’s up to a judge to decide if the warrant is legal

I assure you the only thing covered by a warrant is exactly what is written on that warrant and if there is so much as a mispelled street name it is unenforceable.


 


I used to serve people as a PI for a while and unless they changed that shit...


 

This isn't neecssarily true. A typo on an address for a property that is otherwise described correctly will not make the search illegal. Also, the good faith rule may allow evidence from a defective search to be used.

Exactly. Similar to a misspelled name on a ticket, it does not make the ticket void.

Yep, I've gotten subpoenas for court with my name misspelled. Still had to go lol

Personally, I side with the police on this one. Here is why. It is not up to the defense attorney to try and argue the validity of a search warrant while they are attempting to serve it. Seize the phone, then file a motion to quash that in court. The police interpret it one way and the defense attorney sees it another. That is why there is a judge to rule on it. Either way the police and DA have to turn over whatever they find as part of discovery.

TheDorkKnight -

I Think the lawyers are correct. Who's the stupid bitch in the video that determined the attorneys need to be arrested?


 


Edit: wait, that was the DA? Wowwwwwwwwww

That was deputy. The DA was on the phone. 

1 Like

BigJimmy54 -

Personally, I side with the police on this one. Here is why. It is not up to the defense attorney to try and argue the validity of a search warrant while they are attempting to serve it. Seize the phone, then file a motion to quash that in court. The police interpret it one way and the defense attorney sees it another. That is why there is a judge to rule on it. Either way the police and DA have to turn over whatever they find as part of discovery.

It is absolutely the defense attorney's job to argue the validity of the search warrant when he is the subject of the illegal search for evidence against his client. He also did it well. He didn't freak out or resist in any way, he simply refused to consent to seizing the phones. 


He was right, since he was acquitted in a manner where the prosecution was unable to prove guilt without the defense presenting a case of its own. That means the evidence against him was so weak that the judge dismissed it because the prosecution's case lacked all merit for a conviction.

WikiTheWalrus - 
BigJimmy54 -

Personally, I side with the police on this one. Here is why. It is not up to the defense attorney to try and argue the validity of a search warrant while they are attempting to serve it. Seize the phone, then file a motion to quash that in court. The police interpret it one way and the defense attorney sees it another. That is why there is a judge to rule on it. Either way the police and DA have to turn over whatever they find as part of discovery.

It is absolutely the defense attorney's job to argue the validity of the search warrant when he is the subject of the illegal search for evidence against his client. He also did it well. He didn't freak out or resist in any way, he simply refused to consent to seizing the phones. 


He was right, since he was acquitted in a manner where the prosecution was unable to prove guilt without the defense presenting a case of its own. That means the evidence against him was so weak that the judge dismissed it because the prosecution's case lacked all merit for a conviction.


Valid points and he was acquitted, I didn't read article to see if they ended up using evidence in phone. Not have the PC to make an arrest and the search warrant being legit are different, IMO.

I do think the venue to argue is in court. The deputies seize the phone, you file a motion to quash the search warrant and seizing of evidence. Let a judge rule on it.

BigJimmy54 -
WikiTheWalrus - 
BigJimmy54 -

Personally, I side with the police on this one. Here is why. It is not up to the defense attorney to try and argue the validity of a search warrant while they are attempting to serve it. Seize the phone, then file a motion to quash that in court. The police interpret it one way and the defense attorney sees it another. That is why there is a judge to rule on it. Either way the police and DA have to turn over whatever they find as part of discovery.

It is absolutely the defense attorney's job to argue the validity of the search warrant when he is the subject of the illegal search for evidence against his client. He also did it well. He didn't freak out or resist in any way, he simply refused to consent to seizing the phones. 


He was right, since he was acquitted in a manner where the prosecution was unable to prove guilt without the defense presenting a case of its own. That means the evidence against him was so weak that the judge dismissed it because the prosecution's case lacked all merit for a conviction.


Valid points and he was acquitted, I didn't read article to see if they ended up using evidence in phone. Not have the PC to make an arrest and the search warrant being legit are different, IMO.

I do think the venue to argue is in court. The deputies seize the phone, you file a motion to quash the search warrant and seizing of evidence. Let a judge rule on it.

The arrest is predicated on the legality of the search warrant. 


The ex had told the police that there was child pornography on the phones, which there was not. The defense attorneys asked the client for the phones because he told them there were texts and pictures that corroborated his statements. They were going to use those for the defense.