Warrant Based On Predicted Future Crime Upheld By Texas Appeals Court
by
Douglas Troy Kans on Dec. 27, 2013
Summary: Interesting criminal case out of Texas addressing the issue of the legality of a warrantless search based on the possibility of an individual committing a future crime.
A Texas criminal case appears to have ventured into some disturbing territory with a recent opinion that seems to authorize police officers to conduct a warrantless search based on the possibility that a suspect might commit a future crime.
The case, Wehrenberg vs. State, occurred back in 2010 when police received an anonymous tip saying that Mr. Wehrenberg was involved with a group of individuals who were said to be “fixing to” cook methamphetamine. Police had already been watching Wehrenberg’s house for nearly a month and waited a few hours before acting on the tip, kicking in the front door of the home and handcuffing its occupants.
The only problem with the police action? They didn’t actually have a warrant to search the home. Instead, the police filled out a warrant request after the fact, failing to mention in their application that they had already entered the home. Instead, the warrant request only mentioned the anonymous tip as a basis and the warrant was ultimately approved.
Wehrenberg’s attorney told the trial court judge that the drug evidence seized by police should be excluded from evidence based on the warrantless search conducted by law enforcement authorities. However, the trial court judge disagreed, deciding that federal laws authorized the police to search the home without first obtaining a warrant. The judge wrote that so long as a warrant was based on evidence offered up by a third party the search and seizure would be valid.
The case was eventually appealed to the Texas Second Court of Appeals, which ultimately chose to overturn the trial court’s ruling, holding that the police had engaged in obvious misconduct by searching the home without a warrant. The matter was sadly not settled there, with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently releasing it’s own opinion that upheld the trial court judge’s ruling. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that federal laws permit the seizure of evidence so long as that evidence’s existence was initially offered up by a source.
Legal experts have decried the opinion, saying that the anonymous source relied on by the authorities was likely not credible. These experts note that if the informant had been reliable the police would have simply gotten a warrant ahead of the search, solving any potential problem with its legality. News reports have been clear that a judge was available at the time and could have easily signed off on a warrant prior to the illegal entry. Instead, the authorities chose to bust down the doors and then file a warrant request after gathering mountains of incriminating evidence.
Even more alarming to some in the criminal defense world is a point raised by the dissenting voice on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In a lone dissent, one justice noted that the search warrant was based solely on a statement that the suspects were “fixing to” cook methamphetamine. This supposed evidence is actually someone’s prediction that a crime will take place in the future, not a solid statement about a crime that has already been committed. The dissenting justice on the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that the majority’s ruling appears to validate searches based on predictive crime, something that raises troubling questions about the future of law enforcement.
Source: “In A Scene Straight Out Of 'Minority Report,' Police Are Now Getting Warrants Before Crimes Are Even Committed,” by Chris Gentilviso, published at HuffingtonPost.com.
The case, Wehrenberg vs. State, occurred back in 2010 when police received an anonymous tip saying that Mr. Wehrenberg was involved with a group of individuals who were said to be “fixing to” cook methamphetamine. Police had already been watching Wehrenberg’s house for nearly a month and waited a few hours before acting on the tip, kicking in the front door of the home and handcuffing its occupants.
The only problem with the police action? They didn’t actually have a warrant to search the home. Instead, the police filled out a warrant request after the fact, failing to mention in their application that they had already entered the home. Instead, the warrant request only mentioned the anonymous tip as a basis and the warrant was ultimately approved.
Wehrenberg’s attorney told the trial court judge that the drug evidence seized by police should be excluded from evidence based on the warrantless search conducted by law enforcement authorities. However, the trial court judge disagreed, deciding that federal laws authorized the police to search the home without first obtaining a warrant. The judge wrote that so long as a warrant was based on evidence offered up by a third party the search and seizure would be valid.
The case was eventually appealed to the Texas Second Court of Appeals, which ultimately chose to overturn the trial court’s ruling, holding that the police had engaged in obvious misconduct by searching the home without a warrant. The matter was sadly not settled there, with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently releasing it’s own opinion that upheld the trial court judge’s ruling. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that federal laws permit the seizure of evidence so long as that evidence’s existence was initially offered up by a source.
Legal experts have decried the opinion, saying that the anonymous source relied on by the authorities was likely not credible. These experts note that if the informant had been reliable the police would have simply gotten a warrant ahead of the search, solving any potential problem with its legality. News reports have been clear that a judge was available at the time and could have easily signed off on a warrant prior to the illegal entry. Instead, the authorities chose to bust down the doors and then file a warrant request after gathering mountains of incriminating evidence.
Even more alarming to some in the criminal defense world is a point raised by the dissenting voice on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In a lone dissent, one justice noted that the search warrant was based solely on a statement that the suspects were “fixing to” cook methamphetamine. This supposed evidence is actually someone’s prediction that a crime will take place in the future, not a solid statement about a crime that has already been committed. The dissenting justice on the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that the majority’s ruling appears to validate searches based on predictive crime, something that raises troubling questions about the future of law enforcement.
Source: “In A Scene Straight Out Of 'Minority Report,' Police Are Now Getting Warrants Before Crimes Are Even Committed,” by Chris Gentilviso, published at HuffingtonPost.com.