FBI Raids Manafort residence.

[TacoMac]

Maybe so but its my impression every time they meet with FBI they do a status update on monies received as foreign agents or they remember more Russian meetings.

That is very true.

In all likelihood, that's what helped get that warrant signed off on to begin with. But they'd better have come out of there with something. ANYTHING. Or it will take an act of God to get any other warrant signed off on.

Judges are loath to sign off on warrants without good probable cause, even in the face of obvious shenanigans. It's not only their reputation on the line, it's their legacy, job, everything. You get into the habit of singing off on fruitless warrants and you'll very quickly find yourself out on the street.

You can get away with one, maybe two fruitless warrants and put that off on the authorities misrepresenting their probable cause. But most judges wont even risk it a 2nd time if you came out of there with nothing the first.

 

[greg nr]

A lot of you folks seem to have a polyannaish view of judges and warrants. In reality the FBI pretty much has carte blanche on warrants. They get so many for so many different reasons the judges can barely sign them all.

There is no worry over substance or career impact. They are in some respects legal sharecroppers. Warrants in, warrants out.

It's more difficult to buy paper for the copiers than it is to get a warrant. They are always granted.

Judges never look back and ask what was found. It isn't held against an investigation.

Sheesh.

 

[TacoMac]

A lot of you folks seem to have a polyannaish view of judges and warrants. In reality the FBI pretty much has carte blanche on warrants. They get so many for so many different reasons the judges can barely sign them all.

Completely false.

The FBI has to show the same probable cause that local law enforcement does. If they don't, they run the risk of having any evidence they obtain suppressed.

You watch far too many TV shows and movies. They have nothing to do with reality.

 

[greg nr]

Completely false.

The FBI has to show the same probable cause that local law enforcement does. If they don't, they run the risk of having any evidence they obtain suppressed.

You watch far too many TV shows and movies. They have nothing to do with reality.

That right there is funny.

 

[st0wandgrow]

and the plot thickens

Stay tune

Yep, stay tune...

 

[schuylaar]

That is very true.

In all likelihood, that's what helped get that warrant signed off on to begin with. But they'd better have come out of there with something. ANYTHING. Or it will take an act of God to get any other warrant signed off on.

Judges are loath to sign off on warrants without good probable cause, even in the face of obvious shenanigans. It's not only their reputation on the line, it's their legacy, job, everything. You get into the habit of singing off on fruitless warrants and you'll very quickly find yourself out on the street.

You can get away with one, maybe two fruitless warrants and put that off on the authorities misrepresenting their probable cause. But most judges wont even risk it a 2nd time if you came out of there with nothing the first.

they had a subpoena which the cancelled the day before, in all probability they realized things were missing..numbers weren't adding up and he was holding out.

 

[ttystikk]

That is very true.

In all likelihood, that's what helped get that warrant signed off on to begin with. But they'd better have come out of there with something. ANYTHING. Or it will take an act of God to get any other warrant signed off on.

Judges are loath to sign off on warrants without good probable cause, even in the face of obvious shenanigans. It's not only their reputation on the line, it's their legacy, job, everything. You get into the habit of singing off on fruitless warrants and you'll very quickly find yourself out on the street.

You can get away with one, maybe two fruitless warrants and put that off on the authorities misrepresenting their probable cause. But most judges wont even risk it a 2nd time if you came out of there with nothing the first.

Unfortunately this has not been my experience.

 

[ttystikk]

A lot of you folks seem to have a polyannaish view of judges and warrants. In reality the FBI pretty much has carte blanche on warrants. They get so many for so many different reasons the judges can barely sign them all.

There is no worry over substance or career impact. They are in some respects legal sharecroppers. Warrants in, warrants out.

It's more difficult to buy paper for the copiers than it is to get a warrant. They are always granted.

Judges never look back and ask what was found. It isn't held against an investigation.

Sheesh.

And good defense attorneys often get their clients off because of this; filling a motion to quash the warrant based on a lack of probable cause is a common reason cases get tossed.

 

[ttystikk]

Completely false.

The FBI has to show the same probable cause that local law enforcement does. If they don't, they run the risk of having any evidence they obtain suppressed.

You watch far too many TV shows and movies. They have nothing to do with reality.

And how much personal experience do you have with this reality?

 

[TacoMac]

And how much personal experience do you have with this reality?

A lot. I teach it.

People have a very warped misconception of how things work. They take a personal experience they don't agree with (which of course they never will because they ALWAYS think they're right and that there's simply no way they got caught) or they watch a Law and Order or 24 marathon and assume that's the way things are.

It isn't.

Warrants for EVERYBODY must be clear, concise and well written. If they aren't, most judges wont even entertain them. Those judges who do are often overruled and the evidence is tossed and the judge censured.

But don't make the stupid mistake (as many do) that warrants have to be perfect. They don't. Good faith errors are perfectly acceptable. So are "proximity" exceptions.

If you want to understand how things really work, go to college and get at least an Associates Degree in criminal justice. You'll understand a great deal more how things work.

It's probably a hell of a lot cheaper than thinking you know what you're talking about when you are clueless and suffering the consequences.

 

[ttystikk]

A lot. I teach it.

People have a very warped misconception of how things work. They take a personal experience they don't agree with (which of course they never will because they ALWAYS think they're right and that there's simply no way they got caught) or they watch a Law and Order or 24 marathon and assume that's the way things are.

It isn't.

Warrants for EVERYBODY must be clear, concise and well written. If they aren't, most judges wont even entertain them. Those judges who do are often overruled and the evidence is tossed and the judge censured.

But don't make the stupid mistake (as many do) that warrants have to be perfect. They don't. Good faith errors are perfectly acceptable. So are "proximity" exceptions.

If you want to understand how things really work, go to college and get at least an Associates Degree in criminal justice. You'll understand a great deal more how things work.

It's probably a hell of a lot cheaper than thinking you know what you're talking about when you are clueless and suffering the consequences.

There are other ways to get educated about police overreach...

 

[Heil Tweetler]

And how much personal experience do you have with this reality?

A lot. I teach it.

People have a very warped misconception of how things work. They take a personal experience they don't agree with (which of course they never will because they ALWAYS think they're right and that there's simply no way they got caught) or they watch a Law and Order or 24 marathon and assume that's the way things are.

It isn't.

Warrants for EVERYBODY must be clear, concise and well written. If they aren't, most judges wont even entertain them. Those judges who do are often overruled and the evidence is tossed and the judge censured.

But don't make the stupid mistake (as many do) that warrants have to be perfect. They don't. Good faith errors are perfectly acceptable. So are "proximity" exceptions.

If you want to understand how things really work, go to college and get at least an Associates Degree in criminal justice. .

 

[greg nr]

A lot. I teach it.

People have a very warped misconception of how things work. They take a personal experience they don't agree with (which of course they never will because they ALWAYS think they're right and that there's simply no way they got caught) or they watch a Law and Order or 24 marathon and assume that's the way things are.

It isn't.

Warrants for EVERYBODY must be clear, concise and well written. If they aren't, most judges wont even entertain them. Those judges who do are often overruled and the evidence is tossed and the judge censured.

But don't make the stupid mistake (as many do) that warrants have to be perfect. They don't. Good faith errors are perfectly acceptable. So are "proximity" exceptions.

If you want to understand how things really work, go to college and get at least an Associates Degree in criminal justice. You'll understand a great deal more how things work.

It's probably a hell of a lot cheaper than thinking you know what you're talking about when you are clueless and suffering the consequences.

Nobody has argued about the process. But the FBI has a LOT of resources. they know how to write a warrant - they probably have staff lawyers assigned just for the review and critique of draft warrants, and they probably have prosecutors review them before they go to a judge. All of that is granted.

However, they do so many, and the content expectations are so well known, they can get by with just about any criteria if they word it well. And because the judges see them so often, and they are well written, and all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed, they stop looking critically at them. They fail to see what is written and rather look at how it is written.

So yeah, the FBI follows the process, but they still bend the rules to their advantage and get warrants on flimsy evidence, or merely the fear evidence may go away, whatever it might be.

I learned a long time ago you can just about anything you want from the government if you file enough paperwork and follow the rules of expectations. They don't like exceptions, but pass the mundane.

That doesn't follow the spirit of the constitution. Just the letter of expectations.

Btw, you were/are in law enforcement?

 

[TacoMac]

There are other ways to get educated about police overreach...

Not when you have no idea what you're talking about.

That is the problem from the outset.

Most people think that what THEY think is legally or morally right is right. It's not. The law has nothing to do with morals. It is simply the law. There is what is the law, and there is what isn't.

Jails are chock full of people who THINK they know how law enforcement works.

 

[TacoMac]

Nobody has argued about the process. But the FBI has a LOT of resources. they know how to write a warrant - they probably have staff lawyers assigned just for the review and critique of draft warrants, and they probably have prosecutors review them before they go to a judge. All of that is granted.

That has nothing to do with my previous post on this subject.

In order to get a warrant approved, you must show probable cause. Now, granted, with Mannafort and everybody else changing their stories constantly over this, that goes a long way towards probable cause.

But they still have to show probable cause beyond that. What makes them truly think that there are materials in his house that are relevant to the investigation?

That's a tough question to answer.

The problem with probable cause is that it's very subjective: it really depends on who hears the argument as to whether or not it's approved as such. There is no black and white, clear line on PC.

I'm sure they used the recent shenanigans, leaks and probably more that we don't know about to get that warrant.

But many news sources are saying they came away with nothing but what they already had.

My statement is simply this: IF that is true, then they're in a world of shit. Because NOW they can't use that argument (the changing stories, etc.) to get another warrant signed.

Example: Say now they wanted to search Ivanka's apartment she was in for the same reasons. They use the same story. No judge is ever going to approve that because that argument was already used and turned out to be false.

No judge is going to ever sign another warrant based on that argument again. Ever. Because then it's just a fishing expedition and completely baseless.

In the end, you can't go through EVERYBODY'S house based on the same argument hoping you get lucky. That simply does not, never has and never will happen.

That was my point.

 

[ttystikk]

Not when you have no idea what you're talking about.

That is the problem from the outset.

Most people think that what THEY think is legally or morally right is right. It's not. The law has nothing to do with morals. It is simply the law. There is what is the law, and there is what isn't.

Jails are chock full of people who THINK they know how law enforcement works.

I'll get back to you on this.

 

[greg nr]

That has nothing to do with my previous post on this subject.

In order to get a warrant approved, you must show probable cause. Now, granted, with Mannafort and everybody else changing their stories constantly over this, that goes a long way towards probable cause.

But they still have to show probable cause beyond that. What makes them truly think that there are materials in his house that are relevant to the investigation?

That's a tough question to answer.

The problem with probable cause is that it's very subjective: it really depends on who hears the argument as to whether or not it's approved as such. There is no black and white, clear line on PC.

I'm sure they used the recent shenanigans, leaks and probably more that we don't know about to get that warrant.

But many news sources are saying they came away with nothing but what they already had.

My statement is simply this: IF that is true, then they're in a world of shit. Because NOW they can't use that argument (the changing stories, etc.) to get another warrant signed.

Example: Say now they wanted to search Ivanka's apartment she was in for the same reasons. They use the same story. No judge is ever going to approve that because that argument was already used and turned out to be false.

No judge is going to ever sign another warrant based on that argument again. Ever. Because then it's just a fishing expedition and completely baseless.

In the end, you can't go through EVERYBODY'S house based on the same argument hoping you get lucky. That simply does not, never has and never will happen.

That was my point.

I guess that's where we differ then. I know a couple of federal judges (1 well, 1 by association) and they both claim they are so overworked they can't begin to critically review everything that comes across their desk. The way they describe it they are in a crisis and no solution is in sight.

If that is common, there is no way warrants are being scrutinized or questioned. Didn't work last time? Different judge and no questions asked.

I'm not talking manafort specifically. High profile cases probably get the time. But routine investigations? Can't possibly work the way you describe. The workload is too high and the resources too few. That is probably by design. This congress despises regulation by any branch, and cuts back on enforcement resources wherever it can. So they don't approve federal judge openings. No big deal to a congress breaking laws.

 

[TacoMac]

I find that a laughable post.

First, no judge would ever admit that. To do so would see them kicked off the bench IMMEDIATELY.

Secondly, they do have a staff. The vast majority of simple warrants are approved and signed with ease. It's typically only the major cases that a judge actually calls the parties in and hears. If there is every any doubt, the judge in question will hold a hearing.

I think your post is made up bullshit. I've worked for a judge. It doesn't work that way AT ALL.

 

[ttystikk]

I guess that's where we differ then. I know a couple of federal judges (1 well, 1 by association) and they both claim they are so overworked they can't begin to critically review everything that comes across their desk. The way they describe it they are in a crisis and no solution is in sight.

If that is common, there is no way warrants are being scrutinized or questioned. Didn't work last time? Different judge and no questions asked.

I'm not talking manafort specifically. High profile cases probably get the time. But routine investigations? Can't possibly work the way you describe. The workload is too high and the resources too few. That is probably by design. This congress despises regulation by any branch, and cuts back on enforcement resources wherever it can. So they don't approve federal judge openings. No big deal to a congress breaking laws.

...to say nothing of district and municipal Court judges.

 

[ttystikk]

I find that a laughable post.

First, no judge would ever admit that. To do so would see them kicked off the bench IMMEDIATELY.

Secondly, they do have a staff. The vast majority of simple warrants are approved and signed with ease. It's typically only the major cases that a judge actually calls the parties in and hears. If there is every any doubt, the judge in question will hold a hearing.

I think your post is made up bullshit. I've worked for a judge. It doesn't work that way AT ALL.

I think you're an idealist without any experience in the trenches.

The reality is that corners are getting cut all over the Justice system and those without the funds to defend themselves aggressively are getting fucked on the regular. Dodgy warrants are only the beginning.