Dave and I have been really impressed by some of the very logical arguments we've read recently. These aren't direct quotations, but this is the gist of the arguments made:
1. At trial, the witness testified -- under oath -- that he was an untrustworthy person. Therefore, we can't believe anything he said at trial.
2. [Background -- you only have Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches and seizures if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. So, the question of reasonable expectation of privacy is frequently litigated.] The defendant clearly had a reasonable expectation of privacy here. This is obvious from the fact that he kept his drugs there. If he didn't expect that it would be private, he obviously wouldn't have left incriminating evidence there where police could get access to it without a warrant. He's not an idiot.
3. [In this case, police knocked and announced several minutes before someone answered the door, and they heard people running around inside trying to destroy and hide evidence during that time.] There's no evidence that the firearm was used in furtherance of drug trafficking. The drugs were inside the house, while police found the gun in the bushes outside the window. The government didn't present any evidence that the gun was stored anywhere else, so obviously it was stored outside the window. And since it was stored outside his window, obviously he wasn't using it during the drug crimes that took place inside his house.
1 comment:
You would think that with his job he would need to think a little more clearly. Then again, maybe he can't think clearly because of his job.
Post a Comment