Re: Right to search without a warrant.

More | Report Post

On 7/05/06, Carol wrote:
> On 7/03/06, Anthony Adams wrote:
>>> My attorney is worrying me first because she is court
>> appointed and people have said they don't help as much as they
>> would if they were being paid.
>
> That blanket statement is patently untrue. There are good
> attorneys and bad attorneys just like there are good and bad
> doctors, teachers and auto mechanics to name a few other
> professions.
>
> In many counties, I don't know about yours, there is no actual
> public defender office so any attorney who does criminal defense
> has to take a share of the court appointed cases. You might
> actually have the best attorney in your county! And it doesn't
> make any difference who is paying us, we have a duty to our
> clients that we take very seriously. A court appointed client
> deserves and gets as good a representation as someone who's
> paying. Actually, some attorneys prefer court appointed because
> they know they'll get paid for sure, can't garantee that with
> private pay unless they have a huge retainer.
>
>>Then the motion of discovery come back and after
>> talking in private with the prosecuter.She told me they
>> offered me 2 years and I should take it.By the way the motion
>> proved nothing.
>
> What does this mean? Are you saying the motion for discovery
> proved nothing? Are you saying the discovery proved nothing?
> By what standard are you judging that? The legally accepted
> standards that the courts use or your own idea of proof?
>
>>After asking if they had a right to search she
>> told me that crystal meth was considered an ultra violent
>> chemical and the needed no warrant.
>
> This is called an exigent circumstance. Meth is a HUGE problem
> in rural Ohio and is taken very, very, seriously. You can be
> apprehended and searched for buying or having in your possession
> just one or two of the ingredients for meth, which are entirely
> legal to posess by themselves. Is this right? Is it justice?
> no, I don't think so, but I didn't make the law.
>
>> I am going to talk to an attorney and see what my options
>> are.I thought financially my best bet would be a public
>> defender.
>
> Go ahead and hire another attorney. but keep this in mind: it
> is unethical for an attorney to talk to someone who already has
> an attorney.
>
>> My biggest question is without being able to see this meth lab
>> from public property or property that they had permission to
>> be on.how can they legally go on that property and search.
>
> Your attorney has answered that question. I would imagine she
> has also filed a suppression motion for the search, which
> probably will not be successful, they almost never are.
>
>> only way I know they would be allowed is if they would have
>> chased someone on the property.
>
> I hate to sound snooty, but that is why you have an attorney.
> Just because you think the law says things one way doesn't mean
> that it does. there's an old saying that the person who
> represents themselves has a fool for a client. Meth is very
> very serious. You are looking at prison. You are not helping
> yourself by getting second opinions off a chat board. you need
> to be working WITH your attorney, not against her.
I am thinking that would be my best bet.I will call her tomorrow
and see what she thinks is best.One more question.What is
suppression motion?Thankyou for you input.