Re: Right to search without a warrant.
Posted by Anthony Adams on 7/05/06
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
> 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
> 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.
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Right to search without a warrant., 7/02/06, by Anthony Adams.
- Re: Right to search without a warrant., 7/03/06, by Carol.
- Re: Right to search without a warrant., 7/03/06, by Anthony Adams.
- Re: Right to search without a warrant., 7/05/06, by Carol.
- Re: Right to search without a warrant., 7/05/06, by Anthony Adams.
- Re: Right to search without a warrant., 7/06/06, by Carol.