I am surprised that the warrant and it's details have not been reported by the media. I know it's different by state, but I'd expect her family's attorney to have a copy PDQ, and it should be publicly available soon after, unless it's sealed by the court, which would surprise me.

I can't remember without cracking a book which requirements are federal and which are state, but I believe it's a federal requirement to leave a copy of the warrant with someone at the location, or in plain view if it's unoccupied. It includes the sworn explanation of why and what they were looking for. I don't understand why that bit hasn't been published. If it has, I admittedly haven't gone looking for it.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
We demand competent investigations by our police. Doing it by the book, and correctly, is not something to rage over.

What’s that breeze I feel?

Oh, it’s the refreshing breath of calm, rational thought.
Thank you, bubbatime, I have been curious about the developments in this case, but it was becoming difficult to pick the kernels from the ….

When we assume without evidence that someone else is assuming without evidence, whose is the greater folly? Hmmm ….
We know that our assumption is without evidence, but can only assume that someone else is assuming without evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
You do realize that any evidence obtained without a proper search warrant could be thrown out in court, right? That pesky 4th Amendment always mudding up the waters.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Ever heard of suicide by cop? One thing they would/could look for is a suicide note.

Maybe some of his shots missed and ended up embedded in her walls of her house. They would want to dig the bullets out to ballistically match them to his gun. And would need a warrant to do so.

There is two examples. I'm sure they're are hundreds of other plausible scenarios.

Its obvious you dont understand how the criminal justice system works, and thats fine. But the feigned rage over something as simple as a search warrant is a bit much. We demand competent investigations by our police. Doing it by the book, and correctly, is not something to rage over.

Another thing. Getting a warrant means any possible evidence found can be admissible in court. Defense attorneys have a field day with illegally obtained evidence, as get it thrown out.

Suicide note? Bullets in the wall? This lady was murdered by a failed liberal experiment, and all you can do is justify the unreasonable and unnecessary search of her personal effects. I get that we want a whole picture here, but let's be honest, this investigation is purely to shift the blame from the shit head Somali onto the VICTIM. There was already a pretty clear picture of what actually happened but most want to gloss over it and give this LEO a free pass, not because he's a cop, but because he's an immigrant from Somalia, and they can't have him make the city leaders policy look bad. Again, it has nothing to do with the truth, but a narrative that is being set up by those that have the most to lose. You make a very compelling argument with regards to the 4th Amendment. That protection doesn't end when someone dies.

Have we seen a search warrant issued for Officer Noors' home? Why not? If this was a truth finding mission, they would have already done one. Instead, this is a see how much dirt can be found on the victim, cover your asses shit show! Funny how if this had happened in North Korea or Iran or Somalia, those that are saying it's well within the legal parameters, would be crying COVER UP the hardest!

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:....

Suicide note? Bullets in the wall? This lady was murdered by a failed liberal experiment, and all you can do is justify the unreasonable and unnecessary search of her personal effects. I get that we want a whole picture here, but let's be honest, this investigation is purely to shift the blame from the shit head Somali onto the VICTIM. There was already a pretty clear picture of what actually happened but most want to gloss over it and give this LEO a free pass, not because he's a cop, but because he's an immigrant from Somalia, and they can't have him make the city leaders policy look bad. Again, it has nothing to do with the truth, but a narrative that is being set up by those that have the most to lose. You make a very compelling argument with regards to the 4th Amendment. That protection doesn't end when someone dies.

Have we seen a search warrant issued for Officer Noors' home? Why not? If this was a truth finding mission, they would have already done one. Instead, this is a see how much dirt can be found on the victim, cover your asses shit show! Funny how if this had happened in North Korea or Iran or Somalia, those that are saying it's well within the legal parameters, would be crying COVER UP the hardest!

(Bolding mine). Excellent points.

quote:

Have we seen a search warrant issued for Officer Noors' home?

They recently issued warrants for his and his partner's mobile phones and social media. I don't know about his home.

I don't really find it odd that they issued a warrant to search her home. They have very limited information and the guy who could answer questions isn't speaking. Being short on information, I can see where they would be interested in learning as much as they could.

They didn't find anything, which is proof they weren't trying to smear her.

I'm with pulicords on this one. She was shot outside her home, and there was apparently no evidence of felonious conduct on her immediate person. She was calling about a disturbance outside, not an invasion of her own home. As a reporting party, she was not suspected of anything before she ended up dead.

If she had been shot talking to a cop in front of city hall could they have searched her house?

According to the warrant (linked below) the search was for, among other things, "blood, hair, guns, ammunition, knives, drugs or “writings” ".

What the hell is or was the relevance of any of that? She didn't report any altercation in her house, the autopsy results would solve the drug issue, guns, ammunition and knives are irrelevant to the fact that she was dead in her bathrobe in the street, and writings have nothing to do with a felony, which she didn't commit and wasn't being investigated for committing.

The warrant also states " "Upon police arrival, a female 'slaps' the back of the patrol squad ... After that, it is unknown to BCA agents what exactly happened, but the female became deceased in the alley."

"It is unknown"????? He shot her, that's what happened! Slapping a police car is a felony?

What is wrong with the judge?

The standard for issuing a search warrant in Minnesota is as follows:

quote:

A search warrant may issue only upon “probable cause….particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” Probable Cause is determined by
examining the totality of the circumstances:
a) the task of the issuing [judge] is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision
whether, given all the circumstance set forth in the affidavit before him, including the
‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information (e.g.
confidential informants), there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983);
State v. Souto, 578 N.W2d 744, 747 (Minn. 1998);

"probable cause...particular description of place and things...basis of knowledge...fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place."

Where is ANY of the stuff called out above? The proper course of action is to ask her next of kin for permission, not go to a judge.

Fucking fishing expedition.

The grounds for the warrant are:

quote:

"I apply for a search warrant on the following grounds:

- The property or things above-described was used as a means of committing a crime.

- The possession of the property or things described above constitutes a crime.

- The property or things above-described is in the possession of a person with intent to use such property as a means of committing a crime, or the property or things so intended to be used are in the possession of another to whom they have been delivered for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their being discovered.

- The property or things above-described constitutes which tends to show a crime has been committed or tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime."

The affidavit also states:

quote:

"...Police were called to this residence...because of a report of a female screaming at this residence."

This is untrue: The report was of screaming in the alley adjacent to the residence.

The warrant is available at this link.

I understand both good and nefarious reasons why they would want to search, but they have no right to do so. That pesky 4th Amendment again. I am frankly disgusted.

I don't understand why some are concerned about searching the house.

There were 2 warrants. One for the body and immediate area of the shooting.

The other for the residence at 5024 Washburn. Justine Damond was home alone. Her husband was away on a business trip.

Both warrants were requested at about 5:30 am.

The search warrant for the residence is here:

https://www.scribd.com/documen...Warrant-Damond-House

The warrant says there was an initial "report of a female screaming from this residence". That is fairly accurate. It is a bit petty to claim the screaming was behind the residence.

You can also be grammar police and note there was a report of a woman screaming from this residence.

BCA didn't know what they were dealing with.

The warrant also says "A delay of executing the warrant at a later time could result in the delayed medical care of anyone inside the residence and the possibility of losing fragile evidence because of destruction or environmental circumstances"

Seems reasonable to me.

The warrant says "it is unknown to BCA agents what exactly happened" and that Minneapolis PD has not elaborated on the circumstances of this incident.

The warrant has a long list of boiler plate items that they would search for. I wouldn't be surprised if every one of the warrants has the same list.

Since many here have already convicted the officer, what's the point of even having an investigation, right?

The language in that warrant is about a generic as can be and if you read it closely, it's more about preserving evidence or potential evidence than attempting to smear the deceased. I'll explain.

The shooting officer hasn't cooperated and if I were him I wouldn't either unless I were compelled. If they do charge him, he'll certainly try all different theories for exoneration including blaming the deceased and his own PD for not preserving all potential evidence in her residence.

That's the real reason for the search warrant, ostensibly to investigate the shooting but to really take away the officer's potential defenses by preserving the contents of her residence.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
I'm with pulicords on this one. She was shot outside her home, and there was apparently no evidence of felonious conduct on her immediate person. She was calling about a disturbance outside, not an invasion of her own home. As a reporting party, she was not suspected of anything before she ended up dead.

Just spitballing, but what if it was an ambush and she was a criminal trying to draw the officers into a deserted alley. Wouldn't that need to be disproven in case the officer tries to use that as a defense in a future trial?

In other words the officer who responded immediately told the investigators that they thought they were in an ambush situation and that is why he responded the way he did. Wouldn't it be routine to investigate that angle? Was there any other corroboration of screams in the alley?

<I don't believe in any way this was the case, but doesn't that have to be investigated and disproven?>

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:...They recently issued warrants for his and his partner's mobile phones and social media. I don't know about his home....They didn't find anything, which is proof they weren't trying to smear her.

So if I rob a bank, and you can't prove it, such is proof that I didn't rob the bank?

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Since many here have already convicted the officer, what's the point of even having an investigation, right?...

And many here have already exonerated the officer, effectively blaming the dead person.

The attorney for her family has stated that he felt the search was reasonable under the circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
The attorney for her family has stated that he felt the search was reasonable under the circumstances.

Of course he does. Why would be want to suppress the warrant or the evidence? It helps his case against the city.

Requesting and executing a search warrant would be proper if it was contemporaneous to the incident. As part and parcel of an initial, on scene investigation.

I agree with everything said by Bama and sdy; I also realize I am being a bit impractical and dogmatic about this.

But... Per sdy...Probable cause is a relatively low standard, but it is a standard. Generic recitations aren't sufficient. There are also exceptions to the warrant requirement. The most common one is the exigent circumstances doctrine. That would enable entry of the house without a warrant to deal with the "screaming" or "delayed medical care" [cough]BULLSHIT[/cough]. Probable cause isn't "I think there might be..." or "Maybe we will find..." it is "I have reason to believe that [specifically...]" If we are willing to allow bullshit warrants to pass muster without challenge, we all collectively are put at greater risk of losing our rights. Insisting on a real warrant standard is a key to ordered liberty and personal freedom. While in this case there is ample evidence to be able to say "no harm no foul" because they didn't find anything, that is not always the case. I don't have a lot of faith in our institutions at the moment, and am disinclined to give them much leeway when I feel that they are just going through the motions. And that's just what that warrant application feels like to me. It's a going through the motions, boilerplate, frankly bullshit application that a lazy cop filed with a lazy judge and it went through. In my training as an Army magistrate, I would have flunked the warrant application for the house.

I'm fine with the outside warrant. That makes perfect sense. You have a victim, dead in the street from someone's bullet. Even if you know nothing other than that, you have an apparent crime scene, (might not be but it looks like one) and that's enough for probable cause.

I simply don't believe there is legally sufficient probable cause for the house search and thus I don't think that warrant should have been issued. This isn't an outcome driven decision; the outcome of the search was inconsequential. It's a matter of proper procedure for having the search in the first place.

There is nothing in the statement of facts which justifies the description of the contraband expected to be found in the first part of the application. I simply don't see how this would survive if challenged.

I am sympathetic to the position of the BCA. They got dragged into this on short notice, had no information from the shooter, and it's 0500. I get it. Secure the site, search the outside. If you are concerned about someone injured in the home, and no one answers the door, go in. You have exigency and don't need a warrant. Exigency only allows you to look for that screamer who might need medical care, however. It doesn't allow you to look for blood, hair, guns, ammunition, knives, drugs, etc.

IMO, bad search, bad warrant, lazy or incompetent judge.

Now on to Bama's point:

The warrant doesn't speak to any facts concerning ambush; only that BPD has a request from MPD to investigate an officer involved shooting. If they had suspected ambush, that actually would have been a pretty good probable cause recitation in the affidavit. Also remember that BPD can always secure the scene, do some preliminary investigation and get a warrant if they later have real justification. In addition, they can ask next of kin for permission.

There is never an allegation of a crime related to the house, or the things sought in the house described in the affidavit. It's all just bald assertion, without fact or knowledge.

I am really not a fan of governments overstepping their authority, regardless of whether or not there is shenanigans involved.

I think this is a bad search. I also think, that while there are some potential justifications for it, for the most part it stinks like a bad fishing expedition.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Since many here have already convicted the officer, what's the point of even having an investigation, right?

I wasn't aware that the D.A.'s office up there was even monitoring SIGforum, much less basing their decisions upon our personal opinions.

You guys should be more careful. Y'know, it's one thing to have a personal opinion, but the fate of that police officer is in your hands!

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
The attorney for her family has stated that he felt the search was reasonable under the circumstances.

Of course he does. Why would be want to suppress the warrant or the evidence? It helps his case against the city.

Page 2 of the application for the search warrant:
I apply for a search warrant on the following grounds:
*The property or things above-described was used as a means of committing a crime.
*The possession of the property or things above-described constitutes a crime.
*The property or things above-described is in the possession of a person with intent to use such property as a means of committing a crime, or the property or things so intended to be used are in the possession of another to whom they have been delivered for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their being discovered.
*The property or things above-described constitutes evidence which tends to show a crime has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime.


I'm not too sure, but that sure sounds like they are absolutely trying to state that the lady committed a crime, therefore they are trying to gather evidence in support of their claim. Anyone who denies the proof that this is nothing more than a dirt digging expedition needs their head examined. Just because they didn't find anything doesn't negate the fact that they didn't try. Could you imagine the narrative had they found a scrap of paper expressing her disdain for police overreach?

It boils down to this: why should anyone feel safe around the police that can take your life and spin it around to make YOU look like the asshole that's at fault, when clearly that isn't the case.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:It boils down to this: why should anyone feel safe around the police that can take your life and spin it around to make YOU look like the asshole that's at fault, when clearly that isn't the case.

While many of us would like to have more information from the MPD and BCA, I haven't heard anyone in an official capacity even come close to blaming her.

quote:

I've been wracking my brain over what evidence of a felony the affiant would have probable cause to search for in the decedent's home and in this case, I can't think of a damn thing. If this was a shooting involving an armed suspect or someone believed to have been involved in ANYTHING beyond being the reporting party, I could see some justification. In this case, its just plain strange.

Wasn't there some talk that the victim might have been on some medication?

^^^^ It's irrelevant. You can't get a warrant based on "some talk."