you know how in movies a drug dealer will say to an undercover cop (whos wearing a wire) "are you wearing a wire" and he lies and says no, well couldnt the drug dealer just ask the cop to sign a contract saying he isnt, thereby making the evidence inadmissable in a court (in the US)?
211521
The law on this topic is very, very complicated but the key fact is that the police are allowed to use "reasonable deception" in the course of an investigation, provided that the police do not encourage the suspect or person under surveillance to do anything that he or she was not already going to do. For example, it's totally OK for the police to pose as drug dealers and allow potential customers to approach them and buy drugs, and use that act as evidence against them, but it is not OK for the police to SOLICIT the buyers. So in the case of the "are you wearing a wire" question, it is totally OK for the cop to lie and say "no" because that falls under "reasonable deception."\n\nAs for signing a contract stating that you are not a cop, or not wearing a wire, any contract made in preparation for or during an illegal act is null and void. If you hire a hit man to kill your wife and he takes your money but doesn't kill her, you can't sue him...
673402
You've written an awful lot of stuff here just to ask if the cops can pull someone over for "no reason."\n\nDoubtful.  \n\nIf the state you're writing about has a law that allows police to stop vehicles to check for current insurance (and for no other reason), then I would have to say the police can do that.  \n\nIf there's no such law in your state that allows that, it's going to be every bit as impossible to give you a good answer as Van Winkle says (and his was generally a very good answer).  You don't have anywhere near all the facts, so there's no way you can present them to anyone to get a decent answer.  \n\nAs for all the other stuff you wrote, did you have a question about it?  I see plenty of answers, but you never asked any questions.\n\nDon't get overly excited when you read people's answers here talking about search and seizure issues because based on what you wrote here, I doubt there are any.  \n\nPost more if you want to know more.\n\nEDIT 6.11.06:\n\nWow!\n\nOkay, let's see what we can do here.\n\nNeed to know what state you're in.  Sorry I didn't mention that before, I should have.  States have different laws, and the very best answer will come to you from someone who knows that State's law on these issues.  However, these are mostly constitutional questions, so I can probably give you some decent answers (because the Constitution applies in all states).\n\n1.  Generally, yes.  If it's stolen, it's contraband, and nobody has the right to possess contraband.  It would be like trying to argue that the police couldn't take your heroin without a warrant or consent...they can, because it's contraband.  NOTE: this is only as to the seizure of the item, not the search.  \n\n2.  Almost impossible to answer.  Really, none of these questions are all that "answerable," without knowing exactly what the facts were.  There are times when the police can enter uninvited and without a warrant, and there are times they cannot.  I wish I could go into this more with you, but you're talking about hours and hours of search and seizure law here, to be able to cover all the possibilities.\n\n3.  Your family can always file a complaint with the officer's employer.  I have no idea what the outcome of that could be, of course.\n\n4.  I don't know how you know "for sure" some of the property wasn't stolen, so it's difficult to address this.  Assuming you really do know the status of the property you're referring to, you should contact the law enforcement agency that seized the property and give them a statement as to the status of the property.  Do not waste your time by telling them things like, "it's my brother's, and my brother would never steal anything" or, "the neighbor gave it to my brother last year and my neighbor wouldn't have stolen it" because you just don't know those things to be 100% factual.  Perfectly innocent people can sometimes trade or give away stolen property without knowing it, but it doesn't mean the property isn't every bit as stolen.\n\nYou've repeatedly said that you stay out of the drama (wise decision, by the way), so I'm guessing that you really don't have all the facts.  If you weren't there at the time all this happened, you really aren't in a good position to know all the intimate details for certain, and it's the details that can really make a difference.  \n\nI don't know for sure that it's working, but if you'd like you're welcome to click on my avatar-thingy up there and contact me for some more discussion on this issue.  It's probably about to be beaten to death here, and I admire the reasonable tone of your questions.
670750
You are correct in your statement about when you're pulled over by any law enforcement officer.  However, if they suspect that you have something illegal in your vehicle or on your person, they DO have the obligation to ask you about it (it's called probable cause).  While you probably don't WANT to get into trouble, it's wiser to come clean than to lie.  Lying can only make matters worse.
117256
Absolutely.  It's either obstruction of justice or perjury, depending on the specific circumstances in which the false evidence was provided.\n\nThis presumes that it was provided deliberately and knowingly.\n\nAnd the innocent person can also attempt to sue the person providing false evidence, but that is rarely successful due to immunity laws for witnesses.  It's worth checking on in your particular jurisdiction, however.
497342
it depends on if your report is true if it is and is provable you will get in little to no trouble \nif it is false then you can be charged with falsify a police report\n\nbut there is no need for a forgien lawyer they don't know u.s. laws and it just looks supicous
250948
yes, you committed a murder, you know you might even be able to be sued for breach of contract as well lol\n\nedit, ok just probably not, how do you know that person that hired you wasn't an undercover cop or something trying to get scumbags like contract killers off the street?
92693
Wow.\n\nFirst of all, are you saying that a body wire in Washington State requires judicial authorization?  If that's what you are saying, do you *know* it to be true? (if so, please explain).  It's not required in California, but I know Washington has some different laws about recording conversations.\n\nAfter reading the rest of your question (what is your question, by the way?), I'm not sure I'm seeing what you need to know.  As I read the details of what you're calling the "first P.C.", I don't see any constitutional problems with it.  It's certainly not the way I'd run a CI buy, but I don't see anything defective about it.  Probably gonna' be a good argument for a defense attorney as it relates to chain of custody for the drugs, but I don't see anything "wrong" with what you're describing here.\n\nI also don't know what a "Seatons Safe" is, so maybe that would help.\n\nI guess I can take a stab at the answer, though:\n\nAssuming probable cause (i.e., judicial authorization) *is* required for a body wire, I don't see where you've established here in your question that there's anything false in the probable cause.  \n\nHearsay is normally perfectly admissible in probable cause hearings (at least in California) and I'd be surprised if it isn't in Washington.  \n\nBut...assuming everything you said is true and accurate...\n\nOrdinarily, if the probable cause for something is found to be false (and that's a difficult thing to deal with on Yahoo Answers, without all the details...what you think of as false might only be an unfortunate turn of events that nobody could foresee), then whatever comes of that probable cause would more likely than not be tainted under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.  I don't think the hearsay issue enters into the discussion.\n\nAs for cases you can cite (note spelling), I can't help you with that.  You're really going to need an attorney to help you out with that; if you're being charged with something where you think these issues exists, you don't want to try representing yourself...there are too many finer points here for a layperson to have knowledge of.
306141
Laws vary from place to place, but I believe that as long as they disclose what they are doing, it is perfectly legal, but they can only use either video OR audio monitoring, not both. \n\nI work in a jewelry store and we got a new surveillance system w/ 10 cameras throughout the store that can record on DVD... we have to have signs throughout letting customers know they are being recorded.  My boss sometimes sits at home and watches what goes on then nags us later.  Stinks that he has no life, but whatcha gonna do???
309889
in fact, THIS is a seriously brilliant question.\n\nand the answer is: "HELL, NO!"\n\nthat was one of those completely sketchy, *highly* questionable deals. this is something that would not fly even in the most corrupt US court, as of today... \nwhich has got to tell ya somethin', doesn't it...
437689
A snitch is paid by the government or cops to say what they want him to say.   Truth has nothing to do with it.   If they want to burn someone, and can't catch him doing anything wrong, they will find an associate, bust him, threaten him with 300 years in prison, and then offer him a way out---snitching.\n\nMy husband has been in federal prison for 26 years, based on the testimony of three snitches who openly admitted in court they were being paid tens of thousands for testifying.   They all changed their stories a dozen times every time they told it, had ongoing drug and alcohol black-out problems, couldn't get dates straight, testified my husband was one place when he was confirmed elsewhere....even with such blatant B.S., my husband got 41 years.   Those people, all three confirmed addicts and long felony records, walked away to spend your tax dollars on another booze/dope binge with their friends.\n   \nIt doesn't matter if its one, or three, or a dozen snitches.   If they're on a payroll, they say what they are told to say.   Truth has nothing to do with it.
338555
If it can be disclosed to the public then it can be talked about.  Even if it isn't "public information" there are many reasons why they would talk about case information with people that are not law enforcement.  You talk about being in school, are you even 18?  If you are not then I don't think you will be taking any officers to court.
545329
It would have been nice if you'd explained whether you were talking about a search warrant or not.  I'll assume you're talking about a search warrant because of the way your question is phrased.\n\nSearch warrants are not normally issued in someone's name.  In other words, if the police were going to come search my house, the warrant would be issued to search my specific address...123 Easy Street, for example.  It would NOT say to go search mikeysco's house, because that's not particularly describing a location to be searched, and that's what required for a search warrant.\n\nEven if the search warrant was authorized because I am a dope dealer, and my name was all through the warrant, it wouldn't make any difference if my name was correct or not as long as the police showed the judge that a person was in a particular house selling dope.  It's entirely possible there would be no name whatsoever on a search warrant as in the case of searching an open field belonging to an unknown person, a warehouse containing stolen property, a vehicle held as evidence (though often those are lawfully searched without a warrant) or other circumstances. \n\nSearch warrants are not normally issued in someone's name unless the police want to search that particular person (i.e., physically search them or obtain DNA or blood samples, for instance).  They are issued to search a location, and that location must be described with some particularity...but there is no requirement that a person's name be associated with the location to be searched or, even if there is a name, that it be a correct name.\n\nPerhaps you are asking about news reports where the police have mistakenly entered the wrong location pursuant to a search warrant.  In some cases, the addresses are incorrect.  In other cases, Joe Dealer, who is thought to live at 123 East Street, actually ends up living at 125 Easy Street but the cops don't know it and go to 123 instead.  And in other cases, the cops just plain screw up and don't pay attention to which door they're crashing through.
162117
When you went and started the business knowing about the contract, you took a chance that they wouldn't find out about it. I guess they did.  You can try and prove the contract was under duress, but that's going to be next to impossible to prove, especially without a lawyer to advise you.\n\nContracts are legally binding in the US because without them, the economy would fall apart from corruption.  Good luck.
545559
Wire tap laws vary from state and whether they can be used in court varies from state to state. Mostly though, if its your phone and you know you are taping the conversation it is legal. It may  or may not be used in court depending on the state law. I firmly believe in taping other people. Its the only way you can get some people to tell the truth or hold them accountable for something they said.
611937
Yes, they sure can.  The Police may arrest you with a complaint and then decide to drop the charges, often for lack of evidence.\n\nThere is no legal issue there.  However, consult with an attorney about the evidence issue.  Without probable cause the search should be invalid, therefore, the evidence would not be admissable.  No evidence surely would make the charge go away.  Good luck!
46161
Entrapement is when the police more or less make you do something. Like say an undercover cop tells you that unless you do some drugs(or anything illegal) he will kill you. That is just an example but something like that. They "entrap" you. And no it is not legal. What you are talking about is not entrapement but you can take that to court and request that the officer that issued the citation to appear and it might get thrown out because he didnt see it.
75975
Yes it has been known for polygraph test to be wrong. That is why in the United States they can not be used in court.