Liquidkick said:

Also, maybe contact the admins and have your account deleted and the database purged of your posts.

---

RESTLESS said:

---

Those are some beautiful breasts in your signature, Restless. Who's are they, and do you have any more pictures? 

Liquidkick said:

Yes its a bit of a hassle....  And it all depends on how the LE wants to fry you.  It costs mega bucks for them to do this stuff.....  So maybe if you can make it cost so much for them to do this they might not even bother.

Also, maybe contact the admins and have your account deleted and the database purged of your posts.

---

i will get my post purged tomorow morning.

yes it will cost them alot to test all 30+ syringe i had. plus it will cost them alot to test shit they took that wasnt illegal, such as a dried passionfruit.
also if they charge me which they havent yet, i will ask for a jury trial, thats even more money they have to spend.

i also found out from a paralegal that they may have broken the law by looking into my mail.  the mail is federal territory, the sheriffs should have reported it to FEDERAL authorities such as FBI or DEA. plus even if it did "fall open" they dont have the right to inspect my mail. thats a fed crime. they also have to get a warrant to search ANY mail, they didnt have a warrant. i NEVER signed anything and here's what an ex-cop currently a paralegal in Missouri said to me.


that really only states like lets say
a robbery/burglury call, domestic call, etc.
they can not enter unless given atleast verbal permission
even if u did, they can not just search your residence unless again, verbal permission is given and you MUST sign a sworn statement saying you give the so and so pd or mo state police or so and so sheriffs dept, etc permission to search
or unless they have a warrant,so i mean,there was a federal offense and what they call a amendment rights breach.

i never signed a single paper

and here's what a friend told me his dad who is an attorney in Virginia said.

I think their justification for entry is flawed at the start- your package came open at the post office, if, as you say, the items in the package were for whatever legal spore thing, there would be the syringe, maybe some pamphlets, spores even?. so the package in and of itself should not have been probable cause for anything other than someone calling you to tell you a package had been damaged en route.


and here's something i found about a case it invloves a CAR which the cops have MORE ability to search wihtout a warrant. this is a MO state case.

(1952) Where there was no evidence that defendants had committed crime, that officers had any suspicion that they had committed felony nor that officers had warrants for arrest of defendants, their arrest was illegal and subsequent search of defendant's automobile in which two guns were found was an unreasonable search and seizure prohibited by ? 15, Art. I of the constitution. State v. Cuezze (Mo.), 249 S.W.2d 373.

they were ARRESTED then searched which is usually legal, however they had no previous proof of a crime, same with me, they had a legal syringe in my mail, and had no reason to come into my house after they claim they "heard sounds". hearing a sound isnt a probale cause unless they hear someone flushing shit or using a garbage disposal etc.

they also found my syringes and pipe BEFORE they read me my rights, this was 40 minutes AFTER they handcuffed me and then took me back inside my apt.

so they cant use the syringes as evidence thus i had nothing in which to grow the mushrooms with as far as the court can consider in my case if i am to be charged.

Psychonaught said:

When you open the cabinet, Tell your lawyer you felt it was an order and that you didn't have the right to say no.

And back to the Syringe. this is called, "The fruit of the poisonous tree." in legal circles. That means any evidence the police are able to gather as a result of that is inadmissible. You are set dude. No worries, case closed.

As far as them coming back with a warrant. Don't worry either. A judge wouldn't issue one. They can't hit the warrant vending machine....they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they will find contraband, then they need to have a specific "thing or things" that they are looking for....1.e narcotics, drugs etc.....then they need to convince the judge how they know they will find what they seek...i.e. a controlled buy or whatever. This is where the machine breaks down since your 4th amendment rights were violated. A judge wont issue a warrant.

---

thank you very much man, as a lawyer told me the same shit today.
here's the fact that might help me.
they HANDCUFFED me in the hall, not in my apartment, i believed i was under arrest, they never said i wasnt at this point.
they didnt ASK me to do anything, they kept telling me "show us this", "open that", "tell me what you use this for" etc. plus remember they came in with their guns out and pointed at me. funny thing is one of them wasnt aiming at my chest like most people would think, he was aiming dead at my face. that right their told me i had no choice but to obey them. if someone points a gun between yours eyes, would you start yelling at him about this or that, or try to walk away? i doubt it. they told me to put my hands up, and walk to them, what was i supposed to do? approach them in a normal manner and shut the door? yea, then get shot. from th time the cuffed me til about 30 mins into the ordeal NOONE HAD EVER SAID "YOU ARE NOT UNDER ARREST!" and they dont have to tell me i'm under arrest. any "reasonable person" would have believed that they were under arrest if a gun was pointed in your face and then handcuffed.

after i had incriminated myself a few times, they sat me down at the table, told me i wasnt under arrest and read me my rights.

legally , the defense only has to prove that "any reasonable person" would believe they were under arrest, being handcuffed is a reason to believe you are under arrest. then they walked me back into my house, remember they hadnt read me any rights yet.

i was also told by a lawyer about a SUPREME COURT ruling less than 2 years ago in my state. this case ruling stated that "if someone incriminates themselves BEFORE righst are read, then rights are read and the cops ask the SAME QUESTIONS AS BEFORE, that they cant use them in court because a "reasonable person" would think they have already incriminated themself and thus answer the questions again".

the cops did some things right and some things wrong. all i have to prove in court is they did ANYTHING wrong and all evidence is thrown out.

"the fruit of the poison tree" is a term based on "adam and eve" from what i understand.
they werent allowed to eat the apples etc and were banished from Paradise.

well...... the syringe was a LEGAL item and a LEGAL item is NO REASON to suspect anything, thus they had no "exigent circumstances" (reason to believe a crime had been or was being committed or that evidence was in imminent danger of being destroyed). if theirreasoning was "right" or "reasonable" then every spore vendor should be searched simply because spores dont come out of thin air, and if you sell spores then there's "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you may be growing mushrooms to get the spores. here's the CONSTITUTIONAL definition for this.

-Exigent Circumstances-
Officers conducting a "knock and talk" may end up finding themselves in a situation where exigent circumstances allow them to enter the house warrantlessly to prevent the destruction of evidence.76 For instance, police officers responding to a call about a suspected methamphetamine laboratory who are met at the door by an overpowering chemical smell, together with a man whose hands are stained with red phosphorous and who is carrying a hot plate, who tries to slam the door in their faces, may pursue the man into the house.77 Likewise, police officers approaching a house for a "knock and talk" who glimpse through a window a group of men sitting at a table admiring a mound of white powder, foil wrappers and a handgun, may immediately enter the house warrantlessly once the men spot the officers and begin fleeing from the room.78 In such situations, exigent circumstances make it proper for the police to enter the premises, conduct a limited protective sweep, secure the scene, and apply for a search warrant for a more extensive search.79 Similarly, when police are conducting a "knock and talk" for drugs at a back door open to the public, and notice a man carrying a package sneaking out the front door, they have reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop of that man.80 It has also been held that under the public safety exception to the requirement for Miranda warnings, an officer who walks up to a house to conduct a "knock and talk" and smells an overwhelming odor of ammonia and finds himself standing in a puddle of unknown liquid may ask the occupant of the house whether a fire hazard exists upon the premises and exactly what substance the officer has all over his shoes.81 At least one jurisdiction holds, nevertheless, that exigent circumstances do not allow police to kick in the door of a person who denies them entry on a "knock and talk" merely because he closed a shade on the door and was heard running away from the door (presumably to flush his drugs down a toilet) since "a warrantless entry of a house by law enforcement authorities, even based upon probable cause, cannot be justified by exigent circumstances of their own making."82

OF THEIR OWN MAKING!!!! they cant make the decision on their own, thats why they have things called WARRANTS! now if they would have seen me stuffing mushrooms into the toilet or garbage disposal, OR seen mushrooms growing in a tub on my table by looking into a un-curtained window then they could have came in and arrested me OR searched etc. if they would have "smelt" mushrooms or pot when they approached my door they could have came in without a warrant. they said they "heard someone approach the door and peephole then heard someone "moving things and bumping etc". thats isnt PROBABLE CAUSE! beacuse the syringe they had from my mail was "fruit of a poison tree", meaning it wasnt an illegal item or any item in general that would cause someone to believe a crime had been committed or caused someone to believe that evidence was inside the apartment which might be in danger of being destroyed. plus the first example shows they must be called for a related reason to what they "hear,see, or smell". how would a syringe give them reason to believe ANYTHING was being destroyed? and if they KNEW what the syringe really was they should have showed it to a judge to get a warrant to search for "mushrooms and/or mushrooms growing".


here's another reason their entry was illegal due to "fruit of the poisonous tree".

Warrantless Search Law Deskbook
(1998)

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS OUTLINED THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION AS FOLLOWS:

A warrantless intrusion into a home may be justified by:

(1) Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; or

(2) Imminent destruction of evidence; or

(3) The need to prevent a suspect?s escape; or

(4) The risk of danger to the police or to other
persons inside or outside the dwelling.

READ THIS PART SLOWLY AND CLOSELY!!!!!!!!!!!
** In absence of Hot Pursuit, there must be probable
cause that one or more of the other factors were
present.

FRUIT FROM THE POISONOUS TREE isnt "probable cause"

thank you Psychonaught , i could have used this info earlier. however thanks for posting it in the forum.

and think about this people, why didnt they arrest me? they didnt make me sign an evidence paper OR sign the papers which would say that i consented to a search, they HAVE TO MAKE YOU SIGN THE PAPER IF YOU CONSENT TO A WARRANTLESS SEARCH IF THEY FIND ANYTHING ILLEGAL! i didnt even get a citation, or sign a statement or even get a court date. they said IF i was to be charged i'd get a court summons in the mail.

know think about it, they threatened a FELONY charge ........ they dont just let ya stay at home for felonies unless they dont have a LEGAL reason to arrest you, i believe after they came in and I said things which i shouldnt have (but ofcourse my rights hadnt been read to me, and i had reason to believe i was being DETAINED! thus the reason i allowed them to lead me back into my apartment) they just wanted to see what i "had been doing". so they can watch me like hawks and nail me next time i fuck up, cept next time they'll be smart enough to get a warrant.

so far they havent even as much as called me, or even tried to stop by for a "friendly chit chat about the other day", which is kinda funny. most the time cops always go back to "just talk" about the stuff they found or talk about the other day etc. i think they know they fucked up, and a prosecutor (one with ANY good sense) wouldnt risk their job over prosecuting something with all these circumstances against them.

anyways i'm over and out til next time.


EDIT:

read this people, its from a legal document about Searches.

Unreasonable search and seizure prohibited--contents and basis of warrants.
Section 15. That the people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as nearly as may be; nor without probable cause, supported by written oath or affirmation.

this is a case ruling.

(1952) Where there was no evidence that defendants had committed crime, that officers had any suspicion that they had committed felony nor that officers had warrants for arrest of defendants, their arrest was illegal and subsequent search of defendant's automobile in which two guns were found was an unreasonable search and seizure prohibited by ? 15, Art. I of the constitution. State v. Cuezze (Mo.), 249 S.W.2d 373.

and here's an interesting one, which shows HOW they can LEGALLY use the "exigent circumstances"

(1955) Where police watched house for half hour, saw persons enter a room therein and through tear in window shade saw defendant and others with policy book and other paraphernalia and when defendant and another were arrested policy result drawings were taken from him, search and seizure not violative of constitutional provisions as to search and seizure or as to self-incrimination. State v. Hardy (Mo.), 276 S.W.2d 90.

they have to "KNOW" something illegal happened, probable cause isnt enough to enter a HOME without a warrant, probable cause IS enough to get a search warrant however. if the syringe they found in my mail was "probable cause" they should have gotten a warrant. a police officer (piggies , i had to say it ) has to prove that they had "beyond a reasonable doubt" that exigent circumstances were in place. they HAVE to hear someone flushing a toilet, or smell a drug, or SEE something illegal to use their "exigent cirumcstance reason" to enter my home.

plus the cops even made the remark , "Looks like you forgot to lock your door, hehe" yes they chuckled after they said it. During the search of my house, a cop out of my view (behind a wall) asked "what is this?" i didnt answer, he asked again, i still didnt answer, one of the other cops said "You better answer him before you piss him off". well this was AFTER they read me my rights. i believe this means that i HAD to answer yet i didnt, and the cop who was trying to ask me the question got very upset, and YELLED the question at me again (he moved from behind the wall to do this). i simply ignored him again which caused him to start to search for more stuff WITHOUT my permission. yes i opened my cabinet when they TOLD me to earlier in the event. however i never gave them permission or was asked for permission to open ANYTHING in my house.

wilshire , thanks for hoping the best for me.
however, your remarks are disrespectful because you dont know the story well. read what i type. AT THE TIME I BELIEVED i was under arrest. lets do a quick poll. if cops opened your door (for whatever reason they claim) and point a gun in your face, then take you outside your home and handcuff you, would you think you had to right to do what ever you please? wouldnt the first thought be "i'm being arrested?", the law STATES that "if the police do NOT tell you that you arent under arrest you have the right to believe you ARE under arrest, thus that you must cooperate with them". once they un-cuffed me i should have told them that they can fuck themselves and should come back with a warrant if they wanted to get inside my home. too bad that i was too shaken up to think of this at the time. they also MUST tell you that you can leave at any time, because you ARENT being detained. they never said i could leave at anytime, or that i could refuse their entry into my house.


well i'm out for sure this time until i get atleast few replies or til tomorow.

dr_gonz said:

wow - i love the shroomery, but I'm done trading. who needs all this hassle?

---