Attorney General Darrell McGraw's office has asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider its recent 3-2 ruling that would require a judge to approve wiring informants before they are sent into the homes of suspects, The Journal of Martinsburg reports today.
“The majority’s decision will endanger lives and hamstrings efforts by prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to combat crime within their respective jurisdictions,” the newspaper quotes from the filing.
The filing also argues that "The ‘sanctity of the home’ is waived when the homeowner invites anyone to come inside to buy illicit narcotics."
The Supreme Court issued its ruling in late February. A "deeply dismayed" dissent was also filed at that time.
The Charleston Daily Mail has sought to gauge the majority ruling's potential impact. The Associated Press also had a story.
31 March 2007
The Supreme Court vs. The Wire
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One only has to read the dissent to see how crazy this decision was. The Court put it on the calendar in such a manne that NO other group or entity would notice and strong opposition wouldn't be heard in arguments.
I don't think they'll over-rule themselves, but I'm hopeful for some sort of modification. Making a police officer getting a State Trooper visit one of only FIVE of the wiretapping judges in the state to get a warrant to send someone with a wire into a home is just not feasible. You see, only a State Trooper is allowed under state law to obtain a wiretapping order. Another stupid law, as it was a person who was at the time a State Trooper that drafted the language that ended up being the law.
I heard the real story on this, was that one of the defendants who was at the center of this ruling, was connected to a WV Supreme Court Justicette somehow.
Post a Comment