Any Info on Massive police search north of Muncie

[gvbcraig]

Have not been able to find any details on what has been doing on here.Police staying quiet about massive search underway near Muncie | WANE

 

[KellyinAvon]

I was wondering about that too. High marks to Muncie PD and Delaware County Sheriff's Dept for their OPSEC. Additional points for Muncie PD's "black and white" police cars. They do lose points for the black Humvee, that thing has gotta be a bear to keep clean. I may be partial to OD green but I call em like I see em.


With that said, what the hells going on up there? I see a backhoe digging up a yard and 3 old sea-vans, I'm thinking this is real bad.

 

[Bigtanker]

Jimmy Hoffa?

 

[KellyinAvon]

[h=1]Three-day police search near Muncie comes to an end, authorities remain tight-lipped[/h]This doesn't help. I want super secret squirrel intel.

Three-day police search near Muncie comes to an end, authorities remain tight-lipped | Fox 59

 

[kiddchaos]

Some who have lived in Gaston all their lives say there have been drug raids on the property before and the gate is typically shut.

Police, FBI raid continues Friday on Delaware County property - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[bwframe]

Sounds as if maybe they were looking for bodies that must have gotten moved?

 

[Leadeye]

Must not involve guns or there would have been a flood of tips to big media.

 

[Dirtebiker]

My guess is a body or bodies.
I think they said it was an ongoing 7 month investigation.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am left with a question starting with a quote from the article:

"Once you start on a search you never know where it will go," said Stewart. He added that his department has "one chance to do this search so that is what we are going to use."

This would seem to raise some questions with the following text:

Article [IV] (Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure)
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.

It would seem that the first quote is an admission to finding something adequate to secure warrants as an instrument of permission for a fishing expedition, which would appear to stand at odds with the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Denny347]

I am left with a question starting with a quote from the article:



This would seem to raise some questions with the following text:



It would seem that the first quote is an admission to finding something adequate to secure warrants as an instrument of permission for a fishing expedition, which would appear to stand at odds with the Fourth Amendment.

You are reading WAY too much into that statement.

 

[Woobie]

Sounds like this was actually closer to Wheeling than Gaston, if you know where that is.

The Hummer was a gift from the ill-fated "Armed and Famous" show.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You are reading WAY too much into that statement.

OK, even if what appears at face value isn't what was intended, I am more interested in the bigger issue: Where should the line be drawn when properly applying the Fourth, and where in practice does it fall, assuming that the two are not the same?

 

[Bennettjh]

I love a good mystery.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

OK, even if what appears at face value isn't what was intended, I am more interested in the bigger issue: Where should the line be drawn when properly applying the Fourth, and where in practice does it fall, assuming that the two are not the same?

Search warrants are a box of chocolates. Often with roaches. Sometimes with urine. Often with weed.

I've executed plenty of warrants having NO idea what the inside of the building looked like. That's actually the norm for me. So "particularly describing" is something like "2 story single family dwelling, red brick exterior wall, gray shingles, screened in porch on the north side with the numbers '123' attached to a wooden post by the screen door." It is not "in the funny smelling basement between the rafters" or "under that pile of diapers in the corner of the kitchen". I've sometimes found other items other then what I was looking for. If I'm searching for a firearm, mask, pills, and robbery note I can search anywhere those items will fit. If I find marijuana, a corpse, or a stolen motorcyle in the process, I'm not required to ignore those items just because they weren't on the warrant.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Search warrants are a box of chocolates. Often with roaches. Sometimes with urine. Often with weed.

I've executed plenty of warrants having NO idea what the inside of the building looked like. That's actually the norm for me. So "particularly describing" is something like "2 story single family dwelling, red brick exterior wall, gray shingles, screened in porch on the north side with the numbers '123' attached to a wooden post by the screen door." It is not "in the funny smelling basement between the rafters" or "under that pile of diapers in the corner of the kitchen". I've sometimes found other items other then what I was looking for. If I'm searching for a firearm, mask, pills, and robbery note I can search anywhere those items will fit. If I find marijuana, a corpse, or a stolen motorcyle in the process, I'm not required to ignore those items just because they weren't on the warrant.

That's pretty much what I thought. On one hand, ignoring the MJ, corpse, or motorcycle may not necessarily be a desirable course of action, given such shenanigans as using the honorable word of 'confidential informants' (i.e., hoodlums looking for someone on whom to roll over to save their own sorry hides), I also see a danger of this taking us closer than one might like to the writ of assistance, so far as the potential to morph from searching for something in particular to a treasure hunt is concerned.

No, I certainly didn't expect a level of 'particular' in terms of prying up the third board in the hardwood floor with a knot in it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That's pretty much what I thought. On one hand, ignoring the MJ, corpse, or motorcycle may not necessarily be a desirable course of action, given such shenanigans as using the honorable word of 'confidential informants' (i.e., hoodlums looking for someone on whom to roll over to save their own sorry hides), I also see a danger of this taking us closer than one might like to the writ of assistance, so far as the potential to morph from searching for something in particular to a treasure hunt is concerned.

No, I certainly didn't expect a level of 'particular' in terms of prying up the third board in the hardwood floor with a knot in it.

The rules have been that way for a looong time, decades at least, and I haven't seen any creep. I don't do narcotics, but I know at least here there's a lot more to a probable cause then a CI said so. There's checks in place, which I won't go into on a public forum, but it's not just Timmy saying Tommy has dope in his basement so can I get out of this shoplifting, please and thank you.

 

[target64]

Seems like they were looking for a body, pot, guns, money etc.

 

[Bigtanker]

Update: An inmate ratted.

Court documents: Search near Muncie related to homicide investigation, massive marijuana operation | Fox 59

 

[spencer rifle]

OK, even if what appears at face value isn't what was intended, I am more interested in the bigger issue: Where should the line be drawn when properly applying the Fourth, and where in practice does it fall, assuming that the two are not the same?

In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not.

Very true. First, I take the answer from BBI in the context that there is a reason why his department has not been involved in any abuse of authority situations in decades, and therefore, his views are shaped by a culture of things being done right as a matter of principle. The other side of the coin as I understand the situation is that a less scrupulous example of law enforcement could persuade a judge that there is PC to believe that a certain person has something very compact (i.e., being able to search anywhere the named object could be hidden), like an SD card full of kiddie porn (added bonus is that with a hot button issue, there is less likelihood of hard scrutiny in plenty of cases, including the court of public opinion after the fact), and use it for a de facto writ of assistance with there being no recourse for the less than scrupulous method of initiating the search.