What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Breaking Bad on AMC (5 Viewers)

Sarnoff said:
Daywalker said:
Never really bought into the notion that if Hank turned Walt in it would automatically make him an inept DEA officer and ruin his career. Not like it's been 10 years running. Taking down the biggest meth dealer in about a year is no small feat. Hank gunned down during this time and his BIL was able to use his proximity to Hank to even further thwart him. Yet Hank still cracked the case.

He brought down the biggest drug kingpin in the Southwest in a year and didn't hesitate to turn in his own BIL. Wouldn't imagine people would be mocking him.
Click to expand...
Hank brought it up in the episode, how his boss, whose job Hank has now, was fired for socially knowing Gus Fring and not realizing he was a drug kingpin.
Click to expand...
Think two major differences are that Fring was on the scene for a much longer time then Walt and Hank's boss did not catch Fring. Hank caught Walt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Onions said:
My apologies if someone has posted this thought...

While we are all focused on Jesse's gasoline pouring rage, his attempt to potentially burn down the White house, and who (or what) stops him from doing so, I think we are overlooking a huge potential effect of this:

From flash forwards, we obviously see that the White house doesn't burn to ground, but it appears that the kitchen area might have fire damage, and looks scorched.

I think there is a strong possibility that Jesse's fire, while not taking completely, does manage to do damage. The most important of which is it destroys Walt's lottery tickets with coordinates to the buried money.

Without the coordinates is Walt able to relocate the buried money? And if not, is that the driving factor to him to have to start cooking again?
Click to expand...
wow...good point

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
dparker713 said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't do criminal law, but I've read a few things about the exclusionary rule on the Internet.

It's true that consent to a search (or, in this case, consent to simply being on the property and acting like a normal houseguest) doesn't automatically include consent to seize any evidence found during the search. Whether a warrant is required to seize such evidence will depend on the totality of the circumstances -- how easy is it for the property to be destroyed while waiting for a warrant, etc. I don't think the answer is completely clear cut in this case.

I also think the plain view exception is relevant. A warrant is not needed to seize evidence in plain view. For an item to be considered "in plain view," an officer can't move stuff around during a search to reveal it. But in this case, magazines were moved around and the book was revealed not when an officer was conducting a search, but when a houseguest was taking a dump. Once the book was revealed -- incident to a dump, not to a search -- it was then in plain view. If the houseguest had been a non-cop rather than an off-duty cop, and he inadvertently revealed the evidence in front of a cop so that it was then in plain view, I think the cop could seize it without a warrant (provided that the cop was on the premises legally -- e.g., with consent). The water is muddied here because the houseguest and the cop are the same person; but I wouldn't give up that fight if I were the prosecutor.

I don't think Hank took Leaves of Grass with the idea that it would be admissible. Even if it's admissible, it's pretty weak as evidence that Walt is Heisenberg. So I don't think its admissibility matters very much. But as for whether it really would be admissible, I don't think it's completely black and white. I think it's an interesting enough question that it could appear on a crim pro exam.
Click to expand...
I'd be shocked if a court claimed that Walt had given Hank consent to search. Not only is Hank a social guest, he's a licensee as Walt's brother-in-law. He was off duty and there is zero indication he was granted permission to be there as a law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...
He didn't do a search. But he had consent to do exactly what he did* -- to read magazines while taking a dump.

_____

*At least up until the point of the seizure.
Click to expand...
Sure he did a search. Either a permissible one if he's a houseguest, or an impermissible one if he's acting as a law enforcement officer. However, if the only valid way for him to conduct the search was if he's not a law enforcement officer, he can't turn around after finding evidence and use the protections/powers afforded to law enforcement officers. Either you're acting in an official capacity or you're not. You don't get to pick and choose when its convenient, or more to the point inconvenient for the homeowner.

 
Random thought:

All of this could have been averted if Walt did one simple thing. Back when Hank was watching the silly Gale karaoke video and going over his lab notes, Walt could have jumped in and said "I knew Gale." When Hank went "O RLY?", Walt could have said he helped unofficially tutor Gale during his Gray Matter days. He was a friend of a friend (Walt will pick someone that died) that was looking for advice and Walt chipped in.

When Hank opened up Leaves of Grass and saw the W.W. message, it may have been a bit of an "aww" moment instead of a *plop* moment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brady Marino said:
Random thought:

All of this could have been averted if Walt did one simple thing. Back when Hank was watching the silly Gale karaoke video and going over his lab notes, Walt could have jumped in and said "I knew Gale." When Hank went "O RLY?", Walt could have said he helped unofficially tutor Gale during his Gray Matter days. He was a friend of a friend (Walt will pick someone that died) that was looking for advice and Walt chipped in.

When Hank opened up Leaves of Grass and saw the W.W. message, it may have been a bit of an "aww" moment instead of a *plop* moment.
Click to expand...
True, but the one simpler thing would've been to not leave an inscribed book given to you by a murdered meth cook on the can that your DEA BIL is free to use.

 
pollardsvision said:
Brady Marino said:
Random thought:

All of this could have been averted if Walt did one simple thing. Back when Hank was watching the silly Gale karaoke video and going over his lab notes, Walt could have jumped in and said "I knew Gale." When Hank went "O RLY?", Walt could have said he helped unofficially tutor Gale during his Gray Matter days. He was a friend of a friend (Walt will pick someone that died) that was looking for advice and Walt chipped in.

When Hank opened up Leaves of Grass and saw the W.W. message, it may have been a bit of an "aww" moment instead of a *plop* moment.
Click to expand...
True, but the one simpler thing would've been to not leave an inscribed book given to you by a murdered meth cook on the can that your DEA BIL is free to use.
Click to expand...
Well, that's besides the point. :)

 
When Marie gets busted for lifting items from open houses, Hank calls a buddy in the APD to get her off.

The cop shows up at Hank's house to ask him about Gail's lab book. Hank thinks he's just there out of charity (which is probably true) and tells him to take it to Gomey. The cop's response is "if I take it to the DEA, it becomes a DEA case".

If the flash forward really had APD tape around the house, maybe that's Hank's angle. He doesn't bring Heisenberg to the DEA, he bring's Gail's killer to the APD.

 
Brady Marino said:
Random thought:

All of this could have been averted if Walt did one simple thing. Back when Hank was watching the silly Gale karaoke video and going over his lab notes, Walt could have jumped in and said "I knew Gale." When Hank went "O RLY?", Walt could have said he helped unofficially tutor Gale during his Gray Matter days. He was a friend of a friend (Walt will pick someone that died) that was looking for advice and Walt chipped in.

When Hank opened up Leaves of Grass and saw the W.W. message, it may have been a bit of an "aww" moment instead of a *plop* moment.
Click to expand...
Of course the whole show could have been over in a season if Hank went to wikipedia and looked up "Heisenberg". There he would have discovered the Werner Heisnberg was a Chemistry teacher (among other things) that died of cancer.

 
Officer Pete Malloy said:
Brady Marino said:
Random thought:

All of this could have been averted if Walt did one simple thing. Back when Hank was watching the silly Gale karaoke video and going over his lab notes, Walt could have jumped in and said "I knew Gale." When Hank went "O RLY?", Walt could have said he helped unofficially tutor Gale during his Gray Matter days. He was a friend of a friend (Walt will pick someone that died) that was looking for advice and Walt chipped in.

When Hank opened up Leaves of Grass and saw the W.W. message, it may have been a bit of an "aww" moment instead of a *plop* moment.
Click to expand...
Of course the whole show could have been over in a season if Hank went to wikipedia and looked up "Heisenberg". There he would have discovered the Werner Heisnberg was a Chemistry teacher (among other things) that died of cancer.
Click to expand...
You just blew my mind.

 
Onions said:
My apologies if someone has posted this thought...

While we are all focused on Jesse's gasoline pouring rage, his attempt to potentially burn down the White house, and who (or what) stops him from doing so, I think we are overlooking a huge potential effect of this:

From flash forwards, we obviously see that the White house doesn't burn to ground, but it appears that the kitchen area might have fire damage, and looks scorched.

I think there is a strong possibility that Jesse's fire, while not taking completely, does manage to do damage. The most important of which is it destroys Walt's lottery tickets with coordinates to the buried money.

Without the coordinates is Walt able to relocate the buried money? And if not, is that the driving factor to him to have to start cooking again?
Click to expand...
It's clever, but I'd be very surprised if this happened. There's already enough going on to create rising action without Walt going back and cooking again.

 
Officer Pete Malloy said:
Brady Marino said:
Random thought:

All of this could have been averted if Walt did one simple thing. Back when Hank was watching the silly Gale karaoke video and going over his lab notes, Walt could have jumped in and said "I knew Gale." When Hank went "O RLY?", Walt could have said he helped unofficially tutor Gale during his Gray Matter days. He was a friend of a friend (Walt will pick someone that died) that was looking for advice and Walt chipped in.

When Hank opened up Leaves of Grass and saw the W.W. message, it may have been a bit of an "aww" moment instead of a *plop* moment.
Click to expand...
Of course the whole show could have been over in a season if Hank went to wikipedia and looked up "Heisenberg". There he would have discovered the Werner Heisnberg was a Chemistry teacher (among other things) that died of cancer.
Click to expand...
woah

/keanu reeves

 
Zow said:
Officer Pete Malloy said:
Brady Marino said:
Random thought:

All of this could have been averted if Walt did one simple thing. Back when Hank was watching the silly Gale karaoke video and going over his lab notes, Walt could have jumped in and said "I knew Gale." When Hank went "O RLY?", Walt could have said he helped unofficially tutor Gale during his Gray Matter days. He was a friend of a friend (Walt will pick someone that died) that was looking for advice and Walt chipped in.

When Hank opened up Leaves of Grass and saw the W.W. message, it may have been a bit of an "aww" moment instead of a *plop* moment.
Click to expand...
Of course the whole show could have been over in a season if Hank went to wikipedia and looked up "Heisenberg". There he would have discovered the Werner Heisnberg was a Chemistry teacher (among other things) that died of cancer.
Click to expand...
woah/keanu reeves
Click to expand...
where do you guys think walt got the name from?
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't do criminal law, but I've read a few things about the exclusionary rule on the Internet.

It's true that consent to a search (or, in this case, consent to simply being on the property and acting like a normal houseguest) doesn't automatically include consent to seize any evidence found during the search. Whether a warrant is required to seize such evidence will depend on the totality of the circumstances -- how easy is it for the property to be destroyed while waiting for a warrant, etc. I don't think the answer is completely clear cut in this case.

I also think the plain view exception is relevant. A warrant is not needed to seize evidence in plain view. For an item to be considered "in plain view," an officer can't move stuff around during a search to reveal it. But in this case, magazines were moved around and the book was revealed not when an officer was conducting a search, but when a houseguest was taking a dump. Once the book was revealed -- incident to a dump, not to a search -- it was then in plain view. If the houseguest had been a non-cop rather than an off-duty cop, and he inadvertently revealed the evidence in front of a cop so that it was then in plain view, I think the cop could seize it without a warrant (provided that the cop was on the premises legally -- e.g., with consent). The water is muddied here because the houseguest and the cop are the same person; but I wouldn't give up that fight if I were the prosecutor.

I don't think Hank took Leaves of Grass with the idea that it would be admissible. Even if it's admissible, it's pretty weak as evidence that Walt is Heisenberg. So I don't think its admissibility matters very much. But as for whether it really would be admissible, I don't think it's completely black and white. I think it's an interesting enough question that it could appear on a crim pro exam.
Click to expand...
I do criminal law. Hank could totally take the book and use it against Walt. No expectation of privacy when you permit a person to use your bathroom then put the book/evidence in an area you expect people to read from. Once Hank discovers the evidence, then he has PC to seize. Given that the book could then easily be removed, exigency exists and he likely has a basis for a warrantless seizure.

If I were advising Walt, I'd tell him he's ####ed.

 
Buckfast 1 said:
Christo said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Christo said:
It's my understanding that the police can only seize "contraband" that is in plain sight--such as drugs.
Click to expand...
This article seems pretty good, and says that, "[o]riginally, the plain view doctrine applied only to contraband but has been extended to evidence generally."
Click to expand...
Okay, but Hank's seizure of the book still seems to go beyond what that article says is permissible: A seizure is lawful under the plain view doctrine where the officer was in a place he or she had a right to be at the time the evidence was discovered and it is immediately apparent that the items observed are evidence of a crime. State v. Bone, 354 N.C.C. 1, 550 S.E.2d 482 (2001); State v. Mickey, 347 N.C. 508, 495 S.E.2d 669 (1998); State v. Harper, 158 N.C. App. 595, 582 S.E.2d 62 (2003). In the plain view context, the phrase immediately apparent is satisfied only where the police have probable cause to believe that what they have come upon is evidence of a crime. State v. Graves, 135 N.C. App. 216, 519 S.E.2d 779 (1999).The book was in a stack of books & magazines and had to be opened and read before it became apparent to Hank that it was actually evidence.
Click to expand...
I concur with your analysis of the "plain view" doctrine. In addition to that, Hank has had the book in his own personal garage for weeks now without notifying anyone. At this point, Hank could have easily written that note himself. There is no ####### way that book would ever be admissible in court.
Click to expand...
This is definitely something. It's likely chain of custody may be screwed. Nonetheless, I disagree with your assertion that there's "no ####### way" it would ever be admissible in court. I can think of several exceptions (especially if Walt were ever to testify and denied knowing Gale), and I think you overestimate the respect judge's give to the exclusionary rule.

 
Brady Marino said:
Random thought:

All of this could have been averted if Walt did one simple thing. Back when Hank was watching the silly Gale karaoke video and going over his lab notes, Walt could have jumped in and said "I knew Gale." When Hank went "O RLY?", Walt could have said he helped unofficially tutor Gale during his Gray Matter days. He was a friend of a friend (Walt will pick someone that died) that was looking for advice and Walt chipped in.

When Hank opened up Leaves of Grass and saw the W.W. message, it may have been a bit of an "aww" moment instead of a *plop* moment.
Click to expand...
uhhh no

the corroborating evidence would probably sink you

 
Tiger Fan said:
Onions said:
My apologies if someone has posted this thought...

While we are all focused on Jesse's gasoline pouring rage, his attempt to potentially burn down the White house, and who (or what) stops him from doing so, I think we are overlooking a huge potential effect of this:

From flash forwards, we obviously see that the White house doesn't burn to ground, but it appears that the kitchen area might have fire damage, and looks scorched.

I think there is a strong possibility that Jesse's fire, while not taking completely, does manage to do damage. The most important of which is it destroys Walt's lottery tickets with coordinates to the buried money.

Without the coordinates is Walt able to relocate the buried money? And if not, is that the driving factor to him to have to start cooking again?
Click to expand...
wow...good point
Click to expand...
Or maybe Walt does some cooking for Todd and Co. in exchange for getting someone(s) taken out. :shrug:

 
Zow said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't do criminal law, but I've read a few things about the exclusionary rule on the Internet.

It's true that consent to a search (or, in this case, consent to simply being on the property and acting like a normal houseguest) doesn't automatically include consent to seize any evidence found during the search. Whether a warrant is required to seize such evidence will depend on the totality of the circumstances -- how easy is it for the property to be destroyed while waiting for a warrant, etc. I don't think the answer is completely clear cut in this case.

I also think the plain view exception is relevant. A warrant is not needed to seize evidence in plain view. For an item to be considered "in plain view," an officer can't move stuff around during a search to reveal it. But in this case, magazines were moved around and the book was revealed not when an officer was conducting a search, but when a houseguest was taking a dump. Once the book was revealed -- incident to a dump, not to a search -- it was then in plain view. If the houseguest had been a non-cop rather than an off-duty cop, and he inadvertently revealed the evidence in front of a cop so that it was then in plain view, I think the cop could seize it without a warrant (provided that the cop was on the premises legally -- e.g., with consent). The water is muddied here because the houseguest and the cop are the same person; but I wouldn't give up that fight if I were the prosecutor.

I don't think Hank took Leaves of Grass with the idea that it would be admissible. Even if it's admissible, it's pretty weak as evidence that Walt is Heisenberg. So I don't think its admissibility matters very much. But as for whether it really would be admissible, I don't think it's completely black and white. I think it's an interesting enough question that it could appear on a crim pro exam.
Click to expand...
I do criminal law. Hank could totally take the book and use it against Walt. No expectation of privacy when you permit a person to use your bathroom then put the book/evidence in an area you expect people to read from. Once Hank discovers the evidence, then he has PC to seize. Given that the book could then easily be removed, exigency exists and he likely has a basis for a warrantless seizure.

If I were advising Walt, I'd tell him he's ####ed.
Click to expand...
Exigency exists? Why? No one saw Hank look at the book. No indication that it was going to be moved.

And social guests have limited licenses. Collecting evidence against the homeowner certainly exceeds such a license.

 
Zow said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't do criminal law, but I've read a few things about the exclusionary rule on the Internet.

It's true that consent to a search (or, in this case, consent to simply being on the property and acting like a normal houseguest) doesn't automatically include consent to seize any evidence found during the search. Whether a warrant is required to seize such evidence will depend on the totality of the circumstances -- how easy is it for the property to be destroyed while waiting for a warrant, etc. I don't think the answer is completely clear cut in this case.

I also think the plain view exception is relevant. A warrant is not needed to seize evidence in plain view. For an item to be considered "in plain view," an officer can't move stuff around during a search to reveal it. But in this case, magazines were moved around and the book was revealed not when an officer was conducting a search, but when a houseguest was taking a dump. Once the book was revealed -- incident to a dump, not to a search -- it was then in plain view. If the houseguest had been a non-cop rather than an off-duty cop, and he inadvertently revealed the evidence in front of a cop so that it was then in plain view, I think the cop could seize it without a warrant (provided that the cop was on the premises legally -- e.g., with consent). The water is muddied here because the houseguest and the cop are the same person; but I wouldn't give up that fight if I were the prosecutor.

I don't think Hank took Leaves of Grass with the idea that it would be admissible. Even if it's admissible, it's pretty weak as evidence that Walt is Heisenberg. So I don't think its admissibility matters very much. But as for whether it really would be admissible, I don't think it's completely black and white. I think it's an interesting enough question that it could appear on a crim pro exam.
Click to expand...
I do criminal law. Hank could totally take the book and use it against Walt. No expectation of privacy when you permit a person to use your bathroom then put the book/evidence in an area you expect people to read from. Once Hank discovers the evidence, then he has PC to seize. Given that the book could then easily be removed, exigency exists and he likely has a basis for a warrantless seizure. If I were advising Walt, I'd tell him he's ####ed.
Click to expand...
"I have no idea what you are talking about. I bought the book at Goodwill months ago and never noticed the writing. Why? Is it linked to a person who did something bad? Maybe it was donated to charity when his estate was settled."

 
FlapJacks said:
Brady Marino said:
Random thought:

All of this could have been averted if Walt did one simple thing. Back when Hank was watching the silly Gale karaoke video and going over his lab notes, Walt could have jumped in and said "I knew Gale." When Hank went "O RLY?", Walt could have said he helped unofficially tutor Gale during his Gray Matter days. He was a friend of a friend (Walt will pick someone that died) that was looking for advice and Walt chipped in.

When Hank opened up Leaves of Grass and saw the W.W. message, it may have been a bit of an "aww" moment instead of a *plop and splash* moment.
Click to expand...
uhhh no

the corroborating evidence would probably sink you
Click to expand...
fixed

 
Abraham said:
Zow said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't do criminal law, but I've read a few things about the exclusionary rule on the Internet.

It's true that consent to a search (or, in this case, consent to simply being on the property and acting like a normal houseguest) doesn't automatically include consent to seize any evidence found during the search. Whether a warrant is required to seize such evidence will depend on the totality of the circumstances -- how easy is it for the property to be destroyed while waiting for a warrant, etc. I don't think the answer is completely clear cut in this case.

I also think the plain view exception is relevant. A warrant is not needed to seize evidence in plain view. For an item to be considered "in plain view," an officer can't move stuff around during a search to reveal it. But in this case, magazines were moved around and the book was revealed not when an officer was conducting a search, but when a houseguest was taking a dump. Once the book was revealed -- incident to a dump, not to a search -- it was then in plain view. If the houseguest had been a non-cop rather than an off-duty cop, and he inadvertently revealed the evidence in front of a cop so that it was then in plain view, I think the cop could seize it without a warrant (provided that the cop was on the premises legally -- e.g., with consent). The water is muddied here because the houseguest and the cop are the same person; but I wouldn't give up that fight if I were the prosecutor.

I don't think Hank took Leaves of Grass with the idea that it would be admissible. Even if it's admissible, it's pretty weak as evidence that Walt is Heisenberg. So I don't think its admissibility matters very much. But as for whether it really would be admissible, I don't think it's completely black and white. I think it's an interesting enough question that it could appear on a crim pro exam.
Click to expand...
I do criminal law. Hank could totally take the book and use it against Walt. No expectation of privacy when you permit a person to use your bathroom then put the book/evidence in an area you expect people to read from. Once Hank discovers the evidence, then he has PC to seize. Given that the book could then easily be removed, exigency exists and he likely has a basis for a warrantless seizure. If I were advising Walt, I'd tell him he's ####ed.
Click to expand...
"I have no idea what you are talking about. I bought the book at Goodwill months ago and never noticed the writing. Why? Is it linked to a person who did something bad? Maybe it was donated to charity when his estate was settled."
Click to expand...
You realize when/if the case were ever to make it to trial, they'd have additional indicia and evidence of Walt's activities and connections to Gale, right? I'm not suggesting they try him solely on a book dedication.

 
do we need to create a thread for long-time followers of the show? Lots of dumbing going on here. 2008/9 was a great year. I miss dem shiiits.

 
dparker713 said:
Zow said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't do criminal law, but I've read a few things about the exclusionary rule on the Internet.

It's true that consent to a search (or, in this case, consent to simply being on the property and acting like a normal houseguest) doesn't automatically include consent to seize any evidence found during the search. Whether a warrant is required to seize such evidence will depend on the totality of the circumstances -- how easy is it for the property to be destroyed while waiting for a warrant, etc. I don't think the answer is completely clear cut in this case.

I also think the plain view exception is relevant. A warrant is not needed to seize evidence in plain view. For an item to be considered "in plain view," an officer can't move stuff around during a search to reveal it. But in this case, magazines were moved around and the book was revealed not when an officer was conducting a search, but when a houseguest was taking a dump. Once the book was revealed -- incident to a dump, not to a search -- it was then in plain view. If the houseguest had been a non-cop rather than an off-duty cop, and he inadvertently revealed the evidence in front of a cop so that it was then in plain view, I think the cop could seize it without a warrant (provided that the cop was on the premises legally -- e.g., with consent). The water is muddied here because the houseguest and the cop are the same person; but I wouldn't give up that fight if I were the prosecutor.

I don't think Hank took Leaves of Grass with the idea that it would be admissible. Even if it's admissible, it's pretty weak as evidence that Walt is Heisenberg. So I don't think its admissibility matters very much. But as for whether it really would be admissible, I don't think it's completely black and white. I think it's an interesting enough question that it could appear on a crim pro exam.
Click to expand...
I do criminal law. Hank could totally take the book and use it against Walt. No expectation of privacy when you permit a person to use your bathroom then put the book/evidence in an area you expect people to read from. Once Hank discovers the evidence, then he has PC to seize. Given that the book could then easily be removed, exigency exists and he likely has a basis for a warrantless seizure.

If I were advising Walt, I'd tell him he's ####ed.
Click to expand...
Exigency exists? Why? No one saw Hank look at the book. No indication that it was going to be moved.

And social guests have limited licenses. Collecting evidence against the homeowner certainly exceeds such a license.
Click to expand...
Not if its indicia of a crime. Once something in plain view becomes apparent to be incriminating evidence, it is well settled that warrantless seizure is permitted. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443.

This case has taken some beatings from subsequent decisions, but a cursory review of its negative history doesn't show this particular rule being overturned.

Where I'd agree is if Hank wanted to seize anything else in the house. For that, he'd need a warrant - but the book may provide that.

 
Abraham said:
There is no evidence that Walt is Heisenberg. None.
Click to expand...
Sure there is:

1. Book

2. Walt's a chemist

3. Materials went missing from Walt's lab

4. Walt came into a ton of money

5. Walt had documented calls to Jesse

6. Hank provided info on Fring to Walt - Hank would testify to Walt's interest

7. The sketch artist's claim

And so on. Yes, none of this likely amounts to probable cause for arrest and almost certainly would not result in a conviction, but it's definitely "some evidence."

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Tiger Fan said:
Onions said:
My apologies if someone has posted this thought...

While we are all focused on Jesse's gasoline pouring rage, his attempt to potentially burn down the White house, and who (or what) stops him from doing so, I think we are overlooking a huge potential effect of this:

From flash forwards, we obviously see that the White house doesn't burn to ground, but it appears that the kitchen area might have fire damage, and looks scorched.

I think there is a strong possibility that Jesse's fire, while not taking completely, does manage to do damage. The most important of which is it destroys Walt's lottery tickets with coordinates to the buried money.

Without the coordinates is Walt able to relocate the buried money? And if not, is that the driving factor to him to have to start cooking again?
Click to expand...
wow...good point
Click to expand...
Or maybe Walt does some cooking for Todd and Co. in exchange for getting someone(s) taken out. :shrug:
Click to expand...
If they go this route it will be like when Galarraga was robbed of a perfect game with 2 outs in the 9th. Please no. Would be a travesty.

 
Daywalker said:
Good Posting Judge said:
Tiger Fan said:
Onions said:
My apologies if someone has posted this thought...

While we are all focused on Jesse's gasoline pouring rage, his attempt to potentially burn down the White house, and who (or what) stops him from doing so, I think we are overlooking a huge potential effect of this:

From flash forwards, we obviously see that the White house doesn't burn to ground, but it appears that the kitchen area might have fire damage, and looks scorched.

I think there is a strong possibility that Jesse's fire, while not taking completely, does manage to do damage. The most important of which is it destroys Walt's lottery tickets with coordinates to the buried money.

Without the coordinates is Walt able to relocate the buried money? And if not, is that the driving factor to him to have to start cooking again?
Click to expand...
wow...good point
Click to expand...
Or maybe Walt does some cooking for Todd and Co. in exchange for getting someone(s) taken out. :shrug:
Click to expand...
If they go this route it will be like when Galarraga was robbed of a perfect game with 2 outs in the 9th. Please no. Would be a travesty.
Click to expand...
Is it an illogical scenario?

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Daywalker said:
Good Posting Judge said:
Tiger Fan said:
Onions said:
My apologies if someone has posted this thought...

While we are all focused on Jesse's gasoline pouring rage, his attempt to potentially burn down the White house, and who (or what) stops him from doing so, I think we are overlooking a huge potential effect of this:

From flash forwards, we obviously see that the White house doesn't burn to ground, but it appears that the kitchen area might have fire damage, and looks scorched.

I think there is a strong possibility that Jesse's fire, while not taking completely, does manage to do damage. The most important of which is it destroys Walt's lottery tickets with coordinates to the buried money.

Without the coordinates is Walt able to relocate the buried money? And if not, is that the driving factor to him to have to start cooking again?
Click to expand...
wow...good point
Click to expand...
Or maybe Walt does some cooking for Todd and Co. in exchange for getting someone(s) taken out. :shrug:
Click to expand...
If they go this route it will be like when Galarraga was robbed of a perfect game with 2 outs in the 9th. Please no. Would be a travesty.
Click to expand...
Is it an illogical scenario?
Click to expand...
Walt forgetting the coordinates is a jump the shark moment.

 
Zow said:
dparker713 said:
Zow said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't do criminal law, but I've read a few things about the exclusionary rule on the Internet.

It's true that consent to a search (or, in this case, consent to simply being on the property and acting like a normal houseguest) doesn't automatically include consent to seize any evidence found during the search. Whether a warrant is required to seize such evidence will depend on the totality of the circumstances -- how easy is it for the property to be destroyed while waiting for a warrant, etc. I don't think the answer is completely clear cut in this case.

I also think the plain view exception is relevant. A warrant is not needed to seize evidence in plain view. For an item to be considered "in plain view," an officer can't move stuff around during a search to reveal it. But in this case, magazines were moved around and the book was revealed not when an officer was conducting a search, but when a houseguest was taking a dump. Once the book was revealed -- incident to a dump, not to a search -- it was then in plain view. If the houseguest had been a non-cop rather than an off-duty cop, and he inadvertently revealed the evidence in front of a cop so that it was then in plain view, I think the cop could seize it without a warrant (provided that the cop was on the premises legally -- e.g., with consent). The water is muddied here because the houseguest and the cop are the same person; but I wouldn't give up that fight if I were the prosecutor.

I don't think Hank took Leaves of Grass with the idea that it would be admissible. Even if it's admissible, it's pretty weak as evidence that Walt is Heisenberg. So I don't think its admissibility matters very much. But as for whether it really would be admissible, I don't think it's completely black and white. I think it's an interesting enough question that it could appear on a crim pro exam.
Click to expand...
I do criminal law. Hank could totally take the book and use it against Walt. No expectation of privacy when you permit a person to use your bathroom then put the book/evidence in an area you expect people to read from. Once Hank discovers the evidence, then he has PC to seize. Given that the book could then easily be removed, exigency exists and he likely has a basis for a warrantless seizure.

If I were advising Walt, I'd tell him he's ####ed.
Click to expand...
Exigency exists? Why? No one saw Hank look at the book. No indication that it was going to be moved.

And social guests have limited licenses. Collecting evidence against the homeowner certainly exceeds such a license.
Click to expand...
Not if its indicia of a crime. Once something in plain view becomes apparent to be incriminating evidence, it is well settled that warrantless seizure is permitted. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443.

This case has taken some beatings from subsequent decisions, but a cursory review of its negative history doesn't show this particular rule being overturned.

Where I'd agree is if Hank wanted to seize anything else in the house. For that, he'd need a warrant - but the book may provide that.
Click to expand...
Indicia are supposed to show something is probable, not merely wildly speculative. I'm going to not go on in this thread since people seem to not want to read any of this, but Hank's actions and when the 4th Amendment would apply are hardly settled law, but to allow an officer to claim he was minding his own business as a guest and then just happened to find some evidence that was hardly in plain view is a rather huge gash in protections of the 4th amendment.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
The Tourist on Netflix
Replies
2
Views
235
CGRdrJoe
CGRdrJoe
SwampDawg
Open Mic on Sirius XM Fantasy Show
Replies
2
Views
1K
nightmare
nightmare
JAA
Has anyone spoke to their kids varsity sports coach? How did it go?
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
cheese
cheese

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top