# Illegal Search by Gardai?



## BoBoBeau (24 Jun 2021)

So, the guards arrived at my house with a search warrant, but no one was home. They say they waited outside for an hour and a half before "letting themselves in" (they miraculously found a spare key stashed for emergencies). My neighbours however, say they saw the cops climb over my back wall to enter through the back door - all while no one was home. I came home to find my door locked - I was unable to enter my own home as they'd locked themselves in and left the key in the lock - I had to knock for them to let me in. I found 4 cops searching my whole house while no one was there. No threat to life, etc etc They then showed me their warrant - now Ive never been presented with a warrant before, so I wasnt sure what to look for, but I do recall that the name on the search warrant was spelled wrongly. I dont recall seeing a date or time on it, but I was a bit stunned, so I could be mistaken on that. Is this search even legal?


----------



## niceoneted (25 Jun 2021)

there are varying search warrants that can be obtained and each has there own stipulations/time frames dor execution etc  
Do you know what warrant they had specifically


----------



## Peanuts20 (25 Jun 2021)

Gardai have a legal entitlement to use reasonable force to execute a search warrant. In this case, you weren't home and you should be glad they didn't kick the door in as they would probably be legally entitled to do.


----------



## Johnno75 (25 Jun 2021)

If they found nothing and don’t prosecute, let it go.

If they found something and do prosecute, mount a defence to include reference that the search was illegal owing to the spelling error.

That the Gardai were conducting a search pursuant to a warrant sounds like trouble for you. What were they looking for? (I don’t expect an answer, so please treat as rhetorical)

Get a lawyer.


----------



## noproblem (25 Jun 2021)

BoBoBeau said:


> So, the guards arrived at my house with a search warrant, but no one was home. They say they waited outside for an hour and a half before "letting themselves in" (they miraculously found a spare key stashed for emergencies). My neighbours however, say they saw the cops climb over my back wall to enter through the back door - all while no one was home. I came home to find my door locked - I was unable to enter my own home as they'd locked themselves in and left the key in the lock - I had to knock for them to let me in. I found 4 cops searching my whole house while no one was there. No threat to life, etc etc They then showed me their warrant - now Ive never been presented with a warrant before, so I wasnt sure what to look for, but I do recall that the name on the search warrant was spelled wrongly. I dont recall seeing a date or time on it, but I was a bit stunned, so I could be mistaken on that. Is this search even legal?


Are you in Ireland and if so, what were they looking for?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (25 Jun 2021)

noproblem said:


> Are you in Ireland


If someone is referring to


BoBoBeau said:


> the guards


then it's a "yes".


----------



## noproblem (25 Jun 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> If someone is referring to
> 
> then it's a "yes".


The "cops" is what caught my eye, missed the "guards". You're a sharp Coyote. 
They must have brought in BoBo for a chat, hope they get more out of him/her than we're getting, not answering any questions here.


----------



## peemac (25 Jun 2021)

I doubt if a small error in how a name spelt is enough to make a warrant invalid. Eg Eleanor Fitzsymons v Elenor Fitzsimons.

It would be different if the name was entirely incorrect.

In most cases isn't a search warrant for a specific property, so the address would match.


----------



## noproblem (25 Jun 2021)

peemac said:


> I doubt if a small error in how a name spelt is enough to make a warrant invalid. Eg Eleanor Fitzsymons v Elenor Fitzsimons.


That's what I'd call a major error. In any case, unless BOBO comes back to us we'll never know what the story really is


----------



## peemac (25 Jun 2021)

noproblem said:


> That's what I'd call a major error. In any case, unless BOBO comes back to us we'll never know what the story really is


But the warrant will be for a property, so I'd suspect that it's the address is what matters.


----------



## SparkRite (25 Jun 2021)

noproblem said:


> The "cops" is what caught my eye, missed the "guards". You're a sharp Coyote.


Never mind missing 'guards', look at the thread title. 



noproblem said:


> unless BOBO comes back to us we'll never know what the story really is


I suspect even if 'BOBO' does return we still won't know what the 'real' story is.


----------



## deanpark (26 Jun 2021)

It's encouraging how eloquent and well written that BOBO is based on his OP- handy when communicating to judges, gardai or his brief.


----------



## deanpark (26 Jun 2021)

To be fastidiously politically correct it could be 'her' or 'their'.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (26 Jun 2021)

deanpark said:


> To be fastidiously politically correct it could be 'her' or 'their'.


Let’s not allow that “their” nonsense to pollute AAM.


----------



## deanpark (26 Jun 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Let’s not allow that “their” nonsense to pollute AAM.


You can't be too careful on AAM.


----------



## Thirsty (26 Jun 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Let’s not allow that “their” nonsense to pollute AAM.


There they're their, @Gordon Gekko , what upsets you so?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (27 Jun 2021)

Thirsty said:


> There they're their, @Gordon Gekko , what upsets you so?


Their nonsense basically, Thirsty…


----------



## kinnjohn (27 Jun 2021)

you are getting in on it very fast I see,


----------



## Thirsty (27 Jun 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Their nonsense basically, Thirsty…


I'm still a bit lost. They're words.  Is it that people frequently use the incorrect spelling?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (27 Jun 2021)

Thirsty said:


> I'm still a bit lost. They're words.  Is it that people frequently use the incorrect spelling?


Sorry Thirsty.

I thought you were alluding to the phenomenon of people creating new pronouns for transgender or non-binary individuals.

You know, the “he”, “she”, or “they” stuff.


----------



## Thirsty (27 Jun 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> ... the “he”, “she”, or “they” stuff.


Does that bother you?


----------



## noproblem (27 Jun 2021)

Thirsty said:


> Does that bother you?


"You" that has a problem me thinks


----------



## Gordon Gekko (27 Jun 2021)

Thirsty said:


> Does that bother you?


Nope, it’s just nonsense


----------



## Thirsty (27 Jun 2021)

noproblem said:


> "You" that has a problem me thinks


And your evidence here is?


----------



## Thirsty (27 Jun 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Nope, it’s just nonsense


Why?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Jun 2021)

Thirsty said:


> There they're their


Dare?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Jun 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Nope, it’s just nonsense



A bit like 'he' and 'she', and 'me' and 'you', and of course the antagonistic 'them and us'.

All nonsense.


----------



## SparkRite (27 Jun 2021)

So, was the search illegal or not?


----------



## Thirsty (27 Jun 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> A bit like 'he' and 'she', and 'me' and 'you', and of course the antagonistic 'them and us'.
> 
> All nonsense.


Don't forget dis, dat, dese and dose


----------



## Gordon Gekko (27 Jun 2021)

Thirsty said:


> Why?


People claiming that they are neither male nor female? People insisting on calling women “cis women”? Trannies winning gold medals in women’s competitions?

Utter woke nonsense and fuel for the likes of Trump and other populist extremists.


----------



## Johnno75 (27 Jun 2021)

If there was ever a thread that has gone off topic, this has to be a firm contender!


----------



## becky (28 Jun 2021)

SparkRite said:


> So, was the search illegal or not?


I am fully convinced the search was justified, the OP was looking for a way out.


----------

