Closing Statement
During this case there has been one prevailing factor that has been presented in all of the MOJs dealings, that is confusion. At the start of the altercation as shown by the opening filing MR DK said that "When you have an active arrest warrant" police can enter your property. Mr Hanuta made the same statement in the response to the initial complaint, alleging the very same thing and even contending the qualification of the farm plot as "private property". Later on Mr Emerald the arresting officer said that an arrest warrant was not enough thus defying Mr Brehmers statement and General DKs. The MOJ has also attempted to argue that my arrest constituted a "pursuit", as per the cambridge dictionary pursuit is "the
act of
following someone or something to
try to
catch him, her, or it" defense council has unsuccesfully argued that a pursuit can occur without the "following" part.
Plaintiff believes this conditional was added in order to give officers the opportunity to arrest a suspect "fleeing" into private property not to give officers the opportunity to enter private property under the premise of a pursuit. As previously said Plaintiff also believes that . Mr Anthony.org's statement concurrs with my belief that there is a large tree line besides the property, I think this would not have made me visible. None of the conditionals were met for my arrest to occur and like I have previously said
While the act does say that "The Ministry of Justice must obtain a warrant before entering or searching private property" I think its important to analyze what the intent of the language is. A warrant is the quintessential protection the individual has to overzealous government officials, and when reading this criminal code the language seems to me to be trying to achieve just that. The word that points at this the most is
"searching", when looking at the constitution we see that one of the many rights given to the citizens of Azalea is the right against "unreasonable search and seizure". A warrant exists to protect said right this warrant is called a
search warrant where once again we see that key word feature, "A court order authorizing law enforcement to
search a specific location...". An arrest warrant would never be able to protect the citizen's constitutional right thus the existence of the search warrant, one which I think the criminal code act
expressly references by its use of the word
search in Section 11(d). Even looking at the caveats attached we see this theory be reinforced:
When consent has been given by the property owner or occupant.
In cases of emergency, where there is an immediate threat to life, safety, or property.
When the property is in plain view, and the search or seizure is related to a crime being committed in the presence of law enforcement.
When pursuing a suspect who has fled into the property.
When authorized by a valid court order for a specific investigation or operation.
It is abundantly clear that every single one of the conditionals are there to point at cases where a search is no longer "
unreasonable", words like "pursue", "emergency", and consent all point to this fact. If the conditionals try to address this constitutional protection would it be too much to assume that the warrant in question is the one that aims to do the exact same thing?
Law enforcement has wrongly interpreted the criminal code act and has violated the rights afforded to Plaintiff by the constitution.
