For the police officer to KNOW that the information is false, the police officer needs to KNOW that there is no meth in the basement. If the police officer had looked into the basement, saw no meth, and then alleged there was meth, that's a lie. If the police officer sees evidence of meth from things seen outside the house, and by peering into the windows, then it is not a lie to allege that there is information suggesting the existence of meth.
And, of course, if for months on end the world debates whether the warrant should be issued, it leaves plenty of time to clear the basement of meth. Jim Maule Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law Villanova PA 19085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com) Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com) Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/07/03 06:27PM >>> Prof. Maule asks: > How does one prove the non-existence of WMD in Iraq? It would be much > easier if X said, "there are no drugs" and the searching officers found > drugs. > I suppose I'm puzzled by where the burden of proof would be and how it > would be satisified. (I'm not addressing the question of whether there > were or are WMDs in Iraq, or any of the other issues that would apply > with respect to national security concerns, reasonableness of reliance > on information, veracity of informants, etc. It's just that who is going > to prove that there were not, in late 2002 and early 2003, any WMD in > Iraq?) I do not think that this question is legally relevant, but it is factually relevant. Think of it this way. A police officer swears out an affidavit alleging certain facts known by him to be false from his intelligence sources in order to get a warrant to search a house for illegal methamphetamines. Let's say that he alleged that his informant said that there was 16 tons of meth in the basement. Subsequently, a meth lab is found but no trace of meth. The police officer would have still committed perjury. Francisco Forrest Martin
