Invalid Affidavit

[KSH68]

I have a question concerning an affidavit that was used to obtain an arrest warrant.
The officer who wrote and signed the affidavit is not the officer that was involved. Basically the officer said he was the one involved and it was an entirely different officer.
What bearing does this have on the subsequent warrant, arrest and the upcoming trial/hearing?

 

[army judge]

The officer investigating an incident does not have to be the one that signs or seeks an arrest warrant.

A judge issued the warrant.

Your time would be better served attacking the facts, not the process.

Any warrant is issued on information and belief.

The affiant on the warrant believes, has reason to believe, or has been informed that a crime has been committed.

He/she doesn't need not have observed the commission of said crime.

 

[KSH68]

So it's ok that he lied on the affidavit? It's ok for him to say that he was the officer who dealt with the individual even though it wasn't him? For example, "I gave so and so x amount of dollars to purchase blah blah blah," and that's acceptable even though he wasn't the one? Shouldn't he have named the officer who was involved as the one who was given the money, etc.? That's what I'm getting at.
It's not like I ever had to deal with anything like this before so please excuse my ignorance. It's not like I'm an attorney or a career criminal or even a part-time criminal. I'm just a law abiding citizen trying to find out some information.

 

[jharris352]

Are you here for advice or to argue? You see the word JUDGE in Army's name? He's not blowing smoke. As he said, and I will repeat: Warrants are given on "knowledge and belief." At trial, if this officer did not see what happened (and you have now way of knowing if he was watching) the other officer will probably testify. THEN you have the opportunity to challenge the testimony of the officer.

Right now, the police work as a team. What one tells the other is actionable for "probable cause" which is all it takes to get a warrant. If the actual undercover didn't do the warrant, it may be because they don't want his name revealed. ITS OK, THE WARRANT IS GOOD.

As Army said, attack the facts on the affidavit, not the process. Get a lawyer, if the ultimate indictment or accusation is defective he/she will take appropriate action. Don't talk about this to anyone or admit anything to anyone in reference to this crime. And finally, take our advice or not, but don't insult us by arguing. If you knew better answers than us, you wouldn't need to ask!

 

[KSH68]

Ok first of all I was not arguing. I was just trying to understand something that I am unclear about but all you want to do is treat me like I'm an imbecile, which I am not. I'm really not here to get into a battle of the wits with people I don't even know. All I wanted was some feedback on something that I thought was pretty much a yes, no or maybe answer. That's it.
I got it that the facts on the affidavit are the facts, to a degree, and that nothing can change that and therefore it's cause for the warrant. I was just trying to understand the way in which it was written because something to me doesn't seem right. Apparently though no one is really reading what I am asking and just wants to respond to me as if I'm a dumb criminal, which I will state again, I am not. I'm asking this on behalf of a family member who has someone going through a bad time right now.
Thank you for the advice although I have to say that the rude comments and demeanor were totally uncalled for.

 

[army judge]

What JH tried to tell you is that your loved one has been the victim of an undercover agent or confidential informant. This will all be revealed at trial. That is where one can face his/her accuser(s) and cross examine them. This isn't going to just go away, but it can be defended. Nothing you have described is of any unusual moment or import. Your lawyer will address these issues at trial or a pre-trial hearing.