Read the Nesbitt raid search warrant

On Feb. 24, state Alcohol Law Enforcement agents, alleging that the site hosted illegal poker games, raided property maintained by Chad Nesbitt, a business owner and conservative activist who’s attracted controversy in the past. Read the search warrant for the raid here.

Nesbitt has denied the allegations, calling the raid “blatant intimidation” and claiming that it comes in response to his attempts to publicize alleged corruption in the District Attorney’s office.

It is unclear whether deputies from the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office were involved in the raid. Allen Page, the district supervisor for ALE, has said they were. But the Sheriff’s Office has no record of such involvement.

— David Forbes, staff writer

SHARE

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

10 thoughts on “Read the Nesbitt raid search warrant

  1. DR.ANTINEOCONUS

    No jurat , no notary seal, no seal of the court,no oath subscribed to under pains and penalites of perjury looks bogus

  2. shadmarsh

    The judge’s signature is all that is required for a probable cause search warrant. see NC:

    O.C.G.A. § 17-4-40

  3. DR.ANTINEOCONUS

    WHAT in the world do you mean what is O.C.G.A. 17-4-40 dont you mean N.C.G.S. 17-4 which relates to haebus> are out of your mind?Your beyond ignorant. Read the case if you can read for more than 15 seconds and comprehend unbelievable!!!!You have no idea what your talking about
    Read this 2004 case 9th circuit case http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/408/1227/
    God why do I speak to ignorant, they have a mouth and can speak and can actually pull voting levers

    § 17?4. When application denied.

    Application to prosecute the writ shall be denied in the following cases:

    (1) Where the persons are committed or detained by virtue of process issued by a court of the United States, or a judge thereof, in cases where such courts or judges have exclusive jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, or have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the commencement of suits in such courts.

    (2) Where persons are committed or detained by virtue of the final order, judgment or decree of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon such final order, judgment or decree.

    (3) Where any person has willfully neglected, for the space of two whole sessions after his imprisonment, to apply for the writ to the superior court of the county in which he may be imprisoned, such person shall not have a habeas corpus in vacation time for his enlargement.

    (4) Where no probable ground for relief is shown in the application. (1868?9, c. 116, s. 2; Code, s. 1624; Rev., s. 1822; C.S., s. 2206; 1971, c. 528, s. 1.)

  4. DR.ANTINEOCONUS

    Failing to distinguish the average arrest/search warrant from a warrant issued for a supervised-release offender, the panel holds that “the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the alleged violations of supervised release because the warrant … was not based on facts supported by oath or affirmation, as required by the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 902 (emphasis added). The panel bases its conclusion on its reading of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(

  5. shadmarsh

    I have no idea why you speak to the ignorant. It would appear, judging by your general demeanor, that you would have to scour the earth for a period of 40-50 years before maybe, maybe finding your intellectual equal…that is if you ever make it out of grandmas basement…as to the matter you suggest that I am ignorant of, I would say that I am not entirely ignorant, as I used to have a job wherein I prepared similar documents, and in this manner I am actually correct. there is no need for a clerk of court to sign a probable cause warrant (and while a clerk of court could, it would be considered irregular for them to do so) as the clerk is just a functionary of the judge. Also it would not be notarized in either case as the clerk would swear the petitioner to the document, and sign, no seal needed).
    As to there being no seal(not the same as being notarized) on the document,I would guess that there is, but do to the photocopying it probably isn’t showing up…but what do I know.

    Also I would just like to add that, grammatically speaking it would be “you’re beyond ignorant” not “your beyond ignorant” as you wrote above. When you are insinuating that someone else is an idiot it is best not to sound like one yourself…that’s good advice, that possibly would have served Mr. Nesbitt well. What what the hell do I know.

  6. DR.ANTINEOCONUS

    You know nothing Did you read the case law, you have no idea what your talking about, I didnt say the clerk must sign it can you read??? I said the seal of the court must be on it.Do you even know what probable cause is and who can make that determination.Did you even read the Vargus case,you are totaly wrong.There must be a jurat with an oath signed under penalties of perjury, in wet ink.
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  7. DR.ANTINEOCONUS

    The officer must sign the affidavit containing the supporting information establishing the grounds for the warrant. By signing the affidavit, the officer swears that the statements in the affidavit are true to the best of his or her knowledge. A police officer who lies when obtaining a warrant may be held personally liable to the searched person. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987), however, a police officer is not personally liable for a wrongful search if a reasonable officer could have believed that the warrantless search would be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed at the time.

  8. DR.ANTINEOCONUS

    Check mate Time for you to crawl back to grandma’s basement
    An affidavit is a written declaration, under oath, made without notice to the adverse party.”

    Section 3223, 0.S. 1931, is as follows:

    “A search warrant shall not be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit naming or describing the person, and particularly describing the property and the place to be searched.”

    Section 3224, 0.S. 1931, provides:

    “The magistrate must, before issuing the warrant, take, on oath, the complaint of the prosecuting witness in writing, which must set forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the application or probable cause for believing that they exist.”

    An examination of the affidavit introduced by the defendant in support of his motion discloses that there is no jurat attached to the affidavit, there being a total failure to show the name of any officer authorized to administer the oath attached to the purported affidavit.

    In U.S. v. Kelih (D.C.) 272 F. 484, the court in the first paragraph of its syllabus said:

    “A search warrant was void, if issued without an oath or affirmation, as required by Const. Amend. 4.”

    In Morris v. State, 2 Tex. App. 502, 503, the court said:

    “An officer taking an affidavit must sign the jurat; otherwise, the document is not an affidavit, and will not suffice as the basis of an information; and this court, on an appeal from a conviction based upon such uncertified document, not only reverses the judgment, but dismisses the cause.”

    Section 2639, 0.S. 1931, is as follows:

    “No warrant shall be issued to search a private residence, occupied as such, unless it, or some part of, is used as a store, shop, hotel, boarding house, or place for

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.