4th Amendment degradation???

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by AtlantaWalter, Mar 28, 2004.

  1. AtlantaWalter
    Offline

    AtlantaWalter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Messages:
    479
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    small cave outside Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +3
    TheNewOrleansChannel.com
    3-27-4

    NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.

    Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

    The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."

    The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000.

    New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.

    "We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.

    But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has big problems with the ruling.

    "I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition.

    Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.

    "There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.


    "I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition." Now, as far as I can remember, my house has never threatened the safety of a law enforcement officer. Why would one fear for his safety as long as he were outside my house if no overt threats were made against him? Would not this same "search" idea have been covered under "reasonable suspicion" rules?
     
  2. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    You will get a lot of opinion about this issue but one fact remains that nobody seems to understand.

    Many things in the Constitution are not looked at in context. For this issue, we must do that.

    In context, It says "the right to be secure in all posessions and in the home against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures shall not be violated."
    -BUT there is no period, and instead a comma. Here is what follows: "AND no warrants shall issue unless there is probable cause describing things to be searched and seized."

    Here is the operative function: The and and the comma mean "therefore".

    When taken in complete context, which nobody does anymore, the whole thing gives the detail as to what "reasonable" is. It is after a specific description is given as to what is to be searched and/or seized and then a written warrant is issued. -Then an action can be taken.

    Why else was this the norm for so long?

    Not only is it the literal wording, but it is also "resonable" with keeping in line with our basic freedoms.

    Since we are a nation of illiterates anymore, we cannot understand our own simple English.
     
  3. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    where is the "This is a re-post" smilie??

    :)
     
  4. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Uhhh....that would be:

    :whip: and :rolleyes:

    Throw in a :blowup: for good measure.
     

Share This Page