recent court ruling re: search warrants

[Aquarian]

in louisiana:

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.

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

thoughts?

 

[jimnyc]

That's insane! Coppers ain't coming in my house without a warrant or a fight!

 

[jon_forward]

good way for the cops to become gator bait.

 

[Johnney]

and you know they are heading to Sandys house. someone gave them a tip about the fatties in her computer!

 

[DKSuddeth]

as the dissenting judges said.....the doors to hell.

and nobody sees a problem with the patriot act opening this crap up

 

[NewGuy]

AHEM.......This just in from your friendly neighborhood Constitution -ratified December 15, 1791, and form part of what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Oh, and we cannot forget:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled disregard for the Constitution by your socialist police-state political leadership.

 

[Avatar4321]

well i was following the thread fine till new guy posted the ammendments. I mean they are very good and all im just wondering what his point for posting them was. Im sure most of us know what they say.

 

[Moi]

Well, well, well. Another incomplete article from our local press.

Why don't you post the actual text of the law?

I'd love to pick it apart.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Here are more things about this case:

In their opinion, the justices noted that other federal appellate courts have issued similar findings -- including the 1st, 6th, 9th and Washington, D.C., circuits.

So this is nothing new. I'm not trying to be a smartass when I'm asking this, but were the same complaints made when those appellate courts made these decisions?

In the majority opinion, Judge William Lockhart Garwood wrote that any in-home encounter poses a risk to police officers -- even if it's simply to interview someone.

I agree with this, but I guess I can also see where people are coming from if they find something that is not in "plain sight" during one of these searches.

Link

 

[Moi]

Ah, thanks for the link. So, there is no law that says police can search someone's house ad infenitum. Gee, let's concern ourselves with the particularities then.

1. Police were investigating a suspected criminal activity.
2. Police were given permission to enter the house.
3. Police were told the suspect was in the bedroom.
4. Police were aware the suspect is a convicted felon.
5. Police thought suspect was hiding; awaiting opportunity for ambush.
6. Police search for suspect in the bedroom only...finding 3 guns.
7. Police find fleeing suspect in woods.
8. Police ask for and receive suspect's signature on a search request.

Since the police had the right to search for the person and discovered the guns, seems to me the search was entirely legal. Had the guy been sitting on the bed, there would be some distinction.

Is this a slipperly slope? Perhaps.

Is it as bald-faced and clear cut as the original article suggested?

Not on your life.

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by Moi
6. Police search for suspect in the bedroom only...finding 3 guns.
Since the police had the right to search for the person and discovered the guns, seems to me the search was entirely legal. Had the guy been sitting on the bed, there would be some distinction.

Is this a slipperly slope? Perhaps.

Is it as bald-faced and clear cut as the original article suggested?

Not on your life.

the thing about search warrants is this. your looking for a specific item/ person. a person being the size we are will stick out fairly well. your not going to look for them in a gym bag or shoe box. ive seen more than a few case that came through our office get thrown out for that. they were looking for spray paint cans in a regular envelope and found dubbage. illegal seizure. but if its laying out in plain sight... thats a whole new ball game. something like the plain sight doctrine or some such thing.

 

[Bullypulpit]

...This would allow the police to go on a fishhg expedition while on a call. Rather than seeking specific evidence of a specific crime outlined in a warrant. They can toss a residence in search of anything which might be considered criminala nd unrelated to the reason for the call in the first place.

Say, f'rinstance, you have 911 on your speed-dial and accidentally hit it without realizing it. When the police show up they can toss your residence. And I did accidentally hit the speed-dial one afternoon. An officer showed up, and neither my wife nor I realized what we had done.

This decision, and others like it, set a dangerous precedent. The PATRIOT Act has already laid the foundation for the American police state. Rulings like this begin to frame out the edifice.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
..
Say, f'rinstance, you have 911 on your speed-dial and accidentally hit it without realizing it. When the police show up they can toss your residence. And I did accidentally hit the speed-dial one afternoon. An officer showed up, and neither my wife nor I realized what we had done.

It is normal for an officer to arrive at the scence of a 911 call. possible protection for the rescue workers/traffic control. You say you hit the speed dail an accident, what would you rather have happen? say you have had an accident in your hame and the only thing you are abile to do is hit the speed dail before passing out. would you rather that they call you back and see what the problem is? you are passed out, you cant answer the phone. and the police can arrive at 911 calls before the rescue unit simply because there are alot more police then rescue units and likely one will be near your home when you need them.That policeperson at your door may very well be the one that saves your life. while the officer was at your home, did he/she toss your home? I didnt think so! think about what you are saying before saying it. having had to use 911 several times I am thankful for whoever shows up! My hat is off to them...

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jon_forward
It is normal for an officer to arrive at the scence of a 911 call. possible protection for the rescue workers/traffic control. You say you hit the speed dail an accident, what would you rather have happen? say you have had an accident in your hame and the only thing you are abile to do is hit the speed dail before passing out. would you rather that they call you back and see what the problem is? you are passed out, you cant answer the phone. and the police can arrive at 911 calls before the rescue unit simply because there are alot more police then rescue units and likely one will be near your home when you need them.That policeperson at your door may very well be the one that saves your life. while the officer was at your home, did he/she toss your home? I didnt think so! think about what you are saying before saying it. having had to use 911 several times I am thankful for whoever shows up! My hat is off to them...

Granted, it's nice that they show up, but given the broadening of police powers granted by this ruling, he would have been well within his rights to come in and toss the place. The potential for abuse here is enormous despite what supporters of this decision say. If police have the power, they will use, or misuse it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

... 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.

The Lousiana court clearly IGNORED the U.S. Bill of Rights which has this to say on the subject:

Amendment IV

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.

--Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
as the dissenting judges said.....the doors to hell.

and nobody sees a problem with the patriot act opening this crap up

I wonder if the Anti-Christian Liberals Union will ask those judges be fired for bringing GOD into government. The concept of 'hell' is religious in nature.


I'd like to have the full reading; so to outline just what cops can and can't do. This article paints it that a cop can enter for ANY reason...not true. I believe it'll be more like 'They are chasing a guy. Guy runs into a house. When the cops enter they get the guy AND the dope they see in the house.

Maybe?

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
... against unreasonable searches and seizures

UNREASONABLE...So, a REASONABLE search is fine. That what may be what the cops want.

 

[jon_forward]

If the officer/ rescue personal that responded to your call for aid via 911 see crack on the table, which is clearly illegal, are they supose to turn a blind eye to it? NO! they take care of your medical needs , if you havent over-dosed and then haul your ass to jail. I have no problem with things as they are as I have nothing to hide/fear from the police. It is a different thing altogether if nothing is in plain sight and because of the 911 call they toss your place, the Cop[ overstepped the bounds.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...This would allow the police to go on a fishhg expedition while on a call. Rather than seeking specific evidence of a specific crime outlined in a warrant. They can toss a residence in search of anything which might be considered criminala nd unrelated to the reason for the call in the first place.

Say, f'rinstance, you have 911 on your speed-dial and accidentally hit it without realizing it. When the police show up they can toss your residence. And I did accidentally hit the speed-dial one afternoon. An officer showed up, and neither my wife nor I realized what we had done.

This decision, and others like it, set a dangerous precedent. The PATRIOT Act has already laid the foundation for the American police state. Rulings like this begin to frame out the edifice.

First of all, there is a complete difference between "tossing" and "a cursory search". The ruling does not give police carte blanche in searching anything. Secondly, they must be there for legitimate legal purposes. So, if they responded to a 911 call and the person who answers the door, eyes blackened, lip split, teeth missing says "Gee, officer, I sure didn't mean to dial 911" the police have every right to enter the house and look around. They aren't entitled to split open the mattress mind you, but they can find the break-in rapist who's hiding behind the front door with a gun to her head.

For all of you that claim unconstitutionality, I remind you that we are only entitled to unreasonable searches and seizures. The word unreasonable gives a pretty wide lattitude and opens that up to review each time. What's reasonable in one circumstance may not be reasonable in all. That's the entire reason for th jury system in the first place- because it's based on what reasonable persons would do. I find it entirely REASONABLE that the police, when questioning a known criminal, would look under the bed and in a closet when they believed him to be in the room. I do not think their looking into a locked freezer in the house next door would be reasonable.