Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think of the good faith exception as being one more incremental loophole through which police may venture to avoid Constitutional constraint. I consider it analogous to the Supreme Court's frivolous demotion of the probable cause requirement to that of reasonable suspicion, which is nothing more than a hunch -- a feeling.No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.
It's called "good faith." If the entry is made "in good faith," then it is valid, and all contraband found following the entry is fair game, even if the original reason for the entry turns out to be non-existent. The test, of course, is an objective one, not subjective on the part of the officers.
oh noes.............
In other news, LEOs may enter your house without a warrant if hey hear your wife screaming as you beat the shit out her.
Apparently she's the only one of the four Liberals on the Court who are capable of abstract reasoning.SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope.
By Nathan Koppel. The Wall Street Journal. 5/16/11
(Excerpt)
In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.
The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants.
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.
Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Whole article here: SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope - Law Blog - WSJ
This is another giant step forward in an ongoing effort to undermine the Fourth Amendment and move the United States closer to being a police state. No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.
This is no longer America.
Yeap this one is pretty bad.
It means police can beat down your door any time they want to.
I cant believe only Ginsberg desented
It's even worse. Cops can now break into your home without a warrant if they suspect evidence is being destroyed.
All a cop has to do now is say, I thought.
WTF is wrong with the Supremes?
SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope.
By Nathan Koppel. The Wall Street Journal. 5/16/11
(Excerpt)
In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.
The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants.
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.
Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Whole article here: SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope - Law Blog - WSJ
This is another giant step forward in an ongoing effort to undermine the Fourth Amendment and move the United States closer to being a police state. No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.
This is no longer America.
Yeap this one is pretty bad.
It means police can beat down your door any time they want to.
Odors are transitory and deceptive. An odor you smell now might either be gone in five minutes or transmute in its nature to a completely different odor. For example, the cooking of certain foods produces a foul, decadent odor in its early stages. So allowing such a radical action as forcible entry into a private residence on the basis of an odor alone and without further investigation is a weak and presumptuous exercise of police authority.oh noes.............
In other news, LEOs may enter your house without a warrant if hey hear your wife screaming as you beat the shit out her.
Or if they can smell your dead body decomposing inside, which happens to old people quite a bit here in Arizona in the summer.
Any sign that there's something wrong inside is enough for the cops to investigate.
I see no reason to provide CRIMINALS with ANY Constitutional Protections whatsoever. I never have and never will.
That's exactly how I got busted, folks.
Which is a relatively easy circumstance to fabricate. (E.g., We were investigating a suspicious person, noise, etc.)No, it doesn't. It means police can beat down your door if they reasonably believe that evidence is being destroyed or if contraband exists inside the house. Nothing wrong with such a rule.
However, as I mentioned earlier, they must be in a place where they were legally allowed to be when they make the observations leading to the entry.
SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope.
By Nathan Koppel. The Wall Street Journal. 5/16/11
(Excerpt)
In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.
The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants.
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.
Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Whole article here: SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope - Law Blog - WSJ
This is another giant step forward in an ongoing effort to undermine the Fourth Amendment and move the United States closer to being a police state. No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.
This is no longer America.
SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope.
By Nathan Koppel. The Wall Street Journal. 5/16/11
(Excerpt)
In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.
The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants.
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.
Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Whole article here: SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope - Law Blog - WSJ
This is another giant step forward in an ongoing effort to undermine the Fourth Amendment and move the United States closer to being a police state. No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.
This is no longer America.
Yeap this one is pretty bad.
It means police can beat down your door any time they want to.
No, it doesn't. It means police can beat down your door if they reasonably believe that evidence is being destroyed or if contraband exists inside the house. Nothing wrong with such a rule.
However, as I mentioned earlier, they must be in a place where they were legally allowed to be when they make the observations leading to the entry.
I am not up to any form of debate so I will just post a brief comment from the link
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
Which is a relatively easy circumstance to fabricate. (E.g., We were investigating a suspicious person, noise, etc.)No, it doesn't. It means police can beat down your door if they reasonably believe that evidence is being destroyed or if contraband exists inside the house. Nothing wrong with such a rule.
However, as I mentioned earlier, they must be in a place where they were legally allowed to be when they make the observations leading to the entry.
It affords broad opportunity for abuse, which is why it should not be allowed.
9,999,999,999 out of 10 billion times when a LEO knocks on a door it's because he has a legitimate reason to do so. 9,999,999,999 out of 10 billion times when a person tells a LEO to go fuck himself when said LEO asks if he can come in it is because that person has something to hide. Taken together this would mean the odds of an LEO forcing his way into a house for no reason are roughly 1 in a trillion. That is a margin of error which isn't likely to change no matter what rules are placed on LEOs. Mistakes happen.
It won't affect at all since no other state is obliged to follow precedent sat by another state.
Additionally, and more important to Ravi's point.... The moment that a LEO verbally announces his/her presence as such, your right to "Self-Defense" against them is generally assumed to be null and void, regardless of other circumstances.
SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope.
By Nathan Koppel. The Wall Street Journal. 5/16/11
(Excerpt)
In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.
The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants.
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.
Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Whole article here: SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope - Law Blog - WSJ
This is another giant step forward in an ongoing effort to undermine the Fourth Amendment and move the United States closer to being a police state. No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.
This is no longer America.
Yeap this one is pretty bad.
It means police can beat down your door any time they want to.
No, it doesn't. It means police can beat down your door if they reasonably believe that evidence is being destroyed or if contraband exists inside the house. Nothing wrong with such a rule.
However, as I mentioned earlier, they must be in a place where they were legally allowed to be when they make the observations leading to the entry.
Which is a relatively easy circumstance to fabricate. (E.g., We were investigating a suspicious person, noise, etc.)No, it doesn't. It means police can beat down your door if they reasonably believe that evidence is being destroyed or if contraband exists inside the house. Nothing wrong with such a rule.
However, as I mentioned earlier, they must be in a place where they were legally allowed to be when they make the observations leading to the entry.
It affords broad opportunity for abuse, which is why it should not be allowed.
yes because 99% of LEO make things up 99% of the time.
9,999,999,999 out of 10 billion times when a LEO knocks on a door it's because he has a legitimate reason to do so. 9,999,999,999 out of 10 billion times when a person tells a LEO to go fuck himself when said LEO asks if he can come in it is because that person has something to hide. Taken together this would mean the odds of an LEO forcing his way into a house for no reason are roughly 1 in a trillion. That is a margin of error which isn't likely to change no matter what rules are placed on LEOs. Mistakes happen.
The question which is being ignored in this thread is do we as a society founded on the bedrocks of personal liberty and freedom from government oppression wish to allow our police to subject a citizen to warrantless home invasion because some police officer suspects that he/she might be smoking marijuana in the privacy and supposed sancitity of his/her home?
I fear younger generations of Americans might be more receptive to such abusive disregard of the Fourth Amendment because they have never lived in the America where such contempt for the most basic principles Constitutional Liberty and Freedom was unthinkable. But I have clear recollection of a time when the police would not dare to break into a citizen's home without a clear and unavoidable need to do so -- and it was not that long ago.
For me, the very idea that the police would force entry into someone's home because they believe that person is smoking marijuana is insulting. It affords our contemporary police the same level of authority as possessed by the British Regulars over the Colonials in pre-Revolution America. And this abusive practice was in fact one of the more prominent motivations for the Revolution.
The question which is being ignored in this thread is do we as a society founded on the bedrocks of personal liberty and freedom from government oppression wish to allow our police to subject a citizen to warrantless home invasion because some police officer suspects that he/she might be smoking marijuana in the privacy and supposed sancitity of his/her home?
I fear younger generations of Americans might be more receptive to such abusive disregard of the Fourth Amendment because they have never lived in the America where such contempt for the most basic principles Constitutional Liberty and Freedom was unthinkable. But I have clear recollection of a time when the police would not dare to break into a citizen's home without a clear and unavoidable need to do so -- and it was not that long ago.
For me, the very idea that the police would force entry into someone's home because they believe that person is smoking marijuana is insulting. It affords our contemporary police the same level of authority as possessed by the British Regulars over the Colonials in pre-Revolution America. And this abusive practice was in fact one of the more prominent motivations for the Revolution.
I think police should have a warrant every single time they enter a home, and that the exceptions to this should require both compelling evidence and a demonstrated danger to life or limb of a human being. Destruction of evidence would not meet that test, but hearing someone screaming would. That would still result in mistakes and abuse, but it would be severely limited.
