Supreme Court May Rule That Cops NO LONGER NEED WARRANTS TO ENTER YOUR HOME!

[bigrebnc1775]

I will add you do not enter the home of a citizen without premission and due process of the law. But a subject is a differant topic of discussion.
Are any of you citizens or are you subjects?

 

[The Rabbi]

I am a citizen. Like most of us here.
I want to remain a live citizen. If cops do something unwarranted, I want to be at their trial, not lying cold in the grave.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am a citizen. Like most of us here.
I want to remain a live citizen. If cops do something unwarranted, I want to be at their trial, not lying cold in the grave.

How many people have been killed by cops who were doing nothing?
Did you hear about the cops who shot and killed unarmed people in New Orleans during Katrina?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

There goes some more of our precious rights.

 

[whitehall]

I recall the left wing, encouraged by the left wing media, going nuts at the thought of US intelligence evesdropping on selected international calls without a warrant. It was during the Bush administration. The same lefties in the media ignore real threats to civil liberties during a radical left wing administration. Imagine what will happen if the Obama administration starts kicking in the doors of people who don't purchase their own medical insurance.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am a citizen. Like most of us here.
I want to remain a live citizen. If cops do something unwarranted, I want to be at their trial, not lying cold in the grave.

How many people have been killed by cops who were doing nothing?
Did you hear about the cops who shot and killed unarmed people in New Orleans during Katrina?

OK.
What does that have to do with anything??

 

[Political Junky]

I recall the left wing, encouraged by the left wing media, going nuts at the thought of US intelligence evesdropping on selected international calls without a warrant. It was during the Bush administration. The same lefties in the media ignore real threats to civil liberties during a radical left wing administration. Imagine what will happen if the Obama administration starts kicking in the doors of people who don't purchase their own medical insurance.

It's the right wing Supreme Court, not the Obama Administration.

 

[Liability]

The JOHNSON case precedent itself allowed for the prospect that upon smelling the smell of burning opium, the police can seek a warrant, but that if there is a legitimate basis to fear the immediate destruction of evidence, that constitutes the basis for a different analysis.

The old ruling, Johnson v. United States in 1948, involved the search of a hotel room in Seattle. The smell of drugs could provide probable cause for a warrant, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote for the majority, but it did not entitle the police to enter without one.

“No suspect was fleeing or likely to take flight,” Justice Jackson wrote. “The search was of permanent premises, not of a movable vehicle. No evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction.”

--
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13scotus.html?_r=2

The highlighting of the Justice Jackson quote in the Times article is mine. The times article contains a hyperlink to the Johnson case SCOTUS decision.

And, as has already been noted here, in some cases, where there is an exigency (or an emergency) the warrant requirement already yields to the Constitutional requirement for reasonableness.

There is nothing magical in a warrant itself. It is merely a PRIOR judicial determination that the search is REASONABLE.

The funny thing in this new Kentucky case is that it seems to get right down to the very point made by Justice Jackson back in 1948. A warrant is generally required and is preferred, but it can be STILL dispensed with under some circumstances. Those very circumstances (the prospect of the immediate destruction of evidence) are raised in the new Kentucky case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am a citizen. Like most of us here.
I want to remain a live citizen. If cops do something unwarranted, I want to be at their trial, not lying cold in the grave.

How many people have been killed by cops who were doing nothing?
Did you hear about the cops who shot and killed unarmed people in New Orleans during Katrina?

OK.
What does that have to do with anything??

I am sure those people that were killed by those cops wished they could say just what you did. they were unarmed defenseless doing nothing while cops were going around and disarming the general public.

 

[snjmom]

I'm not all that worried.

The District police department policy on forcible entry caused a "deadly delay" as officers waited for a supervisor outside an apartment while a mother and her two young sons were being stabbed to death inside, according to a lawsuit filed by the woman's family.

The policy that led to police taking nearly an hour to finally bust down the door and find the murdered family is at the center of a $60 million wrongful death lawsuit against the city and the officers involved.

The District legal team has not contested the facts in the case, many of which were pulled from official police documents. But the city has sought to have it thrown out of court on legal grounds.

"In general, officers should seek the approval of an official prior to making any forcible entry," police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump told The Washington Examiner .

That's just what officers did on March 21, 2009, when 38-year-old Erika Peters and her two sons, 10-year-old Dakota Peters and 11-year-old Eric Harper, were slain.

Joseph R. Mays, Peters' 46-year-old boyfriend, pleaded guilty last month to three counts of second-degree murder. He faces up to 46 years in prison when he is sentenced Nov. 12.

The officers who went to 2000 Maryland Ave. NE, Apartment 104, were responding to a 911 call.

"The caller, who was obviously a child, could be heard screaming for several seconds directly into the phone before becoming silent," the lawsuit states. "After which, a man's voice could be heard saying, 'I told y'all to quit [expletive] with me.' " The 911 operator tried to get someone to speak into the phone and can be repeatedly heard saying "Hello," but no one answered, documents said.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm not all that worried.

The District police department policy on forcible entry caused a "deadly delay" as officers waited for a supervisor outside an apartment while a mother and her two young sons were being stabbed to death inside, according to a lawsuit filed by the woman's family.

The policy that led to police taking nearly an hour to finally bust down the door and find the murdered family is at the center of a $60 million wrongful death lawsuit against the city and the officers involved.

The District legal team has not contested the facts in the case, many of which were pulled from official police documents. But the city has sought to have it thrown out of court on legal grounds.

"In general, officers should seek the approval of an official prior to making any forcible entry," police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump told The Washington Examiner .

That's just what officers did on March 21, 2009, when 38-year-old Erika Peters and her two sons, 10-year-old Dakota Peters and 11-year-old Eric Harper, were slain.

Joseph R. Mays, Peters' 46-year-old boyfriend, pleaded guilty last month to three counts of second-degree murder. He faces up to 46 years in prison when he is sentenced Nov. 12.

The officers who went to 2000 Maryland Ave. NE, Apartment 104, were responding to a 911 call.

"The caller, who was obviously a child, could be heard screaming for several seconds directly into the phone before becoming silent," the lawsuit states. "After which, a man's voice could be heard saying, 'I told y'all to quit [expletive] with me.' " The 911 operator tried to get someone to speak into the phone and can be repeatedly heard saying "Hello," but no one answered, documents said.

I'm not all that worried.

Was that what you said about the patriot act?

 

[whitehall]

I recall the left wing, encouraged by the left wing media, going nuts at the thought of US intelligence evesdropping on selected international calls without a warrant. It was during the Bush administration. The same lefties in the media ignore real threats to civil liberties during a radical left wing administration. Imagine what will happen if the Obama administration starts kicking in the doors of people who don't purchase their own medical insurance.

It's the right wing Supreme Court, not the Obama Administration.

Take a course in political science, political junkie. The Supremes don't operate in a vacuum. It's the Obama administration that's bringing the case to the Court.

 

[MikeK]

In the poll, I voted for the Constitutional approach.

However, I am most definitely FOR giving the cops more discretionary power they now possess what with ACLU's BULLSHIT.

I think you should give some thought to the following:

"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

 

[Sallow]

The 4th amendment has already been whittled down to practically nothing by the SCOTUS.

If you're not well off, you really basically have very little protection from unreasonable search and siezure.

Oh, in theory you have rights, but defending those rights usually takes more money than most people really have.

I had an excellent 4th amendment case in the case of the cops inviding my home a few years back.

My lawyers told me, I'd prably have a good shot at winning, but it would take about $20,000 to fight it.

So really...do I actually have that protection?


In theory I do, but de facto?

No, I really don't

I had an excellent 4th amendment case in the case of the cops inviding my home a few years back.

I have ample protection if they do not have a search warrant. It may cost me my life but I will take a couple witrh me

Fucking ridiculous.

This is WHY we have a Constitution. It's a social pact between the governed and those doing the governing.

We cede power to the government..in return for the services they provide. We define how these services get funded and how much power they have.

It's up to us..the people..to keep government in check. That doesn't mean hunkering down with firearms waiting for the police to come and get you.

It means being a responsible citizen and getting involved when government starts craving out brand new spanking powers for themselves.

 

[BenMarbleMD]

Oh man the US Supreme Court may damn us all to hell with this one...If they do I'm moving.

 

[Liability]

In the poll, I voted for the Constitutional approach.

However, I am most definitely FOR giving the cops more discretionary power they now possess what with ACLU's BULLSHIT.

I think you should give some thought to the following:

"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

The "precedent" already exists. It all depends on the circumstances.

Maybe YOU should give some consideration to what Justice Jackson said in 1948:

* * * *Crime, even in the privacy of one's own quarters, is, of course, of grave concern to society, and the law allows such crime to be reached on proper showing. The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or Government enforcement agent.

There are exceptional circumstances in which, on balancing the need for effective law enforcement against the [333 U.S. 10 , 15] right of privacy, it may be contended that a magistrate's warrant for search may be dispensed with. But this is not such a case. No reason is offered for not obtaining a search warrant except the inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to prepare papers and present the evidence to a magistrate. These are never very convincing reasons and, in these circumstances, certainly are not enough to bypass the constitutional requirement. No suspect was fleeing or likely to take flight. The search was of permanent premises, not of a movable vehicle. No evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction, except perhaps the fumes which we suppose in time will disappear. But they were not capable at any time of being reduced to possession for presentation to court. The evidence of their existence before the search was adequate and the testimony of the officers to that effect would not perish from the delay of getting a warrant.

If the officers in this case were excused from the constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a magistrate, it is difficult to think of a case in which it should be required. * * * *

-- JOHNSON v. U. S. , 333 U.S. 10, 14 -15 (1948) (It can be found here: FindLaw | Cases and Codes)(The internal emphases are added by me.)

That the "exception" was not established in the Johnson case is fair enough. Maybe the "exception" is properly established by the evidence in this new Kentucky case. { The case is King v. Commonwealth and the Court decision now being reviewed is found at: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/09-1272_scky.pdf }

 

[MikeK]

The War On Drugs has served as the means of incrementally transforming America into a police state one little step at a time.

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

Fifty years ago I would not have believed such things could take place in this Country. It now occurs to me that those of more current generations tend to be more accepting of such flagrant transgressions by government because they don't have the same recollections as a reference.

Fifty years ago we heard about such things going on in places like the Soviet Union -- and we took for granted it couldn't happen here. So today's Americans need to project on what very well could be happening here in their future. They need to contemplate the implicaions in the so-called Patriol Act and the acceptance of presidents like Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

How many people have been killed by cops who were doing nothing?
Did you hear about the cops who shot and killed unarmed people in New Orleans during Katrina?

OK.
What does that have to do with anything??

I am sure those people that were killed by those cops wished they could say just what you did. they were unarmed defenseless doing nothing while cops were going around and disarming the general public.

I am not planning on basing my life on an isolated incident.
If you are intent on dying by firing on cops, be my guest.

 

[MikeK]

It's the right wing Supreme Court, not the Obama Administration.

Look closer:

"Apparently, the brave warriors who fight our War on Drugs have found getting search warrants too much of a hassle, and lawyers for the Obama administration and the state of Kentucky are before the Supreme Court arguing they must be able to forcibly enter any home should they simply "smell something funny" and "hear strange noises" from the other side of a door."


It's a big mistake to invest too much faith and trust in this slick-talking bastard. Pay closer attention to what he does rather than what he says.

 

[uscitizen]

I recall the left wing, encouraged by the left wing media, going nuts at the thought of US intelligence evesdropping on selected international calls without a warrant. It was during the Bush administration. The same lefties in the media ignore real threats to civil liberties during a radical left wing administration. Imagine what will happen if the Obama administration starts kicking in the doors of people who don't purchase their own medical insurance.

Yes and the same thing applies to the right wingers that supported the Partiot Act and subsequent republican controlled congressional "security" actions to keep us safe.


Now they whine when a Dem is president.


Damned blind partisan hacks.