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

[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.

I'm not all that worried.

Was that what you said about the patriot act?

Why no, I think data fishing is something to be worried about, much as social network trolling. But if there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress, I don't think the cops should have their hands tied. Which constitutional right was upheld and which lost in the example given?

Case law and precedent is what determines "reasonable". The 4th only protects against "unreasonable" search. As long as the cops can stand around listening to you and your children get murdered while they dot their I's and cross their T's, I'm not all that worried about excessive infringement on the 4th.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

It's not my intent to die but also it's not my intent to back down.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Yep.

I could care less who's doing it.

 

[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?

Why no, I think data fishing is something to be worried about, much as social network trolling. But if there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress, I don't think the cops should have their hands tied. Which constitutional right was upheld and which lost in the example given?

Case law and precedent is what determines "reasonable". The 4th only protects against "unreasonable" search. As long as the cops can stand around listening to you and your children get murdered while they dot their I's and cross their T's, I'm not all that worried about excessive infringement on the 4th.

Data and personal information is somehow differant than entering a home without due process? There is no differance.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It's not my intent to die but also it's not my intent to back down.

Pick one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

It's not my intent to die but also it's not my intent to back down.

Pick one.

I'm not going to back down. I'm not a subject to dance at the wishes of the powers that be.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not my intent to die but also it's not my intent to back down.

Pick one.

I'm not going to back down. I'm not a subject to dance at the wishes of the powers that be.

We'll carve that on your tombstone.

 

[Liability]

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.

Untrue.

I have supported the USA PATRIOT Act and its various amendments. I support it no less now that a President whose politics I dislike is in Office.

The Obama Administration isn't likely to be kicking in doors over suspected opium or heroin or pot smoking. The reason, obviously, that the Obama Administration is taking the "side" of "law enforcement" in the Kentucky case is to PRESERVE the EXCEPTION component of the old Johnson case law.

While it is true that Justice Kagan has some merit to the expressed concern that the "exception" could, conceivably, swallow the original rule making the warrant requirement nothing more than an historical artifact, that concern is wildly overblown. That the mere possibility exists for misuse and abuse, does not justify eliminating the exception entirely.

What IS needed remains today what it was back in Justice Jackson's day: rational judicial review of police behavior in order to preserve the very purpose of the 4th Amendment. Just as the behavior of the police in the old Johnson case was "refudiated" (I like that make-believe word!), so too it is possible that the police behavior in the new Kentucky case (King) might be upheld. The difference? Judicial analysis of the underlying facts.

 

[uscitizen]

Was that what you said about the patriot act?

Why no, I think data fishing is something to be worried about, much as social network trolling. But if there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress, I don't think the cops should have their hands tied. Which constitutional right was upheld and which lost in the example given?

Case law and precedent is what determines "reasonable". The 4th only protects against "unreasonable" search. As long as the cops can stand around listening to you and your children get murdered while they dot their I's and cross their T's, I'm not all that worried about excessive infringement on the 4th.

Data and personal information is somehow differant than entering a home without due process? There is no differance.

Anything you post on the net, ie facebook, etc is public.
Even emails, that was part of the Partiot act kind of laws that were passed by the "please keep us safe" crowd after 911.

 

[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.

Untrue.

I have supported the USA PATRIOT Act and its various amendments. I support it no less now that a President whose politics I dislike is in Office.

The Obama Administration isn't likely to be kicking in doors over suspected opium or heroin or pot smoking. The reason, obviously, that the Obama Administration is taking the "side" of "law enforcement" in the Kentucky case is to PRESERVE the EXCEPTION component of the old Johnson case law.

While it is true that Justice Kagan has some merit to the expressed concern that the "exception" could, conceivably, swallow the original rule making the warrant requirement nothing more than an historical artifact, that concern is wildly overblown. That the mere possibility exists for misuse and abuse, does not justify eliminating the exception entirely.

What IS needed remains today what it was back in Justice Jackson's day: rational judicial review of police behavior in order to preserve the very purpose of the 4th Amendment. Just as the behavior of the police in the old Johnson case was "refudiated" (I like that make-believe word!), so too it is possible that the police behavior in the new Kentucky case (King) might be upheld. The difference? Judicial analysis of the underlying facts.

I have not studied the case but I suspect it is about meth labs.
I have no problem with the cops going in if they smell a meth lab.
I do not feel that is unreasonable entry.

And since it is also illegal that includes smelling pot being smoked or any other distinctive indication of a crime being comitted.

If you wife was being raped and a cop heard her screaming would you want them to have to get a warrant to go in?

btw I am not against pot, but it is illegal.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

If I'm going to commit suicide by cop, it's going to have to serve a greater social purpose and make a larger splash on society than me just defending my right to privacy from the excesses of a couple local cops.

I respect your POV, of course, but I think that your death under those circumstances wouldn't have much impact on the cause you just died for.

....Especially when the boys o' the Thin Blue Line always swear that the homeowner initiated (whatever) unfortunate-situation.

​

I guess my point is that my life (and yours too) ought not to be thrown away just to make a point that will be so treated so trivially in this society.

You' be dismissed as just another nutter.

....Or, a combat-Vet.

"They chumped us. Anyone can be chumped.

That's you now. Just fewer trees and less water."

Here​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Smell seems to be a poor way to determine whos home should be invaded without warning.

It makes cops pretty powerful over regular Joes lives.

Such is the magic o' reasonable-suspicion.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well that is one way that evoloution thins out some.

I see we have another easy pick up.

LOL. I did not support the Patriot act.
Defending my home? It is just a house, I have owened several in my life.
And if I have done nothig wrong I stand an excellent chance of being cleared.

That's what THEY SAY.......

Here​

 

[snjmom]

Data and personal information is somehow differant than entering a home without due process? There is no differance.

The difference is in reasonable suspicion. Does the government have a reasonable suspicion that everyone using communication mediums are involved in committing a crime? I think not.

Does it have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is in process when a person is screaming they are being attacked behind a closed door? Yeah, probably.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I see we have another easy pick up.

LOL. I did not support the Patriot act.
Defending my home? It is just a house, I have owened several in my life.
And if I have done nothig wrong I stand an excellent chance of being cleared.
Being dead is kinda hard to clear up though.

I have owned a couple of homes myself, but whats mine is mine if you walk through my doors uninvited you will not leave the same way you came in. I really don't care who you are.

GOOD LUCK!!!
(....'Cause that's all ya' got....)

Here​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Data and personal information is somehow differant than entering a home without due process? There is no differance.

The difference is in reasonable suspicion. Does the government have a reasonable suspicion that everyone using communication mediums are involved in committing a crime? I think not.

Does it have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is in process when a person is screaming they are being attacked behind a closed door? Yeah, probably.

You mean probable cause? which still a cop cannot just do a search just because. Thats a very good way to get a 12 gauge shoved in their face here in my neck of the woods.

 

[snjmom]

Data and personal information is somehow differant than entering a home without due process? There is no differance.

The difference is in reasonable suspicion. Does the government have a reasonable suspicion that everyone using communication mediums are involved in committing a crime? I think not.

Does it have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is in process when a person is screaming they are being attacked behind a closed door? Yeah, probably.

You mean probable cause? which still a cop cannot just do a search just because. Thats a very good way to get a 12 gauge shoved in their face here in my neck of the woods.

Yes I mean probable cause. And yes a cop can do a search if the circumstances warrant. Why would you want to make an officer fearful of entering a home in which he has a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, right now? Would you have supported Henry Gates answering Officer Crowley with a 12 gauge?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY82seEBw5w&playnext=1&list=PL4DC280AA6E37B443&index=35[/ame]

 

[snjmom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY82seEBw5w&playnext=1&list=PL4DC280AA6E37B443&index=35

See, now I bet they had a warrant.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Gee......how many times have we heard THAT, before?

​

September 27, 2000

President Clinton Announces Another Record Budget Surplus​