Judge rules against Qualified Immunity for police officer who violated man's 4th Amendment rights.

[pknopp]

The cops had no way of knowing that when they arrived at the scene

And they can't assume anything and just break into a persons house........as we see here.

 

[Mac-7]

And they can't assume anything and just break into a persons house........as we see here.

What they assumed was the real possibility that they were confronting a burgler

 

[pknopp]

What they assumed was the real possibility that they were confronting a burgler

I can't help that they always see danger around every corner. That's their problem and why the founders made sure our rights were protected.

 

[Mac-7]

I can't help that they always see danger around every corner

Cops who die from danger around any corner

when libs totally abandon law and order you will be sorry

 

[pknopp]

Cops who die from danger around any corner

when libs totally abandon law and order you will be sorry

The only law broken here was by the cops.

 

[Mac-7]

The only law broken here was by the cops.

Not in my opinion

no laws were broken by anyone including the cops

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only law broken here was by the cops.

Nobody broke anything. Police officers are allowed to search houses or cars if they have reasonable suspicion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And they can't assume anything and just break into a persons house........as we see here.

Reasonable Suspicion​

Overview​

Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. Reasonable suspicion is used in determining the legality of a police officer's decision to perform a search.
When an officer stops someone to search the person, courts require that the officer has either a search warrant, probable cause to search, or a reasonable suspicion to search. In descending order of what gives an officer the broadest authority to perform a search, courts have found that the order is search warrant, probable cause, and then reasonable suspicion.

reasonable suspicion

www.law.cornell.edu

In this situation the officer had probable cause and reasonable suspicion to enter the home and look around for a potential suspect.

 

[pknopp]

Reasonable Suspicion​

Overview​

Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. Reasonable suspicion is used in determining the legality of a police officer's decision to perform a search.
When an officer stops someone to search the person, courts require that the officer has either a search warrant, probable cause to search, or a reasonable suspicion to search. In descending order of what gives an officer the broadest authority to perform a search, courts have found that the order is search warrant, probable cause, and then reasonable suspicion.

reasonable suspicion

www.law.cornell.edu

The judge ruled otherwise.

 

[Mac-7]

The judge ruled otherwise.

An obama flunkie

aka the fruits of a politicized judiciary

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The judge ruled otherwise.

The judge was wrong and if appealed, will reverse his decision.

 

[Mac-7]

Nobody broke anything. Police officers are allowed to search houses or cars if they have reasonable suspicion.

And had reasonable suspicion due to a 911 call from a neighbor

 

[Mac-7]

The judge was wrong and if appealed, will reverse his decision.

If the judge is overturned he should be removed from the bench

 

[pknopp]

And had reasonable suspicion due to a 911 call from a neighbor

LOL, the neighbor said they saw someone chilling on the back deck.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the judge is overturned he should be removed from the bench

He should be removed either way. Just another anti-cop leftist making things worse in our country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL, the neighbor said they saw someone chilling on the back deck.

And????

 

[Mac-7]

He should be removed either way. Just another anti-cop leftist making things worse in our country.

Simply not liking a judge because he’s a lib is not a good eough reason

but if we prove he is incompetent then removing him is the obvious thing to do

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Simply not liking a judge because he’s a lib is not a good eough reason

but if we prove he is incompetent then removing him is the obvious thing to do

It's difficult either way. I would think one would have to prove harmful intent. You would have to prove that the judge knew reasonable suspicion was warranted in a case like this but as a judge, it's his opinion and you can't remove a judge for coming to his own conclusion. That's why we have appeals courts. I didn't look up this clown but if he's an elected official, that would explain it because somebody could make it a race matter even though (according to the OP) the dispatcher never mentioned the suspects race when she relayed the information.

 

[pknopp]

And????

Nothing illegal in that.

 

[Mac-7]

It's difficult either way. I would think one would have to prove harmful intent. You would have to prove that the judge knew reasonable suspicion was warranted in a case like this but as a judge, it's his opinion and you can't remove a judge for coming to his own conclusion. That's why we have appeals courts. I didn't look up this clown but if he's an elected official, that would explain it because somebody could make it a race matter even though (according to the OP) the dispatcher never mentioned the suspects race when she relayed the information.

Under the law there is only one right answer

thats what the demigods in black robes keep telling us

if a lower court judge is too stupid to know what the correct answer is without being told then he should not be a judge