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

[Ray From Cleveland]

And this is an example of someone willing to surrender our rights and protected liberties for ‘security.’

If law enforcement ‘assumes’ criminal conduct, they need to take their evidence to a judge and secure a warrant consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Indeed, in this case there was neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances – and being black is neither probable cause nor an exigent circumstance.

It had nothing to do with race. Read the OP. It clearly states that the dispatcher didn't relay the race of the people in question so they had no idea who they were going to run into.

There is no violation of rights given the court has already recognized reasonable suspicion as a reason for police to serarch.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong.

The lawsuit was perfectly valid the very second the officer lawlessly entered the home absent a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Police don't always need a warrant to conduct a search. I already posted evidence of that with a link.

 

[otto105]

Looks like lawsuit is BS to me. Furdge should not have sued. He was not abused while the put cuffs on for the protection of everybody involved and even checked with Furdge if the cuff fit was ok and it was. Officer were not abusive in speech. It was quickly resolved as probably proper and OK. Cuffs were removed while awaiting confirmation. By the end, Furdge was conversational and smiling while talking. Officer apologized for the intrusion. Yep. Lawsuit was BS and the judge full of BS.

We have laws against what the police did.

Do we not?

 

[otto105]

It had nothing to do with race. Read the OP. It clearly states that the dispatcher didn't relay the race of the people in question so they had no idea who they were going to run into.

There is no violation of rights given the court has already recognized reasonable suspicion as a reason for police to serarch.

What was the reasonable suspicion? That he was black?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The harm he suffered was the unlawful violations of his 4th Amendment rights.

This mindset, that he suffered no harm or worse yet, even if he did "so what" is why the police have been allowed to get away with these and even more egregious violations all this time.

Home​

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.

www.uscourts.gov

Sorry, you lose. No constitutional rights were violated here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What was the reasonable suspicion? That he was black?

My Lord, another public educated person here. You are responding to a post where I said THE OFFICERS HAD NO IDEA THE RACE OF THE SUSPECTS BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER RELAYED TO THEM BY DISPATCH and you ask such a stupid question.

 

[White 6]

We have laws against what the police did.

Do we not?

Do you want them charged with a criminal act or do you just want a payday?

 

[otto105]

Home​

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.

www.uscourts.gov

Sorry, you lose. No constitutional rights were violated here.

A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have laws against what the police did.

Do we not?

No we don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?

Yes it is because it was an old lady that lived there, not a young guy.

 

[pknopp]

Home​

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.

www.uscourts.gov

Sorry, you lose. No constitutional rights were violated here.

Someone relaxing on their deck is not probable cause.

 

[pknopp]

Yes it is because it was an old lady that lived there, not a young guy.

No, it was their coach.

 

[otto105]

My Lord, another public educated person here. You are responding to a post where I said THE OFFICERS HAD NO IDEA THE RACE OF THE SUSPECTS BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER RELAYED TO THEM BY DISPATCH and you ask such a stupid question.

A neighbor called on a man sitting on the patio doing nothing.

Cops show up without a warrant and enter house with guns drawn based on information that a man was sitting on the patio doing nothing.

The only thing clear here ray, is your run to racism which is inline with the karen that called. If he was white, no phone call.

 

[otto105]

No we don't.

Clear violation of the 4th Amendment, seems pretty clear.

So does the 100K.

 

[otto105]

Yes it is because it was an old lady that lived there, not a young guy.

Was the karen who called in anyway in charge of the property? Was it in anyway her responsibility to manage it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clear violation of the 4th Amendment, seems pretty clear.

So does the 100K.

Talking to you leftists is like talking to the wall. I posted two sites that state it was not a violation of his Forth Amendment rights, and I get the same response as if I were discussing this with a pet dog. It's like you don't understand a thing I said.

 

[otto105]

Talking to you leftists is like talking to the wall. I posted two sites that state it was not a violation of his Forth Amendment rights, and I get the same response as if I were discussing this withy a pet dog. It's like you don't understand a thing I said.

The judges ruling not withstanding.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Was the karen who called in anyway in charge of the property? Was it in anyway her responsibility to manage it?

It doesn't have to be. If you see something suspicious, most police departments encourage citizens to call them; to get involved in fighting crime. I know our police force does.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The judges ruling not withstanding.

Which is why an appeals court needs to look at this. The judge is wrong. It clearly fits the definition of the term reasonable suspicion.

 

[White 6]

A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?

Yep. Karen Srikes Again. Sew her. The Officers just did their job.