What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Police being reigned in by the Court

OP
SavannahMann

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
6,909
Reaction score
2,312
Points
325
The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops can’t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasn’t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes don’t play that.
You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?
You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?

I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.

But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’s? A cop sees a guy park illegally and run into a house. The cop chases him down and kicks in the door? Where do we draw the line?
The article example was a drunk driver.

Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they can’t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Not there.

Where. The Court says Misdemeanor is the line. You don’t like that. Where do we draw the line?
I would need to see the list of misdemeanors before i could make an accruate judgement.

So somewhere in the Misdemeanor section.

Disturbing the peace is a Misdemeanor. What if a cop comes up on a guy shouting in his front yard and the guy goes inside and shuts the door. What then? Is the cop justified in taking the door claiming hot pursuit?

Prostitution is a Misdemeanor. If a guy takes a hooker into a closed room should the cops be able to take the door claiming hot pursuit?

Or is it just DUI’s you want to have the cops able to use for an exception?

Notice. I am not arguing the exception for felonies is unreasonable. I believe there should be a limit. And I can live with the limit on misdemeanor.
Are DUI's a misdemeanor? If so, that should definitely not be allowed.

DUI is a Misdemeanor. So your problem with the ruling is it covers DUI?
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
61,519
Reaction score
19,313
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops can’t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasn’t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes don’t play that.
You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?
This is a lie.

No one wants any such ‘rule.’

There must be compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing before government can seek to arrest and prosecute a citizen.
Refusing to pull over doesnt count?
There was no compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing to justify a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
 

JoeMoma

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
18,510
Reaction score
6,210
Points
360
The ruling makes perfect sense given the fact that law enforcement pursued the driver in bad faith, entered the home without a warrant, absent any evidence that the driver was driving while intoxicated.
Only if failure to stop/comply for a blue light is not against the law. If the driver was driving erratically, then the cop has reasonable suspicion that the driver is impaired and should be stopped. Also, since the cop witnessed the suspect enter the house, the cop had 100% knowledge of the suspects location.
The search was unwarranted, unlawful, and un-Constitutional.
But it wasn't a search! The cop saw the perp that did not stop for the blue light drive into the garage, so there was no searching involved.

At any rate, the SCOTUS has ruled; therefore, I am wrong because the court says so. I wonder how long it would take for a cop to get a warrant in such a situation.
 

JoeMoma

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
18,510
Reaction score
6,210
Points
360
The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops can’t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasn’t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes don’t play that.
You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?
You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?

I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.

But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’s? A cop sees a guy park illegally and run into a house. The cop chases him down and kicks in the door? Where do we draw the line?
The article example was a drunk driver.

Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they can’t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Not there.

Where. The Court says Misdemeanor is the line. You don’t like that. Where do we draw the line?
I would need to see the list of misdemeanors before i could make an accruate judgement.

So somewhere in the Misdemeanor section.

Disturbing the peace is a Misdemeanor. What if a cop comes up on a guy shouting in his front yard and the guy goes inside and shuts the door. What then? Is the cop justified in taking the door claiming hot pursuit?

Prostitution is a Misdemeanor. If a guy takes a hooker into a closed room should the cops be able to take the door claiming hot pursuit?

Or is it just DUI’s you want to have the cops able to use for an exception?

Notice. I am not arguing the exception for felonies is unreasonable. I believe there should be a limit. And I can live with the limit on misdemeanor.
Are DUI's a misdemeanor? If so, that should definitely not be allowed.

DUI is a Misdemeanor. So your problem with the ruling is it covers DUI?
Some DUIs are felonies, probably if not the first offense. Of course the cop would not know unless able to complete the stop.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
4,683
Points
903
The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops can’t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasn’t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes don’t play that.
you obviously don’t know much about the supreme court if you think that’s the case.

this follows well established precedent
 

Godboy

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
22,111
Reaction score
7,516
Points
350
The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops can’t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasn’t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes don’t play that.
You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?
You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?

I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.

But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’s? A cop sees a guy park illegally and run into a house. The cop chases him down and kicks in the door? Where do we draw the line?
The article example was a drunk driver.

Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they can’t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Not there.

Where. The Court says Misdemeanor is the line. You don’t like that. Where do we draw the line?
I would need to see the list of misdemeanors before i could make an accruate judgement.

So somewhere in the Misdemeanor section.

Disturbing the peace is a Misdemeanor. What if a cop comes up on a guy shouting in his front yard and the guy goes inside and shuts the door. What then? Is the cop justified in taking the door claiming hot pursuit?

Prostitution is a Misdemeanor. If a guy takes a hooker into a closed room should the cops be able to take the door claiming hot pursuit?

Or is it just DUI’s you want to have the cops able to use for an exception?

Notice. I am not arguing the exception for felonies is unreasonable. I believe there should be a limit. And I can live with the limit on misdemeanor.
Are DUI's a misdemeanor? If so, that should definitely not be allowed.

DUI is a Misdemeanor. So your problem with the ruling is it covers DUI?
Yes. Now drunk drivers have incentive to drive home without stopping.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top