Posted on 06/01/2006 9:48:57 PM PDT by elkfersupper
AP) SAN FRANCISCO Police may enter Californians' homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case testing the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 6-1 decision follows similar rulings in about a dozen other states. A dissenting justice said the majority handed authorities a "free pass" to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest people without warrants.
Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities are prohibited from entering a home and making an arrest without a warrant unless so-called "exigent" circumstances are present. Those include "hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence and the risk of danger to the police or other persons inside or outside of a house, among others.
In this case, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the loss of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspect's blood-alcohol level. Baxter added that a contrary ruling would allow "the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol -- or to claim to have done so -- or when the suspect evades police capture until he or she is no longer intoxicated."
Baxter and the majority was cautious in saying the decision would not give police carte blanche powers.
"In holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry here, we need not decide, and do not hold, that the police may enter a home without a warrant to effect an arrest of a DUI suspect in every case," Baxter wrote.
And talk amongst yourselves.
I have work to do and will check back later.
How can you arrest someone for DUI if they are not driving?
There IS somthing in the water. There MUST be somthing in the water.
So this affects the case in question only and not every case? Not as bad as what I thought initially if that is the case.
I think if the police follow the suspect home where the suspect failed to pull over by police order then the police have every right to follow the suspect into the house and arrest them. Failure to pull over is probable cause all by itself - and already a violation of law.
People's Socialist Repulik of Kalifornia! Zeig Heil!
"Not as bad as what I thought initially if that is the case."
You have to look down the road and see that this will lead to searching any home at any time without a warrant.
I believe the issue is that the suspect failed to pull over, evaded the police and went home all while the police were following.
If the police are forced to get a warrant to enter the home, by the time they do, any evidence of DUI may be gone. In addition the suspect can say he was at home drinking before the police came back.
It's as bad as you thought initially.
Trust me on this.
And what?
I agree. I would like to see this go to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Sure there are warrantless searches but IMHO, this is reaching a little. There is no crime in the instance and unless they are spying through the windows they cannot say there is anything suspicious going on. \anybody remember who the Justice was that said "there is a right to be left alone!" Brandeis...Holmes? I'll bet some of you legal eagles know who that was.
Here's the last two paragraphs from the article.....
And what’s going on here with the word game? What does NOT constitute "driving"? Why are some courts so willing to support police and prosecutors from going far beyond the clear wording and intent of the laws? The answer may be found in a Minnesota case, in which a conviction was sustained where the defendant was found in his pickup, engine off and with his head resting on the steering wheel. "The real purpose of the statute", the court wrote, " is to deter individuals who have been drinking intoxicating liquor from getting into their vehicles." State v. Juncewski (Minn., 308 N.W.2d 316)
Funny, I thought the "real purpose" of laws was to punish people who actually committed the crime -- not just to send people to jail who came close. If the "real purpose" of the law is as stated by the Court, why didn't the legislature just prohibit citizens "who have been drinking intoxicating liquor from getting into their vehicles"? Of course, then the guy working on his engine would get arrested for "getting into" his vehicle. And the guy changing a tire. And.....
You all know what you have to do.
Will check back in a few hours.
Pretty soon the nazis will be able to break down your door if you forgot to walk your dog today...
Therefore if the DUI suspect fails to stop, drives home, and then enters his/her home they get away with the DUI unless the police are allowed to enter immediately.
It is as simple as that.
Under those circumstances I have no problem with the police pursuing them into their home.
"And what" what?
Oh crap! Allright, I'm going. Now where in hell is that damn leash?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.