JBT Ping list
Posted on 02/20/2016 4:39:55 PM PST by ransomnote
I am unfamiliar with this website. Here's the excerpt:
Though the Court of Appeals initially ruled the search and seizure unconstitutional, the Supreme Court “found that the police were not investigating a crime but exercising their ‘community caretaker’ function." In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court just killed the rights of citizens outlined in the Fourth Amendment by stating that police officers may enter a home, or parts of the home, without a warrant and can seize evidence to use in the arrest and prosecution of citizens.
The Fourth Amendment states that unreasonable searches and seizures are not allowed and that the only legally recognized search and seizure is one that is preceded by a warrant granted by courts. The warrant must be supported by probable cause.
The deciding vote was cast by Justice Rebecca Bradley who was appointed by Governor Scott Walker, a member of the Republican party. There has been skepticism surrounding this decision because Justice Bradley was not present for the oral arguments and instead listened to them later on a tape recording, stating that it was sufficient enough for her to make a decision.
The case that reached the Supreme Court and begged the question of whether officers have the right to search and seize without a warrant was the case of Charles Matalonis. After admitting that he had been in a fight with his brother, who the officers found bloodied in a nearby residence, Matalonis allowed the cops to come into his home. They saw blood, presumably from the fight, and cannabis before asking Matalonis to open a locked door in the house for them. After he refused, the cops broke the door down and found marijuana growing in the room. They then arrested and charged Matalonis with the manufacturing of marijuana.
(Excerpt) Read more at mintpressnews.com ...
would it have not ended like this any way....they do knock and talk here....if you do not open the door and let them in they just get a search warrant ( because you will not let them in to just talk)....would have a judge not granted a full search of the home once a officer reported finding marijuana ( big difference between home grow and street bought)and they do not mention any thing about the smell
They do have a propensity to leftyism up there.
In many ways they make New York State look downright libertarian.
He can invite them in, and in that case, “plain view” doctrine applies. Any subsequent search would be covered by Fourth Amendment. Unless, there are exigent circumstances demanding action right then (like a trail of blood leading to the door, into the room, is the person alive? Will the person die if the door isn’t opened then, is there time to get a warrant. . .etc).
Tough call and there are exceptions. Without all the details of the situation I would not take a side on this one.
I don’t know.
Not enough information.
Thank you for that note Hulka, but I respectfully disagree. The language of the 4th Amendment can reasonably be interpreted wider than just for crimes imo.
In fact, the Founding States used the word ”crime” in the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.
So, Matalonis let them in willingly. The police saw blood evidence of the fight and illegal drugs in the home.
Once Matalonis let the police in and they saw evidence of the crime, they didn't NEED a warrant. The perp LET THEM IN of his own accord. Once the cops are in the door, they can follow the evidence they see -- especially when that evidence is out in the open --- anywhere including a locked room.
None of this should be surprising, this is why you don't let the police in without them having a warrant in the first place.
How was it determined that hers was the deciding vote? Three others agreed with her, why was one of theirs not the 'decider'?
@1. The “owner” let the cops into the house.
The cops were called, allowed into the premises,found open evidence of the crime they were called to respond to, and therefore, it was reasonable to search for more evidence.
The cops found blood and drugs on open display.
This article doesn’t say if the blood trail originated from the locked grow room, or what the battered brother said, that led them to think they needed to look into that locked room, possibly for the weapon used against the brother.
Sounds like a reasonable action by the cops to me.
Wouldn’t need a dog to smell the grow room.....
And the title is misleading. The suspect let them into the house. The legal question is really about the locked interior door.
Why not call a judge and get a warrant to search based on the Pot in plain view? Where’s the fire?
It has always been my understanding that after you invite the cops into your domicile the whole of it is open to them. That you have to demand a warrant at the entry door.
Agreed. This all boils down to the fact that, due process is time consuming.
LOL
Republican house and Senate.
Republican governor.
Republican Senator.
Republican majority in House.
Yup a veritable CCCP.
I’m no expert but I think once they enter a house and find probable cause of a crime (blood)they are duty bound to search the house thoroughly. IF someone were tied and gagged and injured in another room, and the cops ignored that room, the town the cops worked for would have been sued for millions.
Lots of details here....
http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=161388
A few points...
The victim, Antony, was very drunk. He changed his story but eventually claimed that “he was beaten up by four people outside of a bar.”
The police followed a trail of blood next door where they found Matalonis.
“...Matalonis testified that he had been cleaning up blood when the officers arrived...”
“...The officers told Matalonis “that because there was blood in the house, [they] just wanted to make sure that no one else was injured.” Matalonis let the officers into the house....”
It appears there was a lot of blood, including “...there was a door with a deadbolt that had blood splatters on the door
itself...”
JBT Ping list
I agree.
Todo sombrero y no jefe...
“Though the Court of Appeals initially ruled the search and seizure unconstitutional, the Supreme Court “found that the police were not investigating a crime but exercising their “a community caretaker function.”
The state legislature best be exercising its impeachment option against the fascist court first thing Monday morning. It’s that or the citizens will start voting from the rooftops.
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.