100%
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 ...
Gotta go with the arrest for “plain view” evidence, but breaking down the door. . .not so much. What was the PC for that move?
The cops are just begging to be treated like any other home invader.
Serving the People - With a Black Boot Since 2016
100%
Essentially, it is carte blanche to invade, search, and if there is any excuse, to remove items of value from people's homes. In short, legalized pilfering.
Depending on Wisconsin's civil forfeiture statutes, all they have to say is they believe that somehow whatever they seize is related to or a benefit of or property purchased with the proceeds of any illegal activity, and they can take that property without warrant nor charges filed and the owner must sue to get their property back.
Just one more reason to not live in Wisconsin... Like I needed another...
.. 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....
There has been a so called public safety exception to the Fourth Amendment for years. Most anything found during that kind of search can lead to prosecution. Cops love it.
“What was the PC for that move?”
Blood in the house. Making sure no one else was injured. I’m OK with that.
But, the defense says their real motive was that they knew they would find more pot. The devil’s in the details...how much blood? Where was it found? Etc....
I don’t know.
Don't worry, there's no way anyone would ever abuse that function.
The odd thing in this case is that they were already inside the house on a matter unrelated to the drugs. A quantity of marijuana was in plain view. That was sufficient for an arrest. I’m not sure on the need to search the rest of the premises. Why was that necessary?
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
With all due respect to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the 4th Amendment says nothing about police investigating a crime.
Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Also note that the Founding States had originally decided that the states did not have to respect the rights expressly protected by the Bill of Rights. Only the feds had to respect those rights. It was not until the states ratified the 14th Amendment (under very questionable circumstances imo) that the states obligated themselves to respect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the 4th Amendment.
Okay. Thanks. Agree.
Yes, good point, how much blood, where, and a locked door in the face of known violence and injury. . .PC exists, but I think a warrant would be the proper course since the guy was arrested. . .but then again, maybe exigent circumstances demanded fast action, investigating possible other injuries or a death. . .only he people at the scene would experience a sense of immediacy. . .a case could be made to open the door.
“Probable cause”, the catch all excuse.
Kind of stretching it to call this a 4th Amendment issue.
It sure looks like they were on a mission to find something of value. Probably cash...since they (the county) can keep that.
.
Wisconsin is one of the soviet socialist nomerican repugnicks, isn’t it?
.
I strongly oppose illegal drugs, but I do not see the justification for this illegal search and seizure.
The police had permission to enter the home - stupid of the druggie, but that’s why it’s called “dope” - which gave them the authority to observe the blood and pot lying around. There is no indication of any justification for breaking down a door. They had no reports of a third person in the fight and no grounds to believe there was an immediate danger, not even destruction of evidence since they had grounds to arrest the druggie on the spot. The court appears to have decided this case incorrectly and harmfully.
“4th Amendment says nothing about police investigating a crime”. . .”but upon probable cause”
But is it not implicit to obtaining a search warrant that there exists PC that there is presumption of a crime. Otherwise, if you had no PC of a crime, and provide what you are looking for, what would you base the warrant on?
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.