Posted on 04/17/2015 7:22:10 AM PDT by Altariel
“Illegal Search and Seizure” is the 4th Amendment. It has nothing to do with “Quartering Troops”.
By citing the 3rd, this evil judge is creating a straw man!
You are quite right. Quartering means they move in and live there. Not the situation.
The rules are of necessity different when the cops are engaged in an active or potential firefight. What, they’re supposed to get a warrant and stand out on the porch reading it to the occupants while under fire?
That is clearly a State function. The feds should have nothing to do with it.
/johnny
It appears that the plaintiffs actually sued on 3rd Amendment grounds.
I suppose they could have tried a 4th Amendment suit, since once the cops entered the house, they would have had to SEARCH for a more precise tactical advantage.
Just because you are a chicken chit doesn’t mean everyone would automatically abandon their home because of an incident next door. I wouldn’t. I’m armed and dangerous. A domestic going on next door is not going to necessarily make me leave my house. And its not an excuse for the cops or anybody else to either make me leave or confiscate my home so they can use it as an observation post.
Even if I do leave my home that does not mean the cops can go in without my permission and occupy my property.
The 4th Ammendment is the 4th Ammendment. No warrant no admittsnce. End of story.
Yes....I noticed that after I posted.
The original suit should have been based on the 4th, as citing the 3rd is nebulous in this case, and left room for the bad ruling.
That’s what I get for not reading the whole article!
Only in the best FR tradition, of course! LOL!
PoPo gonna gats a bullet in the head.
If they go in and occupy the premises without the owner's consent, it IS a seizure.
You are right; I stand corrected. I never imagined an American government acting in this manner, so I had not properly thought this situation through, and I missed that obvious point.
No Senate Vote for this Obammy appointee.. ??
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=3463&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na
Biographical Directory of Federal Judges
Gordon, Andrew Patrick
Born 1962 in San Francisco, CA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
Nominated by Barack Obama on January 4, 2013, to a seat vacated by Kent J. Dawson. Confirmed by the Senate on March 11, 2013, and received commission on March 12, 2013.
Education:
Claremont McKenna College, B.A., 1984
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1987
Professional Career:
Private practice, Phoenix, Arizona, 1987-1992
Private practice, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1992-2013
Nominated to U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, September 19, 2012; no Senate vote
Yes. The police have squandered their moral capital. We're not talking about Andy Griffith here. I view them more as those strutting about, ordering bystanders to turn off their cameras, beating someone on the ground, telling them to stop resisting, handcuffing those they shot to death in the back to make things look legitimate, and tampering with evidence.
While this feral “judge” may think I have no right to prevent home invasion by corrupt LEO with no legitimate, Constituional authority, I know the difference between rights and liberties. The judge may reassure the LEO he has the authority but I have the liberty to blow anyone invading my home into the next world and this idiot judge can not stop me. He can punish me if he wants but he can not stop me. Hence, “natural rights”.
Totally agree. No one was quartering troops, but the invasion of property wasn’t necessary for the preservation of life or other property.
judge gordon is an idiot. May his home be invaded by a swat team.
The discussion is not about whether the cops have moral authority or are the good guys. That’s utterly irrelevant to this case.
The question is whether police engaged in actual combat must follow the legalistic rules appropriate for less-intense situations.
I think it is ludicrous to think that a policeman cannot follow a fleeing suspect into a house without a warrant, or take cover as need be when engaged in a firefight.
With the exception of such dire needs arising out of exigent circumstances, I’m right there with you on the need to get our police under control.
BTW, I’m curious how exactly “handcuffing those they shot to death in the back” helps “to make things look legitimate.” Do you have an explanation for that?
Indeed. One must wonder what they must think, if they are able to observe the affairs of Earth.
What, they’re supposed to get a warrant and stand out on the porch reading it to the occupants while under fire?
False dilemma.
It’s not a false dilemma if you’re the one under fire.
Or if you can’t think your way out of a situation.
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.