Posted on 02/25/2021 4:48:27 PM PST by ransomnote
In 2019, the California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, ruled that a police offer may always enter a suspect's home without a warrant if the officer is in pursuit of the suspect and has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a misdemeanor. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether that ruling should be overturned.
Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to have a problem with the lower court's decision. Under the common law, Gorsuch pointed out during oral arguments in Lange v. California, the police did not "have the power to enter the home in pursuit of any and all misdemeanor crimes." The framers of the Fourth Amendment built on that common law understanding. So "why would we create a rule that is less protective than what everyone understands to be the case of the Fourth Amendment as original matter?"
Gorsuch also seemed to have a problem with California's argument that an officer in pursuit of a suspected felon should always be able to follow that suspect into the home without a warrant. It is "settled," argued California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt, "that officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a fleeing suspect has committed a felony."
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
I cant bend over anymore, i’m in stapler pose already
The 4th amendment. In nearly all areas of law, the weasel word ‘reasonable’ is left to the people, in the form of the jury, to decide.
Not the 4th amendment. In this aspect of law, the court decides what “reasonable” means.
In an early wiretap case, the US Supreme Court declared it was not reasonable to expect a phone line to be private. No warrant needed.
The practical menaing of the 4th amendment is so complex that the public is left at the government’s mercy. The vehicles for warrantless snooping are myriad. The US and China are not practically any different when it comes to privacy. Congressional lamentation in favor of privacy is literally worthless.
Yup, Justice Gorsuch is such a hardcore "Originalist" he realized the original intent of the authors of the 1964 civil rights act was to allow trannies in little girl's bathrooms. Good thing he enlightened the rest of us about that.
BOHICA!
Welcome to modern Amerika, where the Constitution doesn't matter at all if it even slightly inconveniences the government.
That's what makes FreeRepublic so great, such an enjoyable place to hold a Reason-able discussion about the 4th Amendment and Lange v. California: someone interjecting topics from other, unrelated threads.
Your premise was what an awesome "Originalist" Justice Gorsuch is.
My rebuttal was citing an example demostrating he is not.
Sorry pesky facts like that get in the way of your narrative.
He's part of the problem having refused to hear a single case of vote fraud!
Correction:
Welcome to modern Amerika, where the Constitution doesn't matter at all if it even slightly inconveniences the government and laws are just for the little people.
What's happening in our country reminds me of the opening to "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" when Drew Carey was the host and he said:
Welcome to Who's Line Is It Anyway where the rules are made up and the points don't matter!
But you're so smart you probably already recognized that near-term obligation, n'est-ce pas?
"Polls show the transgender ideology is deeply unpopular, especially among women and parents. In 2017, former President Barack Obama told NPR that his promotion of the transgender ideology made it easier for Donald Trump to win the presidency."
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ― Ayn Rand
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.