Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court eases rules for searches
Dallas Morning News | 3/30/2004 | AP

Posted on 03/30/2004 7:08:02 PM PST by Churchjack

NEW ORLEANS- A federal appeals court has opened the door for police officers in three states to search homes and buildings for evidence without a warrant - a ruling that two dissenting judges called "the road to hell."

Acting on a Baton Rouge case, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a swift sweep of private property to ensure their safety.

Any evidence discovered during that search is admissable in court as long as the search is a "cursory inspection," and if police entered the site for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and believed it might be dangerous.

In the majority opinion, Judge William Lockhart Garwood wrote that any in-home encounter poses a risk to police officers, even if it is simply to interview someone.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the decision dangerous.

And dissenting judges argued that the ruling creates another exception to constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure, quoting the adage that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." The 11-4 ruling affects Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi and replaces a standard set in 1994, when the 5th Circuit held that police can make a so-called protective sweep only if officers are there to arrest someone.

The opinion noted that a similar standard has been adopted by four other federal circuit courts of appeals.

The decision came in the case of Kelly Donald Gould, a Denham Springs man who was arrested in October 2000 on federal gun charges after allegedly making threats to judges and police.

Deputies went to his trailer with no search or arrest warrant but were invited into the trailer by another resident. During a search for Mr. Gould, the deputies found three rifles.

A lower court barred the use of the guns as evidence because they were obtained illegally. The 5th Circuit upheld that decision, but it encouraged prosecutors to request that the court reconsider precedent.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; US: Louisiana; US: Mississippi; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; 5thcircuit; aclu; billofrights; judicialabuse; policestate; privateownership; privateproperty; searchwarrant; serfs; slipperyslope; unfree

1 posted on 03/30/2004 7:08:04 PM PST by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
Bad ruling from my favorite Circuit
2 posted on 03/30/2004 7:13:40 PM PST by madison46 (Bandwagon was full when it left the gate - I hope it remains too full for frogs & co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison46
I guess if the police ever pay a call, the proper thing to do would be to just lie down with your hands on your head? I can't think of any reason to search without a warrant--even if there's probable cause for arrest!
3 posted on 03/30/2004 7:24:31 PM PST by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a swift sweep of private property

ROLL CALL:

1st Amendment: Dead on all counts.
2nd Amendment: Dead. Dead. Dead.
3rd Amendment: Alive and kicking.
4th Amendment: Dead on all counts.
5th Amendment: Dead on some counts.
6th Amendment: Dead on some counts.
7th Amendment: Effectively dead (jury-stacking).
8th Amendment: Your call.
9th Amendment: Dead.
10th Amendment: Dead and forgotten.

This "noble experiment" is dead, people!
("What'cha gonna do? / what'cha gonna do? / when they come for you?")

4 posted on 03/30/2004 7:25:59 PM PST by Clint Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams
That's a mighty glum assessment. I hate to frown on the police, whom I respect very much (God bless'em, there is just no way I could do what they do--deal with people who are at their worst all the time), but the craze for "security" and "safety" nowadays is really playing out poorly. Folks need to suck it up and appreciate that freedom includes risks.
5 posted on 03/30/2004 7:47:17 PM PST by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
Did you say "freedom includes risks?"
You meant to say "freedom includes loss of freedom" didn't you?
You've been speaking from the George Orwell dictionary again, haven't you?
6 posted on 03/30/2004 8:12:47 PM PST by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
Lawyers who follow the courts would have expected nothing less than a Third Reich type decision from the Fifth Circuit in this case.
7 posted on 03/30/2004 8:25:04 PM PST by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams
"... ("What'cha gonna do? / what'cha gonna do? / when they come for you?")..."

"Out on the Bayou..." Let the crabs have 'em. Or feed-the-hogs.

"Unintended Consequences" coming to a parish near you - soon...............FRegards

8 posted on 03/30/2004 10:36:51 PM PST by gonzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack; Noumenon; IronJack
Keep yer powder dry, guys..................FRegards
9 posted on 03/30/2004 10:38:53 PM PST by gonzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint Williams
This "noble experiment" is dead, people!

Sad but hopefully not completely true.

Why would you want to make a "quick sweep" of someplace you thought was dangerous? Wouldn't you want to take your time and be careful? The best way for the police to make sure my private property is safe for them is to knock and say, "Hi, its the police. Let's talk." Any other course of action might be treated like an assault or sneak attack. Particularly if I wasn't guilty of anything and had no reason to expect a police visit.

I hate to risk starting a flame war but I can't help but observe that much of the erosion of the Bill of Rights has been thanks to the drug war and now, of course, the war on terror. In particular, the drug war requires law enforcement to stop behaviors where all parties involved are consenting. That is a lot harder than stopping robbery. So the only way to get evidence is to push the limits of liberty, specifically search and seizure and more generally all the enumerated rights.

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of drugs and I would shoot a terrorist on sight. It's just that crises is used by politicians as a justification for curtailing liberty. And the public laps it up. After all, "if you've got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" except continuous harrasment by some cop or judge that dislikes you personaly.

10 posted on 03/30/2004 11:01:03 PM PST by freedom_forge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freedom_forge
"And the public laps it up. After all, "if you've got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" except continuous harrasment by some cop or judge that dislikes you personaly."

Agreed and am in general agreement with the rest of your post.

11 posted on 03/30/2004 11:08:38 PM PST by TOUGH STOUGH (A vote for George W. Bush IS a vote for principle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
Locked & loaded.
12 posted on 03/31/2004 4:37:19 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
It's one of those line-in-the-sand issues for me.
13 posted on 03/31/2004 8:36:41 AM PST by Noumenon (Liberals' dedication to the destruction of a free society renders them unfit to live in that same so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freedom_forge
And the public laps it up. After all, "if you've got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" except continuous harrasment by some cop or judge that dislikes you personaly.

That's the way these kinda things actually work in real life, intentions of the "framers" aside. It only benefits, actually it establishes, a ruling class, that includes the elected, the unelected, and the bureaus of enforcement and regulatory employees.

It's abusive (I'm sorry, it's an "exception") of a natural right, and it's practical excercise is tailor-made for patronage and extortion. We're dependent on the whims of our betters now....

14 posted on 03/31/2004 2:12:40 PM PST by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson