Posted on 06/15/2006 7:53:40 AM PDT by NinoFan
Breaking... Major 5-4 decision. This case was reargued and apparently Alito cast the deciding vote.
Nice to see Kennedy didn't go wobbly and assume O'Connor's position.
Don't worry, they will, just as soon as they finish flushing their contraband.
Boggles the mind, doesn't it!? Blackbird.
It's also sad and scary.
It's not about siding with a meth dealer. It's all about standing up to the police powers of the state when they abuse the trust we put in them. If anyone busts down my door and I have a firearm nearby, I'm going to shoot.
I guess people haven't noticed that we're busy criminalizing everything.
I predict that within two years, we'll see warrants issued against parents for allowing their kid to take a Twinkie to school.
Me too.
If a drug is produced in, say, Ohio, and sold there, from where does the federal government derive its jurisdiction to regulate this production and sale?
What you actually wrote, to refresh your memory, is:
Besides that, drug users and even dealers engage in consensual "crimes". They are not murders, thieves or rapists whose targets/victims do not consent.
"They are not murders[sic], thieves..." I disagree.
Many drug dealers are murderers and thieves. Now you want to change what you wrote to mean that the drug trafficking itself is not harmful to anyone else, but that isn't what you wrote, and it's a significant difference in the context of this debate. In fact, if drug dealers were not frequently violent criminals, I'd assert that SWAT teams bashing in front doors would be entirely unnecessary, and therefore rare to nonexistant, to take them down.
I addressed that issue in my previous post. Alcohol prohibition was constitutionally valid because it was made law via an amendment to the constitution. Congress knew that was the only way to make alcohol prohibition constitutionally valid.
Not really. A related whine that prohibition was really really mean too isn't an answer. Both laws were legal and valid. Your argument seems to be that congress should be barred from passing legislation that you don't like.
I will point persons that support and take part in supporting unconstitutional laws.
Which laws are unconstitutional? The no-knock warrant, or laws against illicit drug trafficking and use?
And whose definition of "unconstitutional" do we use? You seem to be claiming the right to define that word yourself, since the definition used by five of the nine Justices doesn't sit well with you.
The word "unconstitutional" seems to be a favorite among libertarians much in the same way "fascist" is for liberals. It's used as an emotional hammer, with little regard to its actual meaning.
No-knock warrants and anti-drug laws are constitutional. They were passed by a majority of elected representatives and signed by the POTUS. State anti-drug laws were passed according to the provisions of their state's constitution. You just don't like them, so "unconstitutional" is the negative label you choose to hang on them.
My position is that I and every person may do whatever they chose[sic] so long as they do not violate the live[sic] or property rights of another person.
That may very well be your position, but that isn't what the Constitution says, nor is it the legal environment in which the Framers lived and for which they hoped. And it isn't the world in which you live now, though you may wish it were.
Laws that don't fit with your philosophy are not, therefore, unconstitutional.
It seems abundantly clear to me that you've been manipulated into supporting collectivist.group-think.
Oh come on, you can do better than that! Call me a poo-poo head or something.
Wilson v Arkansas
So this case amended the Constitution?
If the cop has the wrong address or name and you as the resident have a clean record no 12 people will agree upon conviction. A reasonable law abiding person has every right to believe someone bashing down their door while they are coming out of the bathroom etc {out of hearing range} is a hostile intruder especially when those Morons are not in PATROL police uniform.
I do not agree with no knock unannounced entry EXCEPT under hostage situations. As long as judges let any cop swear the warrant and the cop who swears the warrant {for example an undercover bust} is not there to present said warrant innocent people both police and citizens are going to get shot. If the cops can't handle that then they need to find another profession. But a cop swearing a warrant stating the offense should be required to be on scene to serve it yes even undercover cops.
A lot of mistakes come from where Cop A goes to the judge & swears a warrant and Cop B and company serve it while Cop A is elsewhere or even off duty etc. Cop A knows the actual location on a visual. A typo by a clerk, cop, or anyone else in the process makes for these types of mistakes.
I'm pro-law enforcement but I believe a person has every right to assume they are safe in their own home and it is a GOD given right of the innocents to protect their property. Police need to dump their ninja suits and fatigues also except again under hostage situations where innocent life is at stake. Do the raids in Patrol uniform. They bring much of this on themselves not doing so IMO.
No, the founders understood that "knock and announce" was an essential part of the justice system of their day to protect the rights of the people, and they could not even imagine a day when people would think the contrary. The BOR is not an exhaustive list of the rights of the people.
Since the production and sale of illicit drugs is illegal in all fifty states, and therefore "under the radar" by definition, how is the Fed Gov to know if it is or is not sold only within that state? Can you name any drug trafficking organization that rigorously confines its operations to a single state? The reality is that drug trafficking is an interstate crime in practice.
Such questions are fine for philosophical discussion but become blurrier issues in the real world. And, AFAIK, the feds don't usually get involved much with small-time stuff like a local meth lab.
I guess the federal agents who kicked in the door to get Elian Gonzalez out of the house were right after all. Turns out Janet Reno and Bill Clinton were conservatives after all.
You might want to read about the case of Cory Maye.
No criminal record.
Police got tip that his next door neighbor was selling drugs.
Police raid next door neighbor and Maye's residence late at night (two halves of duplex).
Maye was asleep near his infant daughter when police kicked down the door.
He picked up his gun and fired at the intruders, killing a police officer, but threw down his gun immediately upon police identifying themselves.
Police found no drugs in their search of Maye's home, though much later did another search and claimed to have found a single marijuana cigarette.
Jury convicted him and sentenced him to death.
Interestingly enough, the neighbor had bagloads of drugs, but was never charged with a crime and today cannot be located to serve as a witness. (Can you say coverup?)
Nor does the phrase "unreasonable searches and seizures" specifically demand "knock and announce". Though it may have been accepted and understood as such at the time, current developments have made the no-knock warrant a "reasonable" search in some, not all, circumstances.
Then, it's your position that every no-knock warrant is a blatant, judicially sanctioned violation of the Fourth Amendment?
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.