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

Skip to comments.

N.J. court tells police limits on car searches don't apply to homes
Star-Ledger Staff ^ | Thursday, September 21, 2006 | BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG

Posted on 09/21/2006 3:53:20 PM PDT by Focault's Pendulum

In New Jersey, one's home is not one's castle after all. The real castle, it turns out, is the car.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 4-3 yesterday that police do not need a reason to ask permission to search someone's home.

The same court four years ago issued rules saying police must have a good reason before asking motorists if they can search their cars.

Yesterday the court said the rules for cars -- which prohibit police from asking motorists if they can conduct a search unless they have "a reasonable and articulable suspicion" of criminal activity -- are designed specifically to combat racial profiling on the state's highways and do not apply to searches of homes.

(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4a; 4thamendment; blackrobedthugs; blackrobedtyrants; bozoronewjersey; constitutionalchaos; constitutioninexile; downtheshore; fourthamendment; freekinjersey; gardenstate; gardenstateparkway; govwatch; judicialoligarchy; libertarians; newjersey; nj; njtp; propertyrights; racialprofiling; search; searchandseizure; seizure; sopranos; thegardenstate; thesopranos; whatexit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 next last
To: Focault's Pendulum
Yesterday the court said the rules for cars -- which prohibit police from asking motorists if they can conduct a search unless they have "a reasonable and articulable suspicion" of criminal activity -- are designed specifically to combat racial profiling on the state's highways and do not apply to searches of homes.

Well then, since we know a disproportionate number of crimes occur in urban minority neighborhoods, then Cops can begin going door to door there and asking to search.... Clean up a ton of crime quickly... let the sweeps begin.

121 posted on 09/22/2006 8:35:09 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Well then, since we know a disproportionate number of crimes occur in urban minority neighborhoods, then Cops can begin going door to door there and asking to search.... Clean up a ton of crime quickly... let the sweeps begin.

While the logic in what you say has merit...allowing that will also permit your home and mine to be coercively affronted without probable cause ad infinitum.

This is, as I have mentioned before, a double edged sword.

122 posted on 09/22/2006 8:41:42 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: verity
How often does a police officer ask to step inside your home?

Already answered. Read the thread.

123 posted on 09/22/2006 8:44:27 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

"I suspect the American Communist Liberties Union will remain noticeably silent on this one, as it may appear to dilute the protection of civil liberties for minorities if they extend those liberties to everyone's home -- just as they are conspicuously silent in defending the Second Amendment."




aclu feels that no minority can own a home, they rent, so all negative responsibility goes to whitey landowner


124 posted on 09/22/2006 9:07:23 AM PDT by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

Actually your reply did not answer my specific question. However, it clarified your mindset.


125 posted on 09/22/2006 9:25:11 AM PDT by verity (The MSM is comprised of useless eaters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

"The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 4-3 yesterday that police do not need a reason to ask permission to search someone's home."

Well, the basic rule for a long, long, time regarding any searches is that PERMISSION to search makes the search lawful. The rule that the police need a good reason to ASK PERMISSION has never been part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that I am aware of. So this ruling is not eroding anyone's rights. All the party being asked for PERMISSION needs to do is "Just Say No."


126 posted on 09/22/2006 9:50:25 AM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cagey

New Josey ping!


127 posted on 09/22/2006 9:55:44 AM PDT by MotleyGirl70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun

I guess I don;t tlike the part where they asked you if you had Weapons or Drugs in the car...

To which (knowing what is coming next) I would state to the trooper...

"To which are you implying? A weapon? Or Drugs?"

Both (separated) are not indicative of anything probably to a criminal activity...Even when combined, you may be on prescription medication and also be legally carrying a firearm for lawful purposes...

I am glad you did not concent to a search, and put the burn on them...It was going to happen anyway...So you handled it well...I would continue to do so as you file a complaint to their department...

Don't blame the dog...Most of those pups are just glad to get out and do something...Not their fault...

Good luck, sorry that happened to you...Keep us posted...


128 posted on 09/22/2006 10:11:32 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: verity
Actually your reply did not answer my specific question. However, it clarified your mindset.

My wife works for the police department. We mix and mingle with the officers on a regular basis. Having visitors in my house is difficult enough with 3 Rat Terriers and a couple Maine Coon cats running around. Still I choose not to have an open door policy. I have a TS clearance. It's not a matter of not obeying the law.

129 posted on 09/22/2006 10:35:02 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: MotleyGirl70

Lucky me.


130 posted on 09/22/2006 10:50:18 AM PDT by Cagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

What would the law be for a mobile home? Would it depend on whether you had the wheels off or not?


131 posted on 09/22/2006 12:01:46 PM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (Once again, raw sewage has overflowed into the arab street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
Agreed. This is really nothing new. They've always been able to ask. And we can always say no, and they'll just find a way around it anyway (My dog smells something.) just like they always have.

The headline is extremely misleading.

132 posted on 09/22/2006 1:34:03 PM PDT by Jotmo (I Had a Bad Experience With the CIA and Now I'm Gonna Show You My Feminine Side - Swirling Eddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum
Albin countered that unlike a motorist stopped on the road and threatened with a traffic citation, someone who is at home "can send the police away without fear of immediate repercussions."

Buckman said having five detectives show up on one's doorstep is "every bit if not more coercive than a car search." When courts allow that, he added, "we've got a problem with the privacy of our homes."

Albin countered that unlike a motorist stopped on the road and threatened with a traffic citation, someone who is at home "can send the police away without fear of immediate repercussions."

Buckman said having five detectives show up on one's doorstep is "every bit if not more coercive than a car search." When courts allow that, he added, "we've got a problem with the privacy of our homes."

Is not.

Is too.

Is not.

Is too.

133 posted on 09/22/2006 1:42:33 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

Nothing here really. It doesn't say whether they can search it or not. It just says they don't have to have a reason to ask. They still have to have permission to enter, either from the occupant or by way of a search warrant.

With a car, that is not so.


134 posted on 09/22/2006 1:45:17 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is more dangerous to the world now that Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

I was in until he found the drugs. I lost sympathy at that point.


135 posted on 09/22/2006 1:55:41 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is more dangerous to the world now that Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
The Constitution says they need a warrant. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

They need a warrant to ask permission?

136 posted on 09/22/2006 1:57:22 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
"I think I've read that there's at least one financial incentive for police to find drugs in a situation like yours.I think they get to keep the car or something like that."

Yes, it's called asset forfeiture, and it's been going on for several decades now. It is a major source of revenue for cops and was honed to an art form in the '90s.

And it isn't necessary for anything especially nasty to be "found." If more than a few thousand dollars in cash is found, for example, it is presumed to be drug-related and confiscated. I'm not kidding: there is no presumption of innocence since the cash is what's suspicious. The cash becomes the defendant... and you will never see it back. Many folks have lost their life's savings this way. It is not an urban legend. Google on "asset forfeiture" if you want a real scare.
137 posted on 09/22/2006 3:55:40 PM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lepton

The Constitution says they need a warrant to enter at all. I know judges have given them many ways to subvert inconvenient Constitutional protections.


138 posted on 09/22/2006 4:35:54 PM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Jim Verdolini
As of 2005 we did not have ticket quotas. My lie statement came from a U.S Supreme decision, is applicable more in felony investigations.

You are correct about playing games. If there are ticket quotas, you can find a stop sign and "work it" for hours and write many "fail to stop" tickets. Same with speeding on the interstate, limit 65, stop and write all going 72. Most are booking 80, which was my boogie for stop.

You have never lived, until went from zero to 80 plus, to execute a stop, from an interstate cross over, in a Ford CV Police Interceptor. The car is a POS
139 posted on 09/23/2006 3:13:40 AM PDT by tiger-one (The night has a thousand eyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Lawyers cost money. The guy lost a half hour of his life. What is that worth? Maybe a couple of sawbucks? It will cost him thousands of dollars and maybe months off his life to pursue this matter. I say get over it.

Yes, and unfortunately, the police will continue this type of tactic on plenty of others as a result of this citizen failing to stand up for himself. The situation described by this poster dictates that this cop needs to get slapped hard, perhaps even fired. There is no excuse for harassment of the citizens.

I'll refrain from stating the obvious as to who is working for whom.

140 posted on 09/23/2006 6:03:54 AM PDT by meyer (A vote for amnesty is a vote against America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 next last

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