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

Skip to comments.

4th Amendment Dead, SCOTUS dancing on grave
US Supreme Court, Kentucky vs King ^ | May 16, 2011 | SCOTUS

Posted on 05/16/2011 11:44:39 AM PDT by jonascord

The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements:All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may notbe issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. Although“ ‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are pre-sumptively unreasonable,’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 403, this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a]warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,”

(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; blackrobedtyrants; brighamcity; corruption; donttreadonme; fascism; fourthamendment; govtabuse; judicialtyranny; ruling; scotus; supremecourt; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 next last
To: jeffc
The judicial branch of the U.S. government is at war with the citizens and the Constitution

Comrade bubba Klinton stacked the courts at all levels with leftist judges. The pigeons are now coming home to roost. The only recourse is to remove these judges and replace them with ones that support The Constitution - if you can find any.

101 posted on 05/16/2011 1:25:36 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

Scrap the 2nd Amendment? They don’t Need any excuse. It’s scrapped already.

22,311 Infringements. If That’s not Scrapped, ..... then what is?


102 posted on 05/16/2011 1:28:16 PM PDT by To-Whose-Benefit? (It is Error alone which needs the support of Government. The Truth can stand by itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

ctdonath2:

Thanks for your sanity (having read the opinion) and level head. I hope you are not recieving the private flames I am.

Gwjack


103 posted on 05/16/2011 1:31:01 PM PDT by gwjack (May God give America His richest blessings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

If you face urgent circumstances, I’d say you have a valid case.


104 posted on 05/16/2011 1:32:48 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Hi savagesusie —

No explanation by me - just the actual words of the opinion. Eight of the Supremes have the opinion that police have that right.

Best regards,

Gwjack


105 posted on 05/16/2011 1:37:01 PM PDT by gwjack (May God give America His richest blessings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Yeah ~ you find an abortuary on fire and you run in there to save a pregnant woman and you'll find out that you were supposed to just stand there and watch it and them burn.

That's the most notorious example.

We've been through the logic of exigent circumstances before, and when it comes to killing babies the judges and the old whores gotta' have their pound of flesh every single time.

106 posted on 05/16/2011 1:37:13 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

We’re nowhere near that scenario.


107 posted on 05/16/2011 1:42:10 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Are you just trying to hijack the thread, or do you really expect to get people to belive that if you don't agree to let the police into your home any time they want, for any reason they want, you'll burn to death in your own home, and no one will come to help you?

Or is that really the way it works where you are?

108 posted on 05/16/2011 1:43:43 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Departments can pay dearly for officer misconduct.

And once cops act outside the law, their victims may choose to do so as well.


109 posted on 05/16/2011 1:45:10 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; muawiyah
Has anyone made, or even attempted to make a case that restrictions on serving warrants would prevent a fireman, policeman, or anyone else from enter a burning house to rescue an occupant?

Well, you'll probably hear that from some of a more Libertarian bent here on FR....But neglecting that, and directing our attention to Muawiyah's case, it's a rather well developed point of 4th amendment law that an on-duty cop and or fireman would certainly have acted lawfully by doing the exact same thing as muawiyah did. Know a guy who did just that not all that long ago, as a matter of fact.

Taking things a bit further though, if upon entering to effect a rescue of the occupants of the burning structure, the cop noticed contraband in plain view (say, a bunch marijuana plants and grow lights on fire), the evidence thus obtained would be admissable anywhere in the US.

110 posted on 05/16/2011 1:45:13 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: absalom01
Well, you'll probably hear that from some of a more Libertarian bent here on FR....

Having never heard that from any of them, I find that a dubious proposition.

Given that, whatever follows becomes eqully suspect.

111 posted on 05/16/2011 1:49:33 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
I hate to say that I agree with Justice Ginsburg.

UHHHH, I feel so unclean.

However, the majority of the Supreme Court did give law enforcement the right to knock on a door, listen, and then break a door down to gain entry when a warrant should have been obtained that was based on evidence.

I wonder how many police officers or people knocking on doors in the middle of the night are now going to be shot or greeted with a firearm.

112 posted on 05/16/2011 1:49:37 PM PDT by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

bkmrk


113 posted on 05/16/2011 1:51:05 PM PDT by Huck (The Antifederalists were right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
I was responding to a poster who was joking about the sarcasm tag, so yes it was inferred.

Whew. Glad to hear that. I didn't recall seeing any other posts from you that indicated serious brain damage / grin

Of course there are those on FR who do believe that nonsense.

Which seems strange. Why would someone that seriously believes in the US Constitution believe that? Lib trolls, maybe.

114 posted on 05/16/2011 1:53:53 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s ( If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: gwjack

” Eight of the Supremes have the opinion that police have that right. “

Ahhhhh - the ‘Infallible Supreme Court’ argument...

Perhaps, then, you will explain Roe v Wade to the rest of the class....


115 posted on 05/16/2011 1:54:03 PM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

” It’s about cops coming into your home without “probable cause””

You didn’t read the opinion, did you?
It IS about cops coming into your home WITH probable cause. The issue is whether they can knock on the door, knowing that knock may be the cause of the urgency.

The case was that there was enough evidence for a warrant. Thing is, there is no law or verdict stopping a cop from just knocking on the door and asking questions. The act of knocking and announcing - no search, no entry, just “hi, it’s the cops, anyone home?” - prompted the occupants to start destroying evidence, which was evident to any reasonable observer.

The question before SCOTUS was whether the cops erred in doing a perfectly legal act which they knew might give rise to an urgency wherein a warrantless (and long-established legal) search became urgent. They could have just gotten the warrant, but they knocked on the door instead - a perfectly legal act - giving rise to a legal warrantless search.

So the question became: was the act, transitioning from legal grounds for a search warrant to legal grounds for a warrantless search by means of a legal act, legal?

Don’t argue further until you’ve read the opinion.


116 posted on 05/16/2011 2:02:25 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

BTW: if the occupants had done nothing - not answer, and not destroy evidence - the cops would not have had legal grounds to enter without a warrant.


117 posted on 05/16/2011 2:04:12 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: microgood

“This is how the drug warriors were able to trash the 4th Amendment - they got SCOTUS to grant an exception to the 4th Amendment because evidence might be destroyed. There is a special place in hell waiting for those that made this ruling (Rehnquist is already there).”

That is the truth. The only reason the cops are interested in drugs is the money. I been involved in one too many cases where the cops were more interested in the money and failed to uphold the law and people died. Sorry but you can’t sue them for not doing their job.


118 posted on 05/16/2011 2:17:36 PM PDT by A Strict Constructionist (Oligarchy...My theory is, college student body presidents become DEMS orRINO's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

You certainly have that point going for you. This seems to be a long dissertation on why it’s bad to live next to a dope dealer when you are smoking dope and running your own drug business. You would think the Fraternal Order of Drug Dealers would have rules of conduct. The reasoning doesn’t actually expand police powers as much as it admits that cops behaving in a well documented and reasonable way are going to get better treatment from the courts.
Big kudos to the cops who wrote the reports and testified to made a record that overcame the presumption of unreasonableness.


119 posted on 05/16/2011 2:17:47 PM PDT by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: absalom01

Fire I went into was so hot it melted a coin collection. If that lady had MJ in there it was thoroughly roasted and turned to ash.


120 posted on 05/16/2011 2:17:54 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 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