4th Amendment Dead, SCOTUS dancing on grave

US Supreme Court, Kentucky vs King ^ | May 16, 2011 | SCOTUS

[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,”

[muawiyah]

READ MORE BETTER

[tacticalogic]

READ MORE BETTER

I read it well enough to find the strawman.

[OneWingedShark]

>Ahh. Like in the latest Star Trek movie where Nero’s ship changes the time line after emerging from a wormhole “creating an alternate reality”?

Yes-ish; in this case it would be more like the police using the holodeck to recreate the scene and then add {or subtract} things... and then be allowed to present that recreation as evidence.
Police Officer: “Computer, create a suitcase of cocaine on the bed and ta meth-lab on the coffee table.”

This offers nothing but nightmares to anyone who has a sense of Justice.

[fr_freak]

Those objecting are reacting, not thinking, as they have not in fact read the ruling. It is very sensible.

Your reasoning is why most people hate lawyers. You are arguing semantics, while most people are thinking of the real world implications of this ruling. Anything that allows police to enter your home without a lawful warrant having been issued beforehand is an infringement upon our most basic rights. The potential for abuse of this ruling is staggering. Police officers can claim they saw or heard whatever they want, and now the courts will say the entry was lawful after the fact. If you had any real interest in the American principles of liberty, you would realize that, if an error must be made in law, it should be made on the side of liberty, not government control.

[dps.inspect]

ya... they’re having a lively discussion on our local radio station right now and stating the same thing... slip sliding away... fortunately, this is a rare occurrence. If police bust down my door while I’m watching TV, I typically do not carry a gun in my home and I would likely be on the floor at their direction.

The problem with this ruling is that it puts enmity between good citizens and police and creates images of a “police state” in our collective minds. Most of us will not be ruled by a big brother society... if that means we be killed for protecting our homes or when we finally resist government dissolution of our inalienable rights, so-be-it. People die for much less, I will not be one who dies for nothing.

[fr_freak]

This proves that conservatives are as big a threat as liberals to our Constitution and freedoms.

Only because the term "conservative" has been perverted into including those who want an authoritarian government. A conservative American used to be someone who believed in limited government. Now, many who call themselves "conservative" are people who are just fine with Big Brother as long as Big Brother is enforcing behavior that they approve of. They will throw out the entire Bill of Rights simply out of the fear that somebody, somewhere is getting high or engaging in some type of behavior that is bad, bad, baaaaaaaad.

[Sprite518]

You are missing the entire point. They (the court) justified their decision (Violating of the 4th Amendment) by the following case.

A husband and wife were arguing outside their apartment. When police arrived to investigate, the couple retreated into their apartment. The husband attempted to close the door, but one officer forced his way into the apartment. The husband shoved the intruder against a wall, whereupon a second officer used a stun gun on the man and arrested him.

That was not the situation in this case. However, it works if you want to justify why the cops unlawful and illegal entry into the wrong apartment! LOL! Yeah just don’t tell any reasonably objective person the facts of the case sited.

To say, ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a]warrant-less search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” is Bull $hit.

You can’t see the forest through the trees. The police can now say,

“Yeah I heard something that’s the ticket! Yeah yeah... that’s it!”

to justify warrant-less searches. You know, there are many REASONS why the founding fathers made this difficult. It’s, as you should already understand, to keep the government from abusing the people. It helps to limit the corruption. Now thanks to this ruling they can make up any B.S. reason to come into your home.

[microgood]

Only because the term "conservative" has been perverted into including those who want an authoritarian government. A conservative American used to be someone who believed in limited government. Now, many who call themselves "conservative" are people who are just fine with Big Brother as long as Big Brother is enforcing behavior that they approve of.

Absolutely. The modern conservative and liberals are just two sides of the same coin. So where do you go if you believe in small government? There is no where to go.

[microgood]

Departments can pay dearly for officer misconduct.
Because of unions and the blue line, cops are rarely punished for bad behavior. The only course for a citizen is to sue or operate outside the law.

The Conservatives on SCOTUS have been whittling away at the exclusionary rule and they absolutely despise the 4th Amendment, especially Scalia.

[Clump]

Probable cause is not enough to enter and search a house. It’s not like searching a car where the individual has a lesser expectation of privacy.

[Clump]

What concerns me most is that the liberals on the court are worse than the old school liberals like Thurgood Marshall.
These are complete statists.

[jonascord]

A rogue cop gets admin leave with pay, and, in a few years, he MIGHT be indicted, but the odds are with him.

A civilian who shoots a rogue cop gets vaporized before he ever sees the inside of a courtroom. They have to use DNA to identify the remains.

Thanks to this ruling, a cop never has to go thru the pain-in-the-a$$ procedure of getting a warrent. All he has to say is, "There wasn't time..." and he gets a freebie.

Cops go rogue on an hourly basis. http://twitter.com/#!/injusticenews For every one caught, or tried, or punished, how many walk?

[jonascord]

Dred Scott, Bueller? Anyone?

I'll bet you like hinged cuffs 'cause they hurt more...

[Glenn]

They had reasonable cause to do a warrantless search even if it was the wrong apartment.

Perhaps in this limited case.

But you do understand precedent law, right? Judges and prosecutors are pretty much free to cite this case from here to eternity in cases that are not so narrow.

[fr_freak]

Absolutely. The modern conservative and liberals are just two sides of the same coin. So where do you go if you believe in small government? There is no where to go.

No, no, that wasn't quite my point. I said that there are people who claim to be conservative, but aren't. However, many who call themselves conservative, are. It's kind of like those people who call themselves "Catholics for Abortion". They obviously aren't really Catholic, even if they think they are, but their heresy doesn't invalidate the beliefs of Catholicism - they are simply stealing the name. [NOTE: don't any of you religion trolls go making this thread about Protestant vs. Catholic or any other religious feud. OK?]

FreeRepublic is still a good place for conservatives, but there are quite a few yahoos on here who embrace left-wing ideas, including Big Government. As far as political parties go, I'm not so sure on that one, because most Republicans seem like Big Government progressives to me. My last hope in the political process is the Tea Party, but that hope is just a flicker. Meanwhile, I'm stocking up on all the supplies I'll need to raise hell when the time comes.

[freedomwarrior998]

“Sovereigns” have no need to read a court opinion. In fact, they have no need to read the Constitution either. They just pick and choose what they want to follow in each and discard the rest. After all, they are a law unto themselves.

You did hit the nail on the head though. The people screaming “JBT!!!! (TM)” likely haven’t read the opinion. In the alternative, if they have read the opinion, they are too stupid to process it.

[freedomwarrior998]

"The Conservatives on SCOTUS have been whittling away at the exclusionary rule..."

Please cite the specific provision of the Constitution that contains the exclusionary rule.

While you are attempting to do the impossible, can you also explain the "exclusionary rule" as understood by the very people who wrote the 4th Amendment?

Please be specific in your response.

[Secret Agent Man]

Problem is, in the grand scheme of things, people will be dying for nothing. Because most won’t be criminals, they will be defending their home from invasion. That would otherwise be avoidable.

Cops getting wrong house. Cops using swat when they could just get the guy leaving the house normally. Using assault tactics for minor crimes or ‘suspected’ crimes.

It’s sad because we have responsibilities to loved ones and pets. To even have to think in America this could really happen to us.

[microgood]

Please cite the specific provision of the Constitution that contains the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution. It is an enforcement mechanism of the 4th Amendment and was created to prevent the abuse of citizens by government, which is by definition evil.

While you are attempting to do the impossible, can you also explain the "exclusionary rule" as understood by the very people who wrote the 4th Amendment?

I assume that they wanted the 4th Amendment to be more than just words on a piece of paper. They wanted it to be the law of the land. So what do you do if law enforcement just go door to door kicking people's doors down and arresting everyone they find something.

The exclusionary rule is no different than any mechanism for protecting our rights from government abuse, and it came about because our government cannot be trusted to obey the Constitution without having sanctions placed on it. There are also Federal statutes which we can use to sue the government when they violate our rights, but those are much less likely than the exclusionary rule to have some effect on government behavior.

If the exclusionary rule or some mechanism like it is not in place, police would never get a warrant to search anyone in the first place, they would just kick any door down they wanted to any time they wanted to.

One can never have enough protection from government. The more, the better.

[freedomwarrior998]

The exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution. It is an enforcement mechanism of the 4th Amendment and was created to prevent the abuse of citizens by government, which is by definition evil.

Who created the exclusionary rule?

I assume that they wanted the 4th Amendment to be more than just words on a piece of paper. They wanted it to be the law of the land. So what do you do if law enforcement just go door to door kicking people's doors down and arresting everyone they find something. The exclusionary rule is no different than any mechanism for protecting our rights from government abuse, and it came about because our government cannot be trusted to obey the Constitution without having sanctions placed on it. There are also Federal statutes which we can use to sue the government when they violate our rights, but those are much less likely than the exclusionary rule to have some effect on government behavior. If the exclusionary rule or some mechanism like it is not in place, police would never get a warrant to search anyone in the first place, they would just kick any door down they wanted to any time they wanted to. One can never have enough protection from government. The more, the better.

If this is all true, 1) Why didn't the Founders put an exclusionary rule in the Constitution? 2) Why were the Founders OK with the common law rule which permitted the use of illegally obtained evidence?