He's right ... just "leasing" until the eminent domain carpetbaggers come knocking.
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 ...
Peter it’s called the law. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.
Cops don’t get to pick and choose the laws they do not like. Sorry everyone, and specially the police since they are the law enforcers, have to follow it.
If you let them get away with this, then it will not be long before you are target. Sorry but I STRONGLY disagree with you. I don’t care if it was to get a criminal. The cops have to play by the rules too.
These judges should be removed from the bench. They have violated their own Oath.
Bingo!
What do you have to hide? If you’re not doing anything wrong why are you so worried about the cops coming in?
I’m with you. Those objecting are reacting, not thinking, as they have not in fact read the ruling. It is very sensible.
Hi jonascord —
Greetings from a fellow Oklahoman. I took the time to read the 8-1 decision with Justice Ginsburg being the only dissent.
Stubborn things, facts. According to the published slip opinion: “Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside an apartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search.” Hmmm. So there was “probable cause” to enter and detain, and they did.
Frankly, I do believe there are times when the dark forces of crime and evil will use the Constitution as a sword, and not a shield. In the entirety of judicial thought and history, bad guys should not be able to “hide” their nefarious activities in the manner that these alleged criminals did in Kentucky. There are some circumstances that are indeed exigent. This was one of them.
That is not to say that every intrusion upon the rights of an individual will be cavalierly disregarded. They will always be the avenue of being scrutinized by the courts, as occurred in this case. And, if there is a violation of rights, there will be Hell to pay!
Best regards,
Gwjack
I’ve read different things on the etymology of the term, but in any event, when you are compelled (through the force of law) to pay a tax on something you “own”, and if this something can be take away from you, again, through the force of law, the status of being an “owner” becomes rather questionable.
I agree, it needs to be addressed, but I’ll be looking out my 3rd floor window for the magic, Skittles defecating unicorn soaring over the rainbow before I expect so serious an issue to be considered.
I’d ask the same thing of the cops that don’t want to be videoed while they are performing their duties -
if you’re doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?
payoffs and physical abuse...err they are protecting their informants and tactics.
This is like that South Park joke! Scream "He's coming straight for us!" just before you shoot... Except, no one is laughing.
Try "flushing" 10 kilos of crack. Even if he managed it, you've stopped all that drug use, bankrupted him, destroyed his plumbing, buzzed a few thousand fish, and not broken the Bill of Rights. Is some pissy "arrest" so valuable? I just hope some 'roided cop hears your TV...
Psh... This is FR. The ones who yell loudest, are the ones most likely not to have read the document. And there are a lot of loud yellers around here.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless searches may be deemed reasonable in certain situations. First, no warrant is required for searches incident to a lawful arrest (United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S. Ct. 820, 46 L. Ed. 2d 598 [1976]). If a police officer has probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to arrest the suspect and to conduct a search of the suspect’s person and clothing and of all areas within the suspect’s immediate reach. Second, a police officer who possesses an “articulable” and “reasonable” suspicion that an automobile has violated a state or local traffic law may stop the driver and conduct a search of the vehicle’s interior, including the glove compartment (Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 [1979]). The trunk of a vehicle cannot be searched unless an officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or the instrumentalities of criminal activity.”
The ruling is consistent with prior rules. 4th Amendment jurisprudence long presumes the power of police to act without a warrant when urgency demands they do and when there is no question a warrant can and will be issued retroactively.
The only question in this case was whether the “urgent” nature arose only due to the cops merely knocking on the door, and whether they should not have knocked knowing that doing so would induce that urgency. They did NOT just barge in on bare suspicion and lack of urgency. They knocked, as police may without cause, and indications of urgencies ensued.
As another noted, if the occupants had simply opened the door, stepped out, and closed the door, the police would not have had reason or power to search.
I hope you inadvertently left off the sarcasm tag. If not, and you are serious, you need to have your head examined.
Did you read the final opinion? I did. It is very sensible. And I say that as one easily torqued off over 4th Amendment violations.
Yeah, I’ve found that out.
On a side note...
I even taught my son this. When a police officer comes to the door you step out of the house and close the door behind you, then talk to him.
He’s 13 now. He’s only had to do it once.
There's already a law for that...
| US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241 – Conspiracy against rights |
|---|
| If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. |
Not so, because they darned well better GET that evidence once they go in. If they "claim this" and enter, and have nothing to show for it, they're in trouble.
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.