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 ...
8-to-1 decision. Only Ginsburg dissented.
>If they are allowed to get away with this, then what is next?<
.
The entire Constitution will be up for grabs.
“....our birth rights that come from our Creator.”
There are many who are working hard to erase religion altogether in this country. (Except for Islam, of course)
It started even before the TSA illegal searches....acting without stereotyping—treating men, women and children as criminals and demeaning them in public displays. Treating human beings as herded animals at best and pretending as if there is no muslim group out to destroy the US—in fact, refusing to name islam as a cause for the killing and destroying that is occurring everyday around the world. Refusing to do what other nations always do—profile—which is just common sense.
Logic and reason is the basis of our legal system—and they are destroying logic—as all the Progressives since Oliver Wendell Holmes have been doing to our legal system....stripping it of logic and reason and all morality....and basing our laws on the arbitrary whims of minority groups who buy the influence through lobbies. Unequal justice—power of some groups over others....unequal law is unconstitutional.
Our legal system is bought and paid for by Marxists who are destroying all aspects of Just Law....to destroy the Republic....just like noted by Cicero in the destruction of the Republic of Rome....when laws became meaningless and based on the whims and notions separated from Natural Law Theory—common sense.
Allowing “police” to invade citizens homes is a fundamental violation of equality and law and an invasion of private property.....although, Marxists abhor private property rights.....they should not be allowed to be judges and lawyers in our legal system since they can not truthfully take the oath of office.
It is like these people allowing Sharia Law—under our Constitution????? Why would we allow Communists to be judges on our Courts (Ginsberg, Sotomeyer, etc.)? It lacks all logic and is what is destroying our “Rule of Law”. They operate with a worldview that is incompatible with our Constitution. As long as our Constitution is the Law of the Land, they need to be removed because they will not uphold it. How can we allow them not to be impeached?
The Fourth Amendment addresses searching someone's home and personal effects looking for evidence of a crime. Is that what you were doing there?
Sorry, where in the court’s opinion do they refer to “10 kilos of crack”?
****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.****
Since when do cops get into “trouble”. They get paid administrative leave at worst.
And if they were not tempted to “throw down” evidence before this ruling, if there were serious consequences they would sorely be tempted now.
Pretty much spot on. Assuming there are parties still capable of understanding the nature of human behavior in the governing mechanism is a true leap of faith.
Most peoples understanding of human nature ends sometime after they learn to trick a cute drunk barfly or barguy.
>I don’t see the problem. They had reasonable cause to do a warrantless search even if it was the wrong apartment. Did any of you actually read the document?
In the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH it describes the situation and says that the destruction of evidence was the “probable cause,” but if that then this is the new situation in jurisprudence: The police can bust-in and claim that it was to prevent destruction of evidence.
This is VERY dangerous in that the police can “retcon” their story to make the “evidence” that they were looking for into what was actually found. Requiring a warrant which “PARTICULARLY DESCRIBES THE PERSON OR THING” that the police are looking for is the *ONLY* thing that prevents this sort of tomfoolery and corruption.
If there is no law, there is no law
How does your take conflict with the court’s opinion? Not an assumed soundbite, but the actual content of the opinion text?
Under your explanation, there seems to be “probable cause” which, therefore, gives the police the right to do as they did.
If you pay property tax you do not own property. You are just renting it from the government. If you miss a rent payment, the landlord will evict you and sell the property to someone who will pay the rent.
You do not even own your paycheck. The government seizes what they want first and gives you what is left over after they have taken their cut.
Even if you own property and pay on it for 100 years, it will not matter. Miss a rent payment to the government, and they will boot you off and take back ‘their’ land. Happens all the time.
The government also tries their very best to steal the land from the family once the owner dies.
We are not as far away from a Mexican form of government as many think we are.
Starting primarily with FDR, and getting much worse under Bushs, Clinton, Obama, this is just not America anymore. Everything, by default, belongs to the government. Whether or not they let you keep it is entirely up to them.
Time to pass an ammendment completely barring all no-knock warrants, and then another ammendment stating that all searches and seizures on private property and vehicles must have a warrant with no acceptions.
You just have to make it crystal clear what you want, so lawyers cannot walk in and use the Bill Clinton meaning of what is, is. In this ruling, the important word enabling them to dismantle the Fourth Ammendment was “reasonable”. That’s quite a stretch to have that as the folcrum of our protection against a police state. Reasonable to whom? Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler?
Was the Constitution and Bill of Rights made for ease and safety of law enforcement, or for the safety and security of the people against tyrannical government and its agents?
>In this case, the search is deemed legal as the only thing lacking is paperwork, which will without doubt be procured once the urgency is passed.
Ah, does that mean I can carry my firearms around concealed and then apply for a CCW after I’m caught, as the only thing lacking is paperwork?
This just sounds like an average speech that 0bama would make without all the BS to obscure the actual meaning. This is the fondest dream of the Democratic Party.
***“retcon”***
I am unfamiliar with this abbreviation. Does it stand for “retroactively concoct”? or perhaps connive?
I read it and it did seem in this case they had cause.
If you honestly believe that EVERYONE needs to be searched and arrested, without a warrent, (Try getting a drug arrest off the Net, regardless of guilt.), anytime a thug BELIEVES a possession crime MIGHT be in question, based on his interpretation of sounds, then you belong here. Try Shawnee, they just luv to kick the doors of the underclass, and the paper never reports it. (I think the sheriff has a picture of the editor in bed with a 4 year old boy...)
I was responding to a poster who was joking about the sarcasm tag, so yes it was inferred.
Of course there are those on FR who do believe that nonsense.
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.