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 ...
Go into the Smoky Mountains National Park. You’ll see quite a few homes where the people lost their land for no other reason than the govt wanted it.
you can pretend there is no slippery slope on the enforcement side if you like however you should then at least recognize this ruling as the beginning of one.
>What do you have to hide? If you’re not doing anything wrong why are you so worried about the cops coming in?
Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
{And be sure to see part two, where a police officer who “gets the last word” starts off saying “Everything he said is true.”}
I shoot paper and the occasional tennis ball.
Anyone is free to kick in my door at any time...
This is as it should be. It has always has been so on this Earth, sad to say, but true. This ruling simply places legitimate law enforcement in the same position as home invaders in the eyes of more lawful citizen. No problem here with that, been there for decades.
I shall now respectfully decline to engage in further gunnuter statements on this thread.
I have that video saved in my bookmarks and watch it to remind myself.
Our Supremes made a big mistake on this one.
Probably a good thing NOT to watch any one of the myriad masturbatory fictional cop shows (CSI 1,2,3, Chicago Code, Without a Trace, Hawaii 5-0, etc) really loud.
Even better not to watch them at all.
Please site me the law that says you have to answer your door when anyone knocks???
No I’m talking about the ruling and not the cops BS excuse. It is NOT consistent, and THAT is why it is why it made the news.
I understand “probable cause”, but that is not the case in this instance. It’s about cops coming into your home without “probable cause” or “a search warrant”. The court said it was okay.
I’m sorry but that is completely illegal what the court ruled. To call it ANYTHING ELSE such as “urgent” is not only Bull $hit but a flat out lie. The judges should be immediately removed from the bench for violation of their Oath.
Nailed it!!!
Unfortunately it will probably be yours and only one or two of them.
If one is ‘suspected’ of being something, they can untimately surveil the suspect if it’s worth it, and do old fashioned work and develop EVIDENCE.
I mean a drug dealer isn’t just a drug dealer for one day and then never again. Police WORK (real old work) would get the necessary evidence and warrants.
Still, it could have been construed as breaking and entering, and unlawful detention.
The point I'm making here is that cops and firemen don't cease being human beings, and any application of the law that requires them to stand there while another human being burns to death is wrong.
That is an exigency.
Smoking weed is in a different sort of category.
>***“retcon”***
>
>I am unfamiliar with this abbreviation. Does it stand for “retroactively concoct”? or perhaps connive?
LOL — both of those are good.
It’s actually from the world of comic-books and is shorthand for RETroactive CONtinuity.
According to urban dictionary:
1. (original meaning) Adding information to the back story of a fictional character or world, without invalidating that which had gone before.
2. (more common usage) Adding or altering information regarding the back story of a fictional character or world, **regardless of whether the change contradicts what was said before.**
— Example: Although they had previously been shown to have two other sets of parents, the retcon of making Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch the children of Magneto only altered the meaning of past events, not what had happened.
2. Retconning Dawn Summers into “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” in the fifth season was one of the rare instances where the fact that history has been altered for our characters was recognized in the story, even though the characters all still remembered the “new” versions of events.
That would put an end to baseless and poorly supported warrants. The judges are too far removed from the process, and it would put an end to the middle of the night crap which endangers everyone, yet limits witnesses and media exposure until the next day's press briefing.
Local governments should run candidates on legislation requiring judges be present in those situations. It would send a powerful message about the authority of government sprouting from the consent of the governed. With that in mind it's pretty easy to nip it in the bud.
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?
What if they find something completely unrelated? They are now free to claim the item not explicitly sought before breaking down the door is what they wanted. Who can challenge that claim? The cops are now free to knock down your door and go on a fishing expedition. They are only at risk if the fishing expedition yields nothing. The 4th amendment was created to prevent exactly that level of intrusion by the government. It was a bad decision.
The constitution does not grant the right to search with probable cause, it only grants the right to get a warrant with probable cause. Some black robed tyrant in the past ruled that probable cause could be used to search. This is BS and a violation of the 4th. I would rather see every pot smoker and pot dealer in the US go free than to have police break down doors on evidence as flimsy as this.
Read the 4th, especially the part about probable cause and point out to me where it says(good luck on finding it)cops can search based solely on probable cause.
These supremes have made a bad ruling.
Thanks. I’ve been looking for that.
No, it's not. While there are now *some* similarities in the case law, it's nowhere near "equivalent" when it comes to both the law & circumstances.
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”?
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.