Replies

It was the guy and others. I’m just saying the whole idea is..if your on a pursuit and you have some valid reason to think your criminal is around...you can’t just up and leave and get a warrant. A crime has already been committed,...the constitution protects against UNREASONABLE ss. I think this was reasonable....so yeah. If they just randomly knock in doors without any valid reason to...then I’ll start complaining.

I just think if anyone reads the opinion they’ll not sensationalize the matter at hand.

It was the guy and others. I’m just saying the whole idea is..if your on a pursuit and you have some valid reason to think your criminal is around...you can’t just up and leave and get a warrant. A crime has already been committed,...the constitution protects against UNREASONABLE ss. I think this was reasonable....so yeah. If they just randomly knock in doors without any valid reason to...then I’ll start complaining.

The problem with rulings like this one is that they open the door to interpretation by those in law enforcement that care little for our Constitutional rights. In addition, the Supreme Court is really bad about determining what the facts of a case really mean.

For example, they granted an exception to the 4th Amendment for sobriety checkpoints based on the fact that they are "effective" and "minimally intrusive", both of which are complete bunk. In this case, they smelled pot in the hallway, so how did they know which apartment it was coming from? In addition, the "sounds of evidence destruction" is really open to interpretation: if they knock on a door, and hear the toilet flushing, is that someone in the bathroom or even in another apartment doing it? They never seem to question the logic of the police and the conclusions they come to.

I heard someone on the radio today that covers the Supreme Court rulings, and she basically said when it comes to the drug war, all logic and reason go out the window in the Supreme Court building. I would have to agree after the one about dogs sniffing a car is not a search because the dog only detects contraband ("utter bunk") and since you have no constitutional right to contraband, the dog search is not a search. I could see through twisted logic like that in 5th grade. I think it was Stevens that wrote that one (Illinois v Caballes).

>If they just randomly knock in doors without any valid reason to...then I’ll start complaining.

Ask and receive: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2720824/posts