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
Under your explanation, there seems to be “probable cause” which, therefore, gives the police the right to do as they did.
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...)
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.