Posted on 05/16/2011 9:48:14 PM PDT by UniqueViews
Officers may break in if they hear sounds and suspect that evidence is being destroyed, the justices say in an 8-1 decision. Justice Ginsburg dissents.
The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.
Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.
Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
IOW, they could be breaking into the wrong apartment.
____________________________________________________
Another worthy reason not to live in an apartment complex.
I hate to say this, and it isn’t a threat, but if this does indeed become the law of the land, there will be many, many more cops being killed while on duty. This is a fact that you can take to the bank.
The public’s response will be: “I thought it was an intruder...” You see, two can play this little game.
This could get very ugly, very quickly.
Thin edge of the wedge.
Without a clear-cut warrant, this interpretation can, and will, be used so often and loosely that the 4th amendment is essentially gone.
So, in essence this is house-by-house Marshall Law......
The difference is that you will be able to pop off one or two shots. The police will be able to pop off 70 shots.
The difference is that you will be able to pop off one or two shots. The police will be able to pop off 70 shots.
________________________________________________________
Sometimes that’s all it takes...
Lawlessness begets lawlessness.
Let’s say this home owner is a 75 year old. And let’s say he pops the cop... The home owner could be forfeiting 5 years of his life. Assume the cop is in his 30ies, he is putting 50 years of his life on the line. The advantage goes to the home owner...
Perhaps they should reconsider this.
What the hell is “Marshall” law? Did you mean “Martial” law?
I agree. They should definitly reconsider this stupid move. As I mentioned, if this beomes common place, the numbers of law enforcement officers who lose their life on the job will grow greatly.
Home owners will come up with really creative defenses for having to use deadly force. Cops think the big cities are dangerous? Let them try and enforce this abject stupidity, and they’ll see what dangerous is all about. This is pure foolishness.
“What the hell is “Marshall” law? Did you mean “Martial” law?”
You knew what he/she meant. Or then again, maybe you didn’t... you might just be dense.
That sounds like domestic terrorist talk
INDEED.
However . . . obviously . . . nothing here . . . move along.
/s
Must be past my bedtime. I read the opinion and I read it as saying that the police did NOT have justification for a warrantless entry.
???
Of course I knew what he/she meant, hence the correction. Or, you might have missed than, and are just an asshat.
Even with the correction, though, the poster still isn’t really correct. The phrase martial law is often used to describe all kinds of government abuse, including things like these warrantless searches and other gestapo tactics. However, it simply means rule by the military under an emergency situation, and generally includes curfew, restricted movement, and other controls on daily activity.
>>Let’s say this home owner is a 75 year old. And let’s say he pops the cop... The home owner could be forfeiting 5 years of his life. Assume the cop is in his 30ies, he is putting 50 years of his life on the line. The advantage goes to the home owner...
Perhaps they should reconsider this.<<
“Never mess with an old man, he’ll just kill you.”
Think about that for a minute, especially if he’s a bachelor! No retirement home costs, medical all paid for, food and shelter all paid for.
“Still too open ended. This can be so easily abused.
Any time the cops screw up they’ll just say “I thought evidence was being destroyed.””
A police officer should not have to rush into a private residence, he call in back up and wait outside for them to leave.
We pay to maintain an army of police and/or give the sheriff posse powers(To build an army when necessary) so that have a large enough homefeild advantage that they don’t have to violate our rights in their battle with the criminals.
A police officer can wait outside your home until he either gets a warrant to enter or you leave.
...from everybody but Gisburg!
...from everybody but Ginsburg!
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.