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 ...
We either accept the casualty rates, get the police to stop breaking down doors so much, or stop exercising that right. Choose.
They need to amend this a bit. If the cops break in and no drugs are found, then they should be charged with breaking and entering. There should be a “downside” for mistakes.
Two headed snake. Conservatives have been used right along with Libs as a means to an end. Everyone pining for gov’t to make others conform to their biases regardless of the Constitution. Fascism was the goal and it’s here. Two heads on one big fat well fed snake.
Excellent article on 10 signs of dictatorship....
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/10-indications-united-states-is.html
Does this also exempt them from properly identifying themselves as police officers?
Is a voice claiming to be the police sufficient to require the homeowner / occupant to disarm and open the door, or does he still have the right to verify that the people requesting entry really are police officers?
Et tu, Samuel?
It's hard for me that Ruth Bader Ginzberg is the only one who stands against increased government power here.
I'm wondering exactly why the police could not get a warrant. Were they thinking that this would be the only time this vicious criminal would be smoking pot in his home? Were they on routine Pot Patrol and smelled the burning weed, or were they already acting on information but just figured a warrant would be a waste of time?
ML/NJ
The Kentucky case began when police in Lexington sought to arrest a man who had sold crack cocaine to an informer. They followed the man to an apartment building, but lost contact with him. They smelled marijuana coming from one apartment. Though it turned out not to be the apartment of their suspect, they pounded on the door, called, "Police," and heard people moving inside.At this, the officers announced they were coming in and broke down the door. Instead of the original suspect, they found Hollis King smoking marijuana and arrested him. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.
You're cool with this?
In what way does this advance the cause of individual freedom, which we, as conservatives, cherish above all else?
good to see that someone else understands what is going on here.
Wow, take a chill-pill, I don't spell-check at 1am :>)
Who huffed and puffed and blew your house down, anyways?
All the Supreme Court did was determine that the above action didn't violate the 4th.
Even the Kentucky Supreme Court, which was overturned, said that there were valid exigent reasons to enter the apartment.
The day before Indiana rules you have no right to prevent illegal entry from police.
The next day an Indiana sheriff says that he's going to start random house searches.
And now THIS.
They're coming faster, folks. The Constitution has been rendered obsolete. I'm gettin' the hell out of the U.S. before they put down the Iron Curtain, because that shit is next.
SOOOooooo.. we live where?
wow
Is that a Hoover vacuum in the basement or your visiting cousin, , snortin’ Norton from Detroit? won’t matter now
So true. We have a bathroom right next to the front door. So, all I have to do is turn on the water to wash my hands before opening the door, and if the cop hears me, it's break-in time?
Rather than bashing down people's doors, why don't cops simply hire someone to put a trap in the sewer main right outside the house, then go and announce their presence? If they're lucky the crooks will give them the evidence directly without them even having to search for it.
Everyone, cops and citizens alike, would be safer if it were universally recognized that people who break into houses in facially-illegitimate fashion for the purpose of accosting occupants therein are robbers, regardless of their employer or uniform. Any statute or rule which would presume to declare otherwise would be contrary to the supreme law of the land, and therefore illegitimate and void. Actions which unreasonably endanger or harm persons and property without due process of law are illegitimate on their face. If questions of reasonableness could be put before a jury, I think many cops would find themselves acting much more reasonably.
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.