Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BlueNgold

The applicable due process is to be judged dependent upon the circumstances. The cops had no time nor requirement to get a warrant.

Damages? Yes, fix the door, although the damage to the door is the sole and direct result of the homeowner’s refusal to open it.

A smart city would give him a new door. The driving problem here is that all the damages were caused by the homeowner’s refusals, not the LEO’s legal needs nor actions.

Had the homeowner simply opened the door and made his legal arguments later, none of this would have happened. Any legal arguments would have failed, however, as the LEOs had a legal right to entry under an exigent circumstances provision.


85 posted on 07/04/2015 11:57:25 PM PDT by Crystal Palace East (90% of MSM is lies, except the National Enquirer, of course :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: Crystal Palace East

I’m not certain that exigency has been tested in this context.

It will be interesting to see how the 4th Am arguments, which I believe we’re not tossed out with this ruling, are met.

Exigency, to my understanding, has been generally held to allow for admissibility in court of otherwise inadmissible evidence. When exigency is claimed, the government retains a high burden because they are effectively exerting a necessary exception to established and accepted rules/laws.

In this case the government is not exerting that it has the ability to enter evidence gathered from that home as it relates to their initial subject, rather that it had an unmitigated right to take the initial action. The burden should remain just as high - there were no options available within the confines of due process, and that life was in imminent risk had they chosen any alternative.

It should be an interesting case. I just hope it’s well argued. The 3rd Am claim has me suspect. It feels like an overly broad claim, but that in and of itself doesn’t mean the case won’t be well represented.


87 posted on 07/05/2015 12:48:02 AM PDT by BlueNgold (May I suggest a very nice 1788 Article V with your supper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

To: Crystal Palace East
The cops had no time nor requirement to get a warrant.

No Warrant, no entry..... and your exigent circumstances don't wash even a little bit, and your #44 is legal masterbation, and as insignificant as your argument.

You can not ignore Marbury V Madison. either the constitution stands or the country fails.

" LEOs had a legal right to entry"

In a nazi police state not in a constitutional republic.

98 posted on 07/05/2015 6:40:03 PM PDT by SERE_DOC ( “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” TJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson