BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION

The Heustis Update ^ | June 27, AD 2003 | Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the additional explanation and especially for your testimony! Hugs!!!

[Bonaparte]

"...who want the sex police busting down bedroom doors of adults..."

No "busted down doors" in the case under discussion. The door was open and the police were there legally in response to a criminal complaint. The "plain sight" doctrine resulted in the arrests.

[Jorge]

Jorge"...who want the sex police busting down bedroom doors of adults..."

No "busted down doors" in the case under discussion. The door was open and the police were there legally in response to a criminal complaint. The "plain sight" doctrine resulted in the arrests.

It turned out to be phoney and fabricated "criminal complaint".
You want to live in a world where busy-body neighbors can make up any lie they want to have the police enter your house and see what you're doing in your bedroom with whom?

Incredible!

And so what if the door was unlocked meaning there were no "busted down doors"???

Are you saying we now need to lock and barricade our houses to stop sex police sent by lying neighbors?
What is your point?

[Bonaparte]

My points are several.

a) The police were responding to a serious complaint, as they must do -- even though the complaint later turned out to be bogus, as they sometimes are.

b) The police entered the premises legally and with probable cause -- no misbehavior of any kind on the part of the police.

c) While on the premises, the police viewed a crime in progress. The court-tested "plain sight" doctrine permitted them to make the arrest.

Those are my points, Jorge. The police don't decide what the law is going to be. Legislators do that. The police are paid only to enforce those laws that are on the books, which is what they did in this case.

Nobody's door was busted in by rogue cops on some crusade against homosexuals.