Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Supreme Court gives police more power for warrantless searches

Supreme Court gives police more power for warrantless searches
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 04:53 AM
 
The 4th amendment is being eroded. We are becoming more of a police state.

Supreme Court: Justices give police more leeway in home searches - latimes.com

8-1 in favor of giving the police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Say what Alito?!

Only Justice Ginsburg was against it.

"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and …forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 07:03 AM
 
Tragic ruling, but not surprising.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 07:38 AM
 
So if the police knock on your door, for god's sake don't flush anything. Don't move. Hope you don't have to pee. Freeze like a rabbit, even if you're innocent.

wtf.
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 08:00 AM
 
Absolutely DO NOT flush the toilet.

As Judge Alito ruled, flushing the toilet means you are attempting to destroy evidence and have only yourself to blame if the police burst into your home without a warrant.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 08:05 AM
 
I suppose parabolic mics will become standard issue now, recording voices and sounds at the time of the knock to see if anything sounds remotely like evidence destruction.
     
jokell82
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 08:07 AM
 
So now the police can create their own exigent circumstances. Do we even need to pretend that warrants are needed anymore?

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 08:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
So if the police knock on your door, for god's sake don't flush anything. Don't move. Hope you don't have to pee. Freeze like a rabbit, even if you're innocent.

wtf.
The trouble here is that the police don't even need to knock. So...don't ever flush.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 09:06 AM
 
8-1? Jesus. What is wrong with the court?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 09:54 AM
 
Hey! If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be worried about this! If you're worrying...wellllll then
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Hey! If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be worried about this! If you're worrying...wellllll then
Damn it, I was waiting for someone to say than without tongue-in-cheek.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 10:00 AM
 
I admit, I thought about poisoning the well before I posted...but then I said **** it, the funny waits for no man's stupidity
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 10:06 AM
 
Oh well, the special make-up of the PL gives us a ~15% chance someone still post that exact thought because they don't bother reading, either.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 11:24 AM
 
New rules: smell pot, kick down door. Way to go, Land of the Free.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 11:42 AM
 
Isn't the very act of smoking pot "destroying" the evidence?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 11:50 AM
 
Whoaaaaaaa...that's deep, man.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 11:57 AM
 
I can't decide whether this being about weed makes it better or worse. I mean, just legalize it already.

Edit: Worse, because without those stupid laws this case would never have happened.
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; May 17, 2011 at 12:05 PM. )
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 11:57 AM
 
8-1? Wow, some Democrats are blushing over this one, I know I am.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 12:04 PM
 
I must say that I'm surprised that this was an 8-1 decision. I would have expected it to be more along the line of 6-3. In any event, the larger question is why are the police knocking on someone's door simply because they smell marijuana? At the end of the day it's a freaking plant! Is that the most effective use of police resources?

OAW
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 12:12 PM
 
An IRS agent is in a multi company office building, while walking buy an office lobby he hears someone operating a paper shredder.

Oh the smoking thing applied to cigarettes as well, the officer can assume that it is a minor smoking and knock just as your finishing taking a piss.

Part of the whole reason they need to get a warrant is to prevent snap decision making. At the very least they need to stop, and call a judge for an emergency warrant. "sounds like" they were destroying evidence is to broad and too easy to fabricate. How do you proof in court months later that it was your next door neighbor that flushed his toilet, or better it was the ING add on TV.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2011, 01:51 PM
 
The war on drugs is one of the biggest farces of the modern age.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
8-1? Wow, some Democrats are blushing over this one, I know I am.
Shouldn't both sides be?

I'm obviously mistaken, though, as the forum reaction to this ruling can only be described as, "uninterested."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 11:43 AM
 
Not surprisingly, the piece of information which saps all the sensationalism out of this is buried in the last paragraph of the article:

"The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether police had faced an emergency situation in this case."

The SCOTUS has determined the cops can break in during an emergency. They offered no opinion whether scurrying sounds constitute an emergency or not.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 11:53 AM
 
If you have a more objective take on the ruling to post, please do so.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 12:15 PM
 
Tl;dr

The police can break in if it's an emergency. Beyond some egregiously bad interpretation of what constitutes an emergency, I don't see the problem.

Edit: were you joking?
( Last edited by subego; May 20, 2011 at 12:24 PM. )
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 12:22 PM
 
If only Glenn Beck had weighed in on this, we could have had some real discussion in here.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
If only Glenn Beck had weighed in on this, we could have had some real discussion in here.
Sadly, I think this is little too close to the mark. If someone's favorite talking head to hate had quickly chimed in with rigorous support of the ruling, that probably would have been the spark needed to light this fire.
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Shouldn't both sides be?

I'm obviously mistaken, though, as the forum reaction to this ruling can only be described as, "uninterested."
Well. The Arnold love child story is getting like 100 times more coverage than this.

Guess that's where our priorities are. More concern with celebrities than losing our constitutional rights.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Tl;dr

The police can break in if it's an emergency. Beyond some egregiously bad interpretation of what constitutes an emergency, I don't see the problem.

Edit: were you joking?
I would understand if the Supreme Court would make an exception for life and death emergencies. But I do not considered busting someone for drugs is an emergency.

Like sek929 said, the war on drugs is becoming a farce. It's a waste of time, money, and resources. We should start legalizing marijuana.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I would understand if the Supreme Court would make an exception for life and death emergencies. But I do not considered busting someone for drugs is an emergency.
That's what they're doing. Making an exception for emergencies.

The SC had no comment on whether they thought it was an emergency or not. That's for lower courts to decide, or for legislatures to legislate.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 12:56 PM
 
So what they're saying is that destruction of evidence is an emergency situation, just like gunshots or blood curdling screams, which would allow entry without a warrant ?
But they're not saying how you determine if destruction of evidence is occurring?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 03:56 PM
 
As I said, the SC made no comment on whether it was an emergency or not, though one can take the fact they think the lower court needs to reexamine the case as an implied opinion.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
So what they're saying is that destruction of evidence is an emergency situation, just like gunshots or blood curdling screams, which would allow entry without a warrant ?
But they're not saying how you determine if destruction of evidence is occurring?
It seems that, by definition, they couldn't possibly determine if evidence is being destroyed without a warrant (in the absence of gunshots or screams or whatever). That's why we have rules of evidence.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 04:25 PM
 
This is f*cked up. So basically, it goes down like this:

Police can enter *any* home w/o warrant and reason.

If some suspicious evidence is found, you're guilty.
If NOTHING is found, you're guilty of destroying the evidence.

Welcome to Banana Republic USA.
Why are we tolerating this ?

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2011, 06:46 PM
 
[Tap Tap Tap]

Is this thing on?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2011, 08:13 AM
 
It was a very focused, narrow ruling that seems to have a lot of sensationalism in its reporting. The Justices ask questions like those Ginsburg is quoted as asking all the time-pointed, very deep questions are their job.

This case was not about how to deal with bad warrants that result in police killing people in the wrong house because they broke down the wrong door WITH a warrant, and it is not about what sorts of levels of force can be used in what cases. It is about when they com knocking at the door, whether they have reason to take action if they THINK evidence is being destroyed. And in a VERY narrow sense, the Court said that sometimes police can knock down the door. Then they sent the case back to the state to have the state court decide if the police actually met the burden of that very narrow set of standards. It is not the apocalypse, and in fact I think it will wind up mor thoroughly limiting police action, rather than loosening restraints on police actions.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,