|
|
Supreme Court gives police more power for warrantless searches
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Tragic ruling, but not surprising.
|
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
8-1? Jesus. What is wrong with the court?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
New rules: smell pot, kick down door. Way to go, Land of the Free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status:
Online
|
|
Isn't the very act of smoking pot "destroying" the evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Whoaaaaaaa...that's deep, man.
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status:
Online
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status:
Offline
|
|
The war on drugs is one of the biggest farces of the modern age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Shaddim
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."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
If you have a more objective take on the ruling to post, please do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
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."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by hyteckit
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status:
Online
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
[Tap Tap Tap]
Is this thing on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Online
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|