Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

  1. #11
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Quote Originally Posted by pzycho View Post
    Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches



    How does no response and overheard movement after the police announce themselves suggest destruction of evidence? Is it the prior smell of marijuana gives reasonable suspicion or probable cause or some such? I think that any sounds heard with a lack of response is eavesdropping and represents a warrantless search. I think the assumption/presumption that evidence is being destroyed should be an unjustified conclusion. Whatever the mechanism needed to overturn this crap should include all forms of remote sensing as being a warrantless search and therefore violating the 4th.
    I'd be ok with it if it's also reasonable to shoot the cops as they illegally enter your home.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #12
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    This ruling is a disaster. There are far too many legitimate reasons why a person may not answer the door immediately. They might be in the bathroom, listening to music ect. Assuming that means evidence is being destroyed is a completely outrageous assumption. For a truly absurd scenario, imagine if the police show up when you aren't home and your dog is rustling around the house. If you read the case, they even got the wrong apartment. I am even more disturbed by the fact the case was decided 8 to1 with only Ginsburg dissenting.

  3. #13
    Professor
    Bigfoot 88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    12-01-15 @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,027
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    I agree with the ruling. I have always felt the police officers have been handcuffed from searching.
    "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." -Thomas Sowell

  4. #14
    Can't stop the signal...
    theangryamerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    07-29-13 @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,233

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    This ruling is a complete violation of citizen's rights and is going to cause far more problems than it solves.

    I will never immediately answer the door for anyone, even if they announce they are police. Why? It's because I'm checking to see if they are who they say they are. If someone's pounding on my door late at night announcing that they are police and tell me to open up, I'm responding by yelling back,

    "I'm armed and I'm calling 911 to verify you are who you say you are. Until then, I will not open my door."

    If they come through that door before I've had time to confirm they are legitimate police officers, I'm opening fire.
    Last edited by theangryamerican; 05-18-11 at 04:43 PM.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    To my understanding TAA, this ruling wouldn't allow for them to do that. You're responding to the police by telling them you're calling 911 to verify who it is. You're perfectly within your rights to answer them and tell them they can't come in, or show you a warrant, or you're calling 911, or whatever else. The case in question is concerning instances where a person gives no response what so ever but distinct noise is heard indicating that someone is home and sounds in such a way to suggest that there's an attempt to obstruct justice going on.

    If you answer the door as you say, this ruling doesn't appear to give them the ability to bust in. If you're going to the bathroom and don't hear them/don't respond, at the very least perhaps they bust in if you happen to flush at the same time they're at the door and they believe it may you trying to remove evidence. I don't think anything would hold up in court if they knock on the door and they don't have an IMMEDIETE answer so kick down the door. To suggest that they can take action after they don't get a response suggests that ample time for a response would need to be given for it to legally occur.

  6. #16
    Guru
    The Baron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Dixie
    Last Seen
    11-26-17 @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,803

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Seems like I heard a saying once--and I'm paraphrasing here--"The Feds are at the door! Kill them! Your life is over, anyway!"

    Seems more and more appropriate all the time.

    (That also nicely ties in with what Reagan called the scariest words you will ever here are, "I'm with the government and I'm here to help".)
    "Liberalism is a doctrine fostered by a delusional and illogical people and rabidly promoted by the mainstream media and ruling elite which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." - unknown

  7. #17
    Can't stop the signal...
    theangryamerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    07-29-13 @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,233

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    To my understanding TAA, this ruling wouldn't allow for them to do that. You're responding to the police by telling them you're calling 911 to verify who it is. You're perfectly within your rights to answer them and tell them they can't come in, or show you a warrant, or you're calling 911, or whatever else. The case in question is concerning instances where a person gives no response what so ever but distinct noise is heard indicating that someone is home and sounds in such a way to suggest that there's an attempt to obstruct justice going on.

    If you answer the door as you say, this ruling doesn't appear to give them the ability to bust in. If you're going to the bathroom and don't hear them/don't respond, at the very least perhaps they bust in if you happen to flush at the same time they're at the door and they believe it may you trying to remove evidence. I don't think anything would hold up in court if they knock on the door and they don't have an IMMEDIETE answer so kick down the door. To suggest that they can take action after they don't get a response suggests that ample time for a response would need to be given for it to legally occur.
    So the criminals will just quickly learn to answer while they're stalling for time and destroying their evidence. This ruling seems to be a pretty clear violation of rights which also sets a very dangerous precedent that could easily lead to abuses, without really seeming to offer that much benefit in return.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  8. #18
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    To my understanding TAA, this ruling wouldn't allow for them to do that. You're responding to the police by telling them you're calling 911 to verify who it is. You're perfectly within your rights to answer them and tell them they can't come in, or show you a warrant, or you're calling 911, or whatever else. The case in question is concerning instances where a person gives no response what so ever but distinct noise is heard indicating that someone is home and sounds in such a way to suggest that there's an attempt to obstruct justice going on.

    If you answer the door as you say, this ruling doesn't appear to give them the ability to bust in. If you're going to the bathroom and don't hear them/don't respond, at the very least perhaps they bust in if you happen to flush at the same time they're at the door and they believe it may you trying to remove evidence. I don't think anything would hold up in court if they knock on the door and they don't have an IMMEDIETE answer so kick down the door. To suggest that they can take action after they don't get a response suggests that ample time for a response would need to be given for it to legally occur.
    But this places the ball entirely in the police's court.

    What constitutes "sounds like destroying evidence"? What constitutes "ample time"?

    I'm even more disturbed by the fact that the person arrested wasn't even a suspect they were looking for.

    It's easy to bash the guy because he's using drugs; but this opens door (no pun intended) that could lead to some very disturbing abuses of power.

  9. #19
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfoot 88 View Post
    I agree with the ruling. I have always felt the police officers have been handcuffed from searching.
    They're supposed to be. The restrictions are on the government's use of power, not the individual's exercise of rights. The State must prove its case, the State must have reasonable suspicion, etc. The police are supposed to be handcuffed from searching since they have to first establish reason to search. Not just search whomever they want, whenever they want and screw the rest of us.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #20
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    This ruling is a disaster. There are far too many legitimate reasons why a person may not answer the door immediately. They might be in the bathroom, listening to music ect. Assuming that means evidence is being destroyed is a completely outrageous assumption. For a truly absurd scenario, imagine if the police show up when you aren't home and your dog is rustling around the house. If you read the case, they even got the wrong apartment. I am even more disturbed by the fact the case was decided 8 to1 with only Ginsburg dissenting.
    And they barge in, find out they screwed the pooch, literally and it moves from there.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •