• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

reefedjib

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

The justices said that the Fourth Amendment bars unreasonable searches, and here the police acted reasonably. Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito noted that when occupants respond to a police knock on the door, they are not required to grant police permission to enter their homes. But, he said, if there is no response, and police hear movement inside that suggests destruction of evidence, they are justified in breaking in.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pzycho said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a dangerous precedent.
 
jamesrage said:
This is a dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

We need to organize all of DP to fight this. I will tell you right now that the Modern Whig Party of Virginia has found a Casus belli.

How can we fight this? What would it take to get this stricken and clarified, no remote sensing without a warrant.
 
What the hell is this we had rights once, that included the:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

Who changed this.


We may be under threat from more that the Radical Socialists/Marxists/Communists.


It's time to make some serious changes to restore America.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
We may be under threat from more that the Radical Socialists/Marxists/Communists.
Click to expand...

In fact, I am pretty sure we are all on the same side this time. Olive branch.
 
Councilman said:
What the hell is this we had rights once, that included the:

Who changed this.


We may be under threat from more that the Radical Socialists/Marxists/Communists.


It's time to make some serious changes to restore America.
Click to expand...

Thats the first step in healing a con. Recognizing his own are doing him under.
 
shintao said:
Thats the first step in healing a con. Recognizing his own are doing him under.
Click to expand...

Hey! Do not start that bull**** in my thread! This affects us all gravely. Comport yourself appropriately.

Only one justice dissented. This is orthogonal to traditional, simplistic binary political classification. In fact, this goes beyond politics. This is about protected rights as spelled out in the constitution being pillaged.

Unless, of course, there are some political stripes that agree with this decision.
 
The case came from Lexington, Ky., where police pursuing a drug suspect banged on the door of an apartment where they thought they smelled marijuana. After loudly identifying themselves, police heard movement inside, and suspecting that evidence was being destroyed, kicked in the door. There they found Hollis Deshaun King, smoking marijuana. Police also found cocaine inside the apartment.

As it turned out, King was not the suspect police had been looking for, but the drug evidence in the apartment was more than enough to charge him with multiple crimes. King was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Click to expand...
Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches : NPR

It is unreasonable that the police busted a scumbag druggie. Horrible! I mean how can druggies expect to get high if the police are gonna come around, bashing in doors all over the place?
 
If a police officer has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed, then they have the right to stop that crime. I agree with this ruling.
 
Yeah, I don't think hearing at a door after announcing they're outside is a an unreasonable search. To me that would be like if a police officer pulled someone over for speeding and as they walked up to the car heard muffled sounds and thudding coming from the trunk.

Change it from pot smoking...and god knows, we must fight back against the government when they do anything to our precious pot!...to hearing sounds of a woman screaming in pain and a gun shot. Well, obviously we shouldn't have the police go in then...they were unconstitutionally hearing that scream and gun shot by remote sensing. :roll:

By knocking and alerting the people inside that they're at the door then they're making it perfectly aware to the person that they would be able to hear normal noise that anyone would hear through a doorway. If they were using some kind of super secret listening device at the door...I'd agree with you. But they were simply hearing what was happening while they were going through normal business of making themselves known. To me, there's nothing unconstitutional about that.

If they had rule that, if you answer the door and deny the cops entry they can then bust down your door...then I'd be all up in arms with you. But to me, its not unreasonable to suggest that a citizen should respond to a law enforcement officer. That doesn't mean they have to comply beyond what the law states....such as allowing said officer in the house...but tehy should at least have to respond to them. Not opening the door to me is kind of like just continuing to drive when the lights flick on behind you in the car. So when there's clear and obvious noises in the house that someone is home, and its been ample time to show that said person is not coming to open the door or respond to the police, I think its perfectly reasonable to suggest said individual is attempting to impede the investigation in some fashion be it evading arrest, destroying evidence, or some other sort of act.

Sorry, I don't see a grand injustice going on here.
 
pzycho said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd be ok with it if it's also reasonable to shoot the cops as they illegally enter your home.
 
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.
 
I agree with the ruling. I have always felt the police officers have been handcuffed from searching.
 
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:
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.
 
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".)
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
I agree with the ruling. I have always felt the police officers have been handcuffed from searching.
Click to expand...

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.
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

And they barge in, find out they screwed the pooch, literally and it moves from there.
 
Zyphlin said:
god knows, we must fight back against the government when they do anything to our precious pot!
Click to expand...

You're Darn Tootin'

monkey_glasses.jpg
 
This is why the ruling is bad
Criminal law experts said the ruling will undoubtedly lead to more warrantless searches like this one. In practice, says George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg, the decision means that "whenever the police have suspicion that there is drug activity going on in a particular apartment or house and they knock and they hear movement inside and any reasonable delay in opening the door, they are going to break it in."
Click to expand...

Seems the court didn't rule narrowly enough.

Its not surprising at all that only self discribed conservatives are ok with this. I'm going to laugh if they break into your house while you are having sex or are on the jon.
 
Last edited:
The police have been allowed to break doors down without warrants on felons for years, so this is just an extension of that power & loss of freedoms.

It fits my long held statement; "Everytime you take away someone else's freedoms, you have just limited your own."

I can't think of a situation that couldn't be handled outside of the home, or requires a cop risking his life breaking in. How about setting off a charge on the sewer clean out before attempting to serve the warrant? That way you trap anything he trys to flush. In any event, there are ways to deal with drugs without stealing citizen rights and putting them in threatening situations.
 
Last edited:
DO you folks know how cops will abuse this!?!?!? Now people arent even safe in their OWN HOMES!!! This nation is becoming a police state and a giant bucket of crap! People probably have MORE freedom in Russia now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom