- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,762
- Reaction score
- 1,619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
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.
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.
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.