Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    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.
    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.

  2. #2
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    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.
    This is a dangerous precedent.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    This is a dangerous precedent.
    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.

  4. #4
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    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.
    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 by Councilman; 05-18-11 at 12:53 AM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    We may be under threat from more that the Radical Socialists/Marxists/Communists.
    In fact, I am pretty sure we are all on the same side this time. Olive branch.

  6. #6
    Educator shintao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    10-19-13 @ 11:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    994

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    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.
    Thats the first step in healing a con. Recognizing his own are doing him under.
    One Tin Soldier Walked Away..................

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    Quote Originally Posted by shintao View Post
    Thats the first step in healing a con. Recognizing his own are doing him under.
    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.

  8. #8
    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

    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.
    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?
    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.



  9. #9
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    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.

  10. #10
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

    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.

    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •