Posted on 10/06/2004 5:49:39 AM PDT by Sertorius
NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.
Leaders in law enforcement say it will keep officers safe, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.
(Excerpt) Read more at theneworleanschannel.com ...
don't think that will pass muster in under the US Constitution.
What a totally misleading and dishonest headline. The facts are that in this case the police officers were given permission to enter and search the home. Why people think you still need a search warrant when consent to search has been given, is beyond me. From the article:
"When officers went to question Gould, they were told he was asleep. The officers asked if they could look inside for Gould, and were allowed to enter.
The officers testified that that they believed a search of the home was necessary to ensure their safety, given the allegations by Gould's employee and Gould's criminal history, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling."
I wouldn't have thought abrogation of free speech (i.e., "campaign finance reform) would have passed muster, either. Or property searches justified not by a judge, but by the law enforcement dept. who wants to search ("admininistrative warrants"). Or "delayed warrants," where the searchee is not notified until much later (if at all) that a search or seizure took place. Or confiscation of property before the accused is convicted of anything. Or confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. Or....?
Be gentle, it's his first day. :)
I wouldn't have thought abrogation of free speech (i.e., "campaign finance reform) would have passed muster, either. Or property searches justified not by a judge, but by the law enforcement dept. who wants to search ("admininistrative warrants"). Or "delayed warrants," where the searchee is not notified until much later (if at all) that a search or seizure took place. Or confiscation of property before the accused is convicted of anything. Or confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. Or....?
Yep, it is pretty sad, huh? The Constitution does not expressly require a warrant, only that searches not be "unreasonable." Nevertheless, I doubt that the Supreme Court will change its mind about this.
The surprise to me is that the La. courts apparently did not think it was unconstitutional.
Please use the original title when posting articles to assist in preventing duplicate postings. Thanks.
. . . under that screenname.
When I first saw the headline, I took the article to some officers that work in my building, and they were shocked by the ruling.
After the court overturned the gay marriage ban, that reminded me of this article. That is why I brought it up again. I am not an expert on law. That is why I signed up on FREEP
My first day under any screen name. Have enjoyed reading articles supplied by free republic and I wanted to join in.
Welcome!
Doesn't this mean a warrant is required?
You're right, it does mention a warrant, and the Court has required a warrant in most cases, but the language doesn't actually say that a warrant is required--only that one won't issue except on probable cause.
There are exceptions to the warrant requirement, though, even in the S.Ct.'s opinions.
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.
Doesn't this mean a warrant is required?
Nope. You see that adjective there - "unreasonable"?
Going back to original intent (instead of socialist "Living Constitution" BS) is the way to interpret the Fourth Amendment.
This New Orleans decision will be struck down, and if it isn't, then the Fourth Amendment has no practical value in deterring warrantless searches and/or those without probable cause (NOT "reasonable suspicion", that's a loophole you could drive a truck through.)
In other words, if this decision stands, it will be Tyrannical, in my opinion, and in the opinion of millions of other Americans who know exactly what the Fourth Amendment means.
And these same Americans also know what the SECOND Amendment means, and what the "living constitution" socialists try to make it mean.
So, to summarize, the Fourth Amendment will ultimately be backed up by the Second, if the We The People, find it necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.