Supreme Court considers police searches

ap on Yahoo ^ | 11/08/05 | Gina Holland - ap

[AuH2ORepublican]

"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."

Please note that these are two separate clauses, the first protecting against unreasonable searches, and the second imposing strict conditions before a warrant may be issued. The 4th Amendment does not require that warrants be issued before a search may be undertaken. The Founders hated warrants, since they would allow the police to escape liability in a civil suit, so they added the Warrant Clause to make it difficult for the police to obtain warrants.

[Clemenza]

Ever hear of something called warrants? Good forbid the cops bust into your house and destroy property someday in a case of mistaken identity (happened to a neighbor of mind years ago).

[Antonello]

Unless there are unusual circumstances, I don't see how one person can waive the privacy rights of another.

Would the fact that the one saying 'yes' was the reporting victim in a domestic disturbance call and the one saying 'no' was the alleged suspect be considered 'unusual circumstances' to you?

[Clemenza]

I can't stand the "law and order" freaks. I always suspect that they have leather parties with posters of Ernst Rohm and Rudy Giuliani on the wall.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right against searches and seizures without a warrant."

---

No it doesn't. Re-read the amendment, or at least read my post #41.

Conservatives should not swallow the tripe fed to us by liberal judges who confused unreasonable searches with warrantless searches.

The question should be whether it is a reasonable search to search a suspect's house when his estranged wife lets the cops in but after he said he didn't want them in. And that's a really good question. But the absense of a warrant should not even be part of the analysis.

[Wormwood]

Please take my rights, I wasn't using them anyway.

[Renegade]

I have nothing to hide and still would tell cops to stay the hell out of my house . Remember, the court's decision came down last month that it is not the police departments job to protect you .

[GeorgiaDawg32]

my point exactly..

[Tench_Coxe]

Perhaps if the police acted like a collection agency, continuing to pester the homeowner until they get an angry " yes, da**it " at 4 AM should be acceptable.

[Atlas Sneezed]

...Thomas Goldstein, the lawyer for Scott Randolph, said it would have taken police only five minutes to get a judge's approval over the telephone for a search warrant...

---

Then they should DO this.

[Antonello]

I have nothing to hide and still would tell cops to stay the hell out of my house .

If someone else was living in your house and called police to report that you were assaulting them, and then when the police showed up they invited them in, you shouldn't have the option of blocking the police from assisting the victim.

[tet68]

And why wasn't SHE charged?
Possession isn't proved just cause she says,"It's his!".

A competent lawyer should have a field day with this one.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Even in a case where the wife is the reporting victim and the husband is the suspect?

---

If the wife is a reporting victim, then she can tell the police enough to get them probable cayuse for a search warrant without the husband's consent. It might even create exigent circumstances that make a warrant unnecessary. ("He has our daughter tied up in the basement")

[AuH2ORepublican]

"I can't stand the "law and order" freaks. I always suspect that they have leather parties with posters of Ernst Rohm and Rudy Giuliani on the wall."

---

I always thought that Elisabeth Rohm was very attractive when she played the Assistant DA on "Law & Order." But I guess that's not what you're talking about. : )

I'm no "law and order freak," but I hate the fact that liberal judges have "rewritten" the Constitution to (i) force cops to get warrants when their search would be perfectly reasonable and (ii) exclude evidence from a trial if it was collected in a warrantless search (like keeping a murderer on the streets makes our persons and property "safer" as promised by the 4th Amendment).

[GrandEagle]

Amendment IV The US Constitution

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.

Now that is the most creative way around the Constitution I've ever seen. Why break the clause there? Lets back up a comma to ,"shall not be violated". That way there is no prohibition of the violation against unreasonable searches and seizure.

[Antonello]

Then they should DO this.

Yeah, require the police to give a five minute head start to suspects after they become aware that a search is about to take place so they can dispose of evidence.

The police entered and searched in good faith that they were legitimately invited, in a situation where they knew a warrant would be issued if necessary. That makes this clearly a situation of inevitable discovery.

[5Madman2]

Tough case. If the wife was a documented victim of domestic violence, consented to the entry, then the cops accepted the husbands "No", there would be serious liability problems for the cops if she was subsequently injured.

Then again, the husband had a right to not consent to a search of his domicile.

If the evidence was in plain view, the police were lawfully in the house due to the wifes consent, and anything they saw in plain view was fair game under present case law-this article is unclear on if that happened.

If she led them to a location and identified it as having contraband (Drugs), then exigent circumstances may apply, and the police can execute the search based on the probable cause statement of the wife, and the exigent circumstances provided by the possibility that the evidence would be destroyed/lost while trying to get the warrant.

The probable cause used for the exigent circumstances would need to be the same as that needed for the warrant. In other words, given the time to get a warrant, could they have proven probable cause

Once again, the article doesn't give a clear view of what happened so that case law can be applied, just outlining the possibilities of what was applied, and why

[Melas]

I don't want the police invading a home anytime they like, but when they are being told there is contraband inside a home, and are being asked to retrieve the contraband, that they should have to still wait and ask every occupant of the home if it is okay or not.

I see your problem already. The police don't need to ask each and every occupant if it's ok to search. The police only need to ask a single judge. We could toss out ALL warrantless searches and not hurt anything.

[Clemenza]

I disagree with you on point (i). Making warrants difficult to get was the intent of the founders. As for point (ii), my heart may want me to say "yes" and allow such evidence, but my brain tells me that there is no excuse for shoddy police work from the donut brigade.

[pyx]

The case could be so close that it comes down to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. If her successor is confirmed before the ruling is announced, her vote will not count.

FUD !
Better pick a LEFTIST or you'll be sorry.

according to the LEFTISTS at the AP.