Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court: No exclusionary rule for no-knock searches

Posted on 06/15/2006 7:53:40 AM PDT by NinoFan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-277 next last
To: sinkspur
Too many on this thread are militia types who get their information in the middle of the night from shortwave goofballs.

Exactly.

241 posted on 06/15/2006 5:08:31 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
It's your fault you live in a place where police can't get it right.

I had to read this twice. Are you actually making this statement? You're literally saying that it's the victim's fault if they happen to live somewhere with an abusive police force?

...

My God. This is chilling.

242 posted on 06/15/2006 5:09:24 PM PDT by OOPisforLiberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: I still care
It's right next to the separation of church and state clause. Near the right to abortion amendment.

Oh, OK, I missed it......rme. ;^)

243 posted on 06/15/2006 5:09:29 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Right, but how often are search warrants issued for people suspected of just being law-abiding citizens?

I would guess legally the answer would be never because no judge can legally grant a warrant for no reason.

244 posted on 06/15/2006 5:25:52 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: OOPisforLiberals
You're literally saying that it's the victim's fault if they happen to live somewhere with an abusive police force?

I'm saying the previous poster is likely taking one incident and blowing it out of proportion.

Maybe you ought to invest in some Kevlar if you're so scared.

245 posted on 06/15/2006 5:28:57 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary
You mean the police were required to knock first?

Yes they actually should and announce over a bull horn POLICE. They should be in Patrol Uniform Only.

What's the point?

The point is so you me or whoever who might be asleep and awaken to someone crashing down the door that it is in fact the police. I can go to a mall and get a black Tee shirt and hat that says Police. Now can I come in to your home without knocking? Get my point?

To give criminals time to hide evidence?

To give an elderly person who may be innocent in this and the wrong address time to say wait one minute.

If no one was home did that mean the police couldn't enter the premises?

Police are requested to search my home in event of no response for medical purposes BUT that is my permission to give them.

What an insanity!

Really it is because just 6 or more years ago most persons in hear would be screaming bloody murder about how Jack Boot Thugs under the Clinton Administration abuses police power. But to some if it's their political party dishing out the abuse of power to them that's just fine. I was against no knock raids before GW Bush and his USSC Justices picks and I'm against such now. I was against them when Clinton was in office.

Make them act like cops. Take away all the so called necessary tools they swear they must have to do their duty and make them do things properly. Cease and desist with unmarked car traffic stops. A rapist dream. No unmarked police car should ever be allowed to initiate a traffic stop. Next. Except for SWAT operations in hostage situations take away fatigues and black Ninja uniforms. Any Clown can obtain such very cheap. A Patrol Uniform however cost a lot more.

The officer who swears a warrant {the accuser} should be required to be present to serve such. I know they have a time with certain criminals. Well plenty of jobs are rough. They can still use plain clothes for undercover work etc. But a lot of the militarization of the police departments needs to be stopped. If they wanna play soldier wearing black suits or fatigues then they should join the Army or USMC. I feel it is not asking too much for cops to wear uniforms. I think doing so would lessen mistakes.

246 posted on 06/15/2006 5:30:09 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Hmm


247 posted on 06/15/2006 5:47:46 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

do your own research, I am not here to hold your hand. The statements are factual. You disprove them if that is what you want to do. What are you waiting on?


248 posted on 06/15/2006 5:51:19 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Sorry Mr. Jefferson, we forfeited the God given rights you all put to pen. We have no excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
do your own research, I am not here to hold your hand.

You asserted it, you prove it.

The statements are factual.

Then provide proof.

You disprove them if that is what you want to do.

There is a reason why the prosecution must prove its case, but the defense does not need to prove a negative case. Unless, of course, you want that overturned, and that you must prove your innocence when accused.

What are you waiting on?

I'm waiting on the proof. Exact figures to support your claims, please.

249 posted on 06/15/2006 5:54:09 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

Uhh... yes. That's what I said too.


250 posted on 06/15/2006 5:55:21 PM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: OOPisforLiberals

Very well said.

bttt


251 posted on 06/15/2006 5:57:44 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Sorry Mr. Jefferson, we forfeited the God given rights you all put to pen. We have no excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

The only question to be asked at this junction is which islamic jihad are you associated with? The taliban?

And so you know, no true conservatives are buying into any of your propaganda.


252 posted on 06/15/2006 6:07:34 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Sorry Mr. Jefferson, we forfeited the God given rights you all put to pen. We have no excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
The only question to be asked at this junction is which islamic jihad are you associated with?

I guess that you're conceding that you do not have the evidence to back up your assertions.

You would not want to live in a world where one would be required to prove a negative (because it is logically impossible). You would not want to have to prove that you were not guilty, because you'd never succeed.

253 posted on 06/15/2006 6:09:54 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

If I bring you the evidence,( and you know full well it exists) you still won't change your pigheaded mind.so why should I bother. I'm not here to humor you. Who the heck do you think you are? You could be Bin Laden for all we know?


254 posted on 06/15/2006 6:17:01 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Sorry Mr. Jefferson, we forfeited the God given rights you all put to pen. We have no excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

Maybe you missed your calling?


255 posted on 06/15/2006 6:32:30 PM PDT by DugwayDuke (Stupidity can be a self-correcting problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Sure. 42 USC 1983.


256 posted on 06/15/2006 6:34:04 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: supercat

I would propose specific laws that required police, DAs and others to hold those who commit errors in the collection of evidence as negligent, with ranges of penalties depending on how aggregious the error was and how high-up the knowledge and approval of the error went, from suspensions, with and without pay, dismissals, loss of pensions, permanent disability to ever again work in law enforcement and disbarment for those in the legal profession.

Root out the violators, keep the evidence.


257 posted on 06/15/2006 6:37:47 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

Are you serious?

I'm citing to you from the dadgum opinion. That's what Breyer said; you said he didn't mention the common law, but my God, there it is in the opinion, as plain as the nose on your face. I'm sorry that the original poster didn't bother to read or comprehend it. You're even worse: you read it, and then yet still act obtuse.

Look, this issue is just undeniable. There is 400 years of history backing up the knock and announce rule. It's part of the Constitution. Breyer thinks so, Scalia thinks so, Thomas thinks so. Really, there is pretty much no one anywhere that has any knowledge of Anglo-American law that thinks it's not a right.


258 posted on 06/15/2006 6:38:05 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can use evidence collected with a warrant even if officers fail to knock before rushing into a home.

About once a month my police officer friend is on a task force that, by anonymous tip, goes to residences, knocks on the door, tells the occupants that suspicious illegal activity has been reported, could they come in?...9 times out of 10 they're allowed in with their drug dogs and 9 times out of 10 there are arrests, not always for drugs.

259 posted on 06/15/2006 6:45:35 PM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

I have a police officer friend who does the same thing every month or so. The task force operating on an anonymous tip goes to the residence and tells the occupants that there is a report that guns are in the area. They ask is they can come for a look. 9 out 10 occupants comply. 6 out of 10 times guns are confiscated.


260 posted on 06/15/2006 6:58:31 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Sorry Mr. Jefferson, we forfeited the God given rights you all put to pen. We have no excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson