Skip to comments.4th Amendment Dead, SCOTUS dancing on grave
Posted on 05/16/2011 11:44:39 AM PDT by jonascord
The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements:All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may notbe issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. Although searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are pre-sumptively unreasonable, Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 403, this presumption may be overcome when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a]warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
Completely illegal and violation of our Bill of Rights. Government cannot issue or take away our birth rights that come from our Creator.
If they are allowed to get away with this, then what is next? The second amendment or the first amendment?
What does cop do??
As it turns out, the TV was on real loud because he was using his dremmel to fix a kitchen cupboard.
I don’t see the problem. This whole “freedom” thing is just an inconvenience anyway...
Wait, do I need a sarcasm tag? Or was that clear?
End of America, welcome to the Gulag Comrades.
The judicial branch of the U.S. government is at war with the citizens and the Constitution. It is time to start passing laws and amending the Constitution making it easier to boot these people out of their positions, and even jailing them for crimes against the Constitution.
Overrule a M14 in the hands of a righteously indignant citizen with a piece of paper...?
OK, all you Oath Keepers, where are you?
They federal judiciary should be called what they are, black robed terrorists.
The warrant needed to be issued by a judge who has reviewed evidence and in writing describes where a home can be searched and exactly what may be searched for. The fairness of that process is what provides safety for all parties involved, and mostly for the law enforcement officers! A properly constructed and executed search warrant written by a judge who has to comply with law, is what makes the system fair and by the consent of the governed. Once that is destroyed, the consent is gone, along with respect, civility, and give a damnedness.
More cops and people will get killed over this, but then again that would be a great excuse to scrap the second amendment as well.
more sarcasm in case people miss it:
“How are we to maintain order if the individual can keep us out of their private property?”
I don’t see the problem. They had reasonable cause to do a warrantless search even if it was the wrong apartment. Did any of you actually read the document?
What? you didn’t start shooting when they said, “You can have a gun, EXCEPT...” Why should you start now?
I posted this on another thread re; Obama’s reelection chances not so bad.
I see this coming, especially now with that pesky little Constitution thingie out of the way. This is courtesy of Mr. Jello Biafra, former lead singer of the Dead Kennedys.
We interrupt this program with a special bulletin:
America is now under martial law.
All constitutional rights have been suspended.
Stay in your homes.
Do not attempt to contact loved ones, insurance agents or attorneys.
Do not attempt to think or depression may occur.
Stay in your homes.
Curfew is at 7 PM sharp after work.
Anyone caught outside the gates of their subdivision sectors after curfew
will be shot.
Remain calm, do not panic.
Your neighborhood watch officer will be by to collect urine samples in
Anyone caught interfering with the collection of urine examples will be
Stay in your homes, remain calm.
The number one enemy of progress is questions.
National security is more important than individual will.
All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal.
No more than two people may gather anywhere without permission.
Use only the drugs prescribed by your boss or supervisor.
Shut up, be happy.
Obey all orders without question.
The comfort you’ve demanded is now mandatory.
At last everything is done for you.
I know Jello’s an anarchist, and he can certainly rant, but I remember hearing this many years ago. Never thought it’d likely come true. Enjoy......while you can.
How long until each federal district has it’s own judicial and political elite housing compound? It can’t be far off?
IOW if the gestapo fills like it
This one along with the Indiana Supreme Court ruling tipped the point. The Indiana one only affirms the worst.
There’s no such thing as private property. That would mean we can actually OWN stuff, which would mean we EARN stuff. Please. We all know that everything we have is at the whim of the gubmint.
This sounds like it came from The Onion, last person I would expect this from.
JUSTICE GINSBURG, dissenting.
The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to
dishonor the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement in
drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then
break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time
to obtain a warrant. I dissent from the Courts reduction
of the Fourth Amendments force.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees to the people [t]he
right . . . to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrants to search,
the Amendment further instructs, shall issue only upon a
showing of probable cause to believe criminal activity is
Note that Thomas concurred, and only Ginsburg dissented. That says something good.
Skimming the ruling, it seems sensible. It’s equivalent to a “Terry stop” - a warrantless search allowed on the grounds that any competent person would conclude that a crime was being committed, that it was being committed without motivation by undue threat, and that any delay in doing the search would reasonably result in destruction of evidence of any wrongdoing. To wit, there isn’t time to get a warrant, and by all expectations a warrant WOULD be granted (and WILL be retroactively).
Lower courts had developed a variety of inconsistent ways of handling the particular issue, and time has come for SCOTUS to impose a uniform standard.
Upshot: cops suspect criminal activity, knock on the door, get no answer, and hear sounds making clear evidence is being destroyed with fear and haste. Insofar as possession of contraband is a crime, of course police may thus execute a search before said contraband is destroyed and disposed.
Don’t confuse this with the other case of late, where a state (Wisconsin?) declared one may not resist an ILLEGAL search. In this case, the search is deemed legal as the only thing lacking is paperwork, which will without doubt be procured once the urgency is passed.
My inalienable rights are enforceable at my front door... if they proceed without a warrant their lives are forfeited.
Note that this does NOT protect police if they perform the warrantless search and do not find the alleged at-risk evidence.
The judicial branch of the U.S. government is at war with the citizens and the Constitution. It is time to start passing laws and amending the Constitution making it easier to boot these people out of their positions, and even jailing them for crimes against the Constitution.Agreed.
You've developed an interesting legal presumption. May the chains rest lightly on you...
I think the Supremes read too much into the case, which could be simplified as follows: “There are two doors, one of which leads to a pursued suspect, and the other of which leads to someone not involved in the ongoing pursuit.”
“Exigencies apply only to the door behind which is the pursued suspect, not to any other door, despite odors, sounds, etc. coming from behind those doors. They do not, and cannot, apply to any other door, or else the police in pursuit of a suspect and entering an apartment building have the authority to inspect each and every room behind a door, and arrest people within for unrelated criminal offenses, based on their impression that some exigency may exist behind that door.”
If the door is certain, then the exigency is certain. If the door is not certain, alleged exigency is wishful thinking.
That is all it’s going to take...
That is so very like what my father told me many, many years ago. His theory was; you really don’t own your house, or the property it sits on, because you have to pay property taxes. And when you don’t, the State (I mean this in the classical term, ie., the government) will confiscate it from you. Ergo, the State actually owns your house/property, and the property taxes you pay is your rent. Therefore, you, as a private citizen, only own your possesions (auto, lawnmower, Hummel figurines, et al).
I’ve pondered this point over the years, and I think my dad (RIP, 2008) was 100% right, in my opinion.
In the sense that it is a logical continuation down the slippery slope, you are correct.
You’re right. There’s a reason it’s called “real” estate, and it’s not because there’s anything like “fake” estate.
“Real” refers to Rey Al, IE, belonging to the king.
If the property can be taken from you for not paying taxes on said property, you’re just a glorified serf and renter.
This needs to be addressed if things ever get “re-adjusted” back to individual freedom.
1. Does a person merely "Suspected" of being a drug dealer rise to the level of allowing LEO's to follow the person to wherever and then, based upon his "Suspected" activities, proceed with the actions they took; and,
2. What exactly were the "noises" the Cops heard which led them to believe that said noise were consistent with someone trying to destroy evidence?
Unless the apartment had very hollow exterior doors and they Cops could hear someone (plainly) articulating that they should destroy the evidence and/or the bathroom was close enough to the entrance (not usually the case) then I am guessing that they used this often applied "ruse" as an excuse to exercise the forced entry.
I'm not a drug user but this "War on Drugs" is getting way out of hand and way too much time and resources are being expended thereon.
This was Pot for crying out loud; not a meth lab and having followed this suspect to wherever, I can't believe they did not have the time to get a search warrant.
Cops everywhere have to earn their keep and it's much easier to go after low level drug pushers than rapist, muggers, robbers and murderers and having at one time been a Fed Agent I can attest that many LEO's (though most draw the line at planting evidence or outright perjury) fudge facts in order to nail their suspects and close cases.
Sad, very sad and I predict it will only get worse as it appears we have turned the clock back to the time of Tricky Dick Nixon's period of extreme Law and Order at the expense of all of our rights and not only those of the bad guys.
The First Amendment has been under attack for a while now with the so called ‘Fairness Doctrine’. It is already seriously abridged by ‘hate speech’ laws and political correctness.
Soon, only ‘approved speech’ will be allowed to be broadcast.
This is the goal and the dream of the Marxist Democrats.
The only flaw in the ruling is the meaning of ‘exigent circumstances’.
There is no violation of the fourth amendment here. The police had reasonable cause, that being the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment. When they start shuffling around inside the apartment they blew it right there. That’s where the exigent circumstances come into play.
What they should have done is open the door, step out and close the door behind them.
What is the point of a Judge if Cops are the judge, jury and executioner?
I grabbed her and dragged her out of there just as there was a violent eruption of flame.
She'd been dead otherwise.
I never once thought I had made an unlawful entry. Now, if I'd been a cop or a fireman would the law have looked at that action differently and counseled them to stand aside until the fire died down and they had a warrant. After all it is unreasonable to dash into a fire to save someone's life.
It is a total spiral ending in state control of every aspect of being.... Anarchy and dissolution of form and structure on mass scale at specific point and time. This is what we do.
The only “laws” that should be “passed” are “laws” repealing former statute”.
The deeper this goes, the less people will care and act in orderly fashion. When there is a law for everything, selectively enforced, no one cares. When there is a simple mechanism that predictably enforces specific crimes all understand... People get.... nice.
We are witnessing the fall of Rome in real time.
****Note that this does NOT protect police if they perform the warrantless search and do not find the alleged at-risk evidence.****
Protect them from what, a few weeks paid administrative leave?
If they could still “step” eh!
The slippery slope is that which is criminalized, not the enforcement. Keep ‘em straight & separate.
Peter it’s called the law. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.
Cops don’t get to pick and choose the laws they do not like. Sorry everyone, and specially the police since they are the law enforcers, have to follow it.
If you let them get away with this, then it will not be long before you are target. Sorry but I STRONGLY disagree with you. I don’t care if it was to get a criminal. The cops have to play by the rules too.
These judges should be removed from the bench. They have violated their own Oath.
What do you have to hide? If you’re not doing anything wrong why are you so worried about the cops coming in?
I’m with you. Those objecting are reacting, not thinking, as they have not in fact read the ruling. It is very sensible.
Hi jonascord —
Greetings from a fellow Oklahoman. I took the time to read the 8-1 decision with Justice Ginsburg being the only dissent.
Stubborn things, facts. According to the published slip opinion: “Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside an apartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search.” Hmmm. So there was “probable cause” to enter and detain, and they did.
Frankly, I do believe there are times when the dark forces of crime and evil will use the Constitution as a sword, and not a shield. In the entirety of judicial thought and history, bad guys should not be able to “hide” their nefarious activities in the manner that these alleged criminals did in Kentucky. There are some circumstances that are indeed exigent. This was one of them.
That is not to say that every intrusion upon the rights of an individual will be cavalierly disregarded. They will always be the avenue of being scrutinized by the courts, as occurred in this case. And, if there is a violation of rights, there will be Hell to pay!
I’ve read different things on the etymology of the term, but in any event, when you are compelled (through the force of law) to pay a tax on something you “own”, and if this something can be take away from you, again, through the force of law, the status of being an “owner” becomes rather questionable.
I agree, it needs to be addressed, but I’ll be looking out my 3rd floor window for the magic, Skittles defecating unicorn soaring over the rainbow before I expect so serious an issue to be considered.
I’d ask the same thing of the cops that don’t want to be videoed while they are performing their duties -
if you’re doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?
payoffs and physical abuse...err they are protecting their informants and tactics.
This is like that South Park joke! Scream "He's coming straight for us!" just before you shoot... Except, no one is laughing.
Try "flushing" 10 kilos of crack. Even if he managed it, you've stopped all that drug use, bankrupted him, destroyed his plumbing, buzzed a few thousand fish, and not broken the Bill of Rights. Is some pissy "arrest" so valuable? I just hope some 'roided cop hears your TV...
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.