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 ...
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.
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.