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.
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?
IOW if the gestapo fills like it
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.
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.
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.
What is the point of a Judge if Cops are the judge, jury and executioner?
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!
8-to-1 decision. Only Ginsburg dissented.
It started even before the TSA illegal searches....acting without stereotyping—treating men, women and children as criminals and demeaning them in public displays. Treating human beings as herded animals at best and pretending as if there is no muslim group out to destroy the US—in fact, refusing to name islam as a cause for the killing and destroying that is occurring everyday around the world. Refusing to do what other nations always do—profile—which is just common sense.
Logic and reason is the basis of our legal system—and they are destroying logic—as all the Progressives since Oliver Wendell Holmes have been doing to our legal system....stripping it of logic and reason and all morality....and basing our laws on the arbitrary whims of minority groups who buy the influence through lobbies. Unequal justice—power of some groups over others....unequal law is unconstitutional.
Our legal system is bought and paid for by Marxists who are destroying all aspects of Just Law....to destroy the Republic....just like noted by Cicero in the destruction of the Republic of Rome....when laws became meaningless and based on the whims and notions separated from Natural Law Theory—common sense.
Allowing “police” to invade citizens homes is a fundamental violation of equality and law and an invasion of private property.....although, Marxists abhor private property rights.....they should not be allowed to be judges and lawyers in our legal system since they can not truthfully take the oath of office.
It is like these people allowing Sharia Law—under our Constitution????? Why would we allow Communists to be judges on our Courts (Ginsberg, Sotomeyer, etc.)? It lacks all logic and is what is destroying our “Rule of Law”. They operate with a worldview that is incompatible with our Constitution. As long as our Constitution is the Law of the Land, they need to be removed because they will not uphold it. How can we allow them not to be impeached?