Great advice...
better if you have "respect" for the Word of Law.
Posted on 05/16/2011 10:01:20 PM PDT by Fitzy_888
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.
Voting 8-1, the justices reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King's apartment.
The court said there was no violation of King's constitutional rights because the police acted reasonably. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
Officers knocked on King's door in Lexington and thought they heard noises that indicated whoever was inside was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.
Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that people have no obligation to respond to the knock or, if they do open the door, allow the police to come in. In those cases, officers who wanted to gain entry would have to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant.
But Alito said, "Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame."
In her dissent, Ginsburg said her colleagues were giving police an easy way to routinely avoid getting warrants in drug cases.
"Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant," she said.
The case concerned exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement that police need a warrant to enter a home.
The issue was whether warrantless entry was justified after the officers' knock on the door triggered a reaction inside that sounded like the destruction of evidence.
An odd set of facts led to Monday's ruling.
Police were only at King's apartment building because they were chasing a man who sold cocaine to a police informant. The man entered King's building and ducked into an apartment. The officers heard a door slam in a hallway, but by the time they were able to look down it, they saw only two closed doors.
They didn't know which one the suspect had gone through, but, smelling burnt pot, chose the apartment on the left.
In fact, the suspect had gone into the apartment on the right. Police eventually arrested him, too, but prosecutors later dropped charges against him for reasons that were not explained in court papers.
Exactly. When have the police ever been in hot pursuit of a suspect to his house/apartment and then needed to enter before evidence is destroyed? Those two parts of the sequence just don’t fit together, any more than do “Justice” and “Department”.
I find it more than offensive that, according to SCOTUS, I am to assume that anyone breaking down my door is a police officer.
“Follows a judgement by Wisconsin that the police can come into anyone’s home without a warrant.”
Indiana, not Wisconsin.
Black robed Terrorists! That’s what most of the judiciary is these days. Terrorists!!
we r screwed...
remind me why we vote again ???
you forgot the ‘paid administrative leave’...
The more I see Liberals *and* Conservatives in action, the more I believe the Libertarians have it right.
I am not sure what to make of this case. It reminds me of the TV show Cops.
If you ever suspect you are a suspect in a crime, be very careful to understand your rights and what the police can do to get you concvicted. The police can say almost anything they want to you, tell you any lie, anything to get you to confess. They can tell you they have physical evidence that proves it was you, tell you that all your friends and family turned you in, and that they are your only friend now to help you.
While they can legally tell you any lie, if you contradict yourself while talking to them that in itself is a crime even if they cant prove the crime they are actually investigating.
If they dont arrest you they cant detain you. If they do you ask for a lawyer.
Threads like this make me want to change my tagline to “And what are you doing about it?”
Or my freepname to “Just Another Hotdogging Keyboarder.”
Butno! We are a Greek chorus blaming SCOTUS & POTUS rather than recognizing the flaw in the people who elected him and who enable the thanatizing of the nation.
POTUS? We are all POTUS. Pillowers of Terminal Uncle Sam.
Instead of torches and pitchforks, we attend the event with candles and feelgood songs.
And of course our keyboarding fingers.
Rant over. Resume doing nothing whatsoever.
Free speech is dying also. Don’t dare read the Bible in a public place. Of course, if you want to preach jihad against America on the New York street corner your rights are protected. America continues the slide downward.
in all fairness sick, just how do you employ those 'Rights' when theyre at the door and demandin that you do what they say anyways ??? according to alito, the victim didnt resist in the proper fashion, so oh well, you lose...
If they dont arrest you they cant detain you. If they do you ask for a lawyer.
unless you have AV beamed to a remote location, its gettin to a point where its he said/she said...and the cop wins most of those since youre evidently a criminal, or they wouldnt be there in the first place...
comes a point where my havin to 'get a lawyer' to fight some bogus charge will take food outta the kids mouths, then just *maybe* officer friendlys family will hafta do without...officer friendly...
Lawyers are educated to protect the system, not the constitution!!!
Opinion - Alito
Dissent - Ginsberg
I haven't digested these myself. I'm stunned at the prospect of agreeing with Ginsberg about anything.
Looking at the facts of the case. There was nothing at all that would have prevented the police from simply knocking on the doors in question, like any civilized person would. Of course civility is something we really don't expect from police any more.
If the 4th Amendment is on life support or DOA my money is on the 5th and 2nd next for their target for termination.
Funny, if warrant less searches are now valid hasn’t a court just invalidated a major section of the Bill of Rights. Why do we now need the FISA courts? If a branch of government is out of control there are measures in the Constitution to rein them in provided the other branches have the courage to use them.
I have been pro-LEO all my life. My uncle is a retired cop of 30+ yrs. and brother in law currently a cop of 20+ yrs. However, at some point leo’s are going to have to decide who’s side they are on. Being a police officer is a fine and honorable profession, some of the best people I have ever known.
We are fast approaching a line in the realm of civil liberties and the police where individual officers are going to have to make some hard choices. Do they cross it? If they do they will become our version of the gestapo or KGB to be scorned and hated. I hope each officer will remember the oath they swore to the Constitution and act accordingly.
Great advice...
better if you have "respect" for the Word of Law.
I think this may be the first time ever that I’ve agreed with Ginsburg.
>I haven’t digested these myself. I’m stunned at the prospect of agreeing with Ginsberg about anything.
There was another case, where it was Ginsburg and [IIRC] Sotomayor that gave sensible dissent.
Something is MAJORLY f—ed up when the ‘looniest’ Justices are the most Constitutional... and, I think, it points to just how lawless the USSC (and the Government in-general) has become.
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.