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

To: Sioux-san
The decision involved a domestic where one party said for them to enter, the 2nd party said no. The police really have no choice but to enter. According to the information provided, the homeowner immediately assaulted the officer and was arrested.
The Judge here is trying to say that an officer does have authority to enter into your home. After the entry you have the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy but not at the time of the entry.
The 4th amendment states that we are secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Who decides when it is unreasonable?

The courts have held in many decisions that it is up to the courts to determine reasonableness. So, if only the courts can determine reasonableness, what makes you, the individual think you can? You have no constitutional or legal basis to make that decision.

If an officer makes an illegal entry you can sue the officer and or sue the agency if it is improper. If the officer clearly illegally enters your home you can have him criminally charged as well as seek civil relief. If he does actually violate your civil rights you can have him charged federally.

So, tell me again where our 4th amendment rights have been diminished? I think the courts clearly spelled out the time and place for the challenge (courts) and how, in a civilized society, you should behave.

If there was no recourse for relief as mentioned above, then I would say our 4th amendment rights have been diminished. Otherwise this is just grandstanding without thinking.

15 posted on 05/25/2011 5:04:49 PM PDT by midcop402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: midcop402
If there was no recourse for relief as mentioned above, then I would say our 4th amendment rights have been diminished. Otherwise this is just grandstanding without thinking.

You cheated...you actually looked at the facts of the case and the opinion! NO FAIR! ;-)

17 posted on 05/25/2011 5:12:45 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: midcop402
The decision involved a domestic where one party said for them to enter, the 2nd party said no.

From Page 2, 3rd paragraph:
Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, "don‘t do this" and "just let them in."

The police really have no choice but to enter.

Really? They were not invited. The court admits as much.
Best advice here: treat law enforcement like vampires.
Because it can never help. [Even the police agree.]

50 posted on 05/25/2011 6:58:29 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

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