Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Delhi Dog
climber
Good Question...
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 11:29am PT
|
The camel is following its' head.
cheers,
DD
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 11:31am PT
|
I'm going to get the biggest, meanest dog on the planet, dress up in a cop uniform and stand just out of its bite range--then have some dudes dressed as cops beat the living shite out of it every day, until it attacks cops at will and for the fun of it. "
Come on in officer, don't mind the dog, he growls at everyone..."
This dog WILL always be an inside house-dog...
Been re-reading the case/story over and over, still can't believe it--get ready for the upcoming Police State of fear
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 11:35am PT
|
The Supreme Court voted 8-1 on this ruling, very surprising.
Police State? Naw, never happen here. This is the US of A.
|
|
Pennsylenvy
Gym climber
A dingy corner in your refrigerator
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 11:39am PT
|
And in other news a local sherrif who has been harassing our hamlet for license plate lights out (to obtain access to your vehicle) has been fired for repeated sexual harrassment incidents. Problem here is we've been giving bad cops more power as well as good ones and they run with it.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 11:40am PT
|
One should never assume that the Supreme Court is the only branch of Government untouched by corruption, and influence...
Question everything
|
|
hairyapeman
Trad climber
1.5 hours from Yosemite!!!
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 11:41am PT
|
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 11:45am PT
|
Okay, hairyapeman, since you asked so politely...
I find it highly dubious that the court rules 8-1 against property owners on a MISTAKE by law enforcement officers
|
|
hairyapeman
Trad climber
1.5 hours from Yosemite!!!
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 11:50am PT
|
I find it interesting that people have to share there stupid political BS on a rock climbing forum!!!!!!
Go here http://www.politicalforum.com/ and post all you want!
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 12:03pm PT
|
damn, you mean there's still marijuana on the loose in the u.s.a.? i thought that substance was under control.
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 12:05pm PT
|
Everyone take a deep breath. Warrantless searches were ok long before this opinion. This opinion really does not change much; it changes how courts should analyze exigent circumstances cases, and which test applies.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 12:07pm PT
|
atcha..
You agree though, that the ruling from the SC stemmed from an appeal based on an error by LEOs?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 12:10pm PT
|
i'll bite...
the ruling appears to me to simply uphold the idea of "probable cause"
if we look at the specific case before the court, we know the cops witnessed a drug deal, saw the dealer run into an apartment building, knew the suspect was in one of two apartments, identified the smell of marijuana coming from one (the wrong one) apartment, knocked and identified themselves, heard sounds they suspected to be an attempt to hide/destroy evidence, then broke down the door
this is not a case of rogue cops randomly breaking down doors nor a ruling that permits cops to randomly break down doors; the cops must have--and PROVE in court--probable cause; if the cops can prove probable cause, then any evidence they find is admissable in court
in fact, and this is the key, scotus left it up to the kentucky supreme court to re-examine the case and determine for themselves if "probable cause" existed...in other words, the kentucky supreme court can still rule that no such exigency existed, rendering the evidence inadmissable
here's a scenario: the cops witness a drug deal and the dealer driving away in a red bmw; they pursue the suspect around the corner where they see two red bmws parked in the driveways of two houses across the street from each other; they choose one house, knock and identify themselves and hear a child scream and noises that sound like a struggle; they break in to find a child molester who was filming himself having sex with a 9-year-old...inadmissable evidence? let the child rapist go free?
yes, yes, yes, i know there are bad cops who will try to use this ruling to cover their bad behavior; however, i believe that most cops are good and will try to do their jobs within the law
|
|
Guck
Trad climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 12:16pm PT
|
The Justices were bought by the Medical Marijuana Lobbyists!
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 01:03pm PT
|
I haven't read the case and just skimmed the news report, but the holding is unsurprising, which is consistent with it being an 8-1 decision.
The title of this thread is misleading as there in no constitutional prohibition against warrantless searches, only against unreasonable searches. Check out "exigent circumstances" or "search incident to a lawful arrest" as buzzwords for examples of when searches are indisputably proper without a warrant. As another example, which is not relevant to this case but again shows there is no absolute requirement for a warrant, what do you think happens when you get on airplane?
It's fine for nonlawyers to have opinions on legal subjects, but you might want to do at least a little basic research before getting worked up about something.
Edit--not sure what point Coot thinks he's making below and this isn't worth a bump, but what he quotes is entirely consistent with what I wrote above. By the way, this isn't rocket science here--these are very basic principles of American law that aren't reasonably disputable by any knowledge person, whether liberal or conservative. (That's not to say the specific outcome in the case can't be disputed--of course it can, as evidenced by the fact that one of the nine justices would have reached a difference conclusion.)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 01:16pm PT
|
If all LEOs had perfect integrity and honesty, this wouldn't be as much concern as it is.
The way this stands, a "Creative" law enforcer, Like Fatty might have been, can always just say "I smelled weed, knocked on the door and heard scampering noises, so I broke the door down with no warrant" Never mind that weed is hardly something police should be breaking doors down for.
It's better for society if Police power has limits. Wanna save some money on the budget? Stop throwing so many people in prison for drug offenses. It cost big bucks and wrecks lives, all for substances that are often less harmful than the Alcohol and tobacco that society embraces.
Peace
Karl
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 01:27pm PT
|
Karl,
I generally agree with what you wrote, but I'm not sure it's fair to criticize police for enforcing laws, even if you (and perhaps the police themselves) think the laws are dumb. The police don't make or unmake laws--that's the legislature's role.
How would you like it is police stopped enforcing laws based on their own interpretations of what's good for society--maybe an Islamic police officer wouldn't enforce domestic violence laws because he thinks a certain amount of domestic violence is permissible? That's not the cops' call to make.
Also, this decision doesn't necessarily give police who lie significantly more power than they already have--how do you think police gets warrants (answer--the just present their "evidence," that is, their say-so, to a magistrate). A cop who is willing to lie can cause a lot of trouble regardless of the relatively arcane rules surrounding the 4th Amendment.
Edit:
Are you a lawyer, blahblah? Just thinking how to charge clients for time I'm spending typing on Supertopo as we speak.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 01:35pm PT
|
It just seemed like a flushing toilet was not probable cause in the past and now it is.
Make sure you don't flush after the cops identify themselves at the door or your screwed.
Then again, this will be unimportant until they break down the door of a house where no one is committing as crime. Then the sh#t will hit the fan.
The best option is to not commit crime. Second option is to not flush the toilet so much.
Dave
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 01:43pm PT
|
Then again, this will be unimportant until they break down the door of a house where no one is committing as crime. Then the sh#t will hit the fan.
Actually, in one of the perverse ways that our legal system works, usually nothing would happen when a cop breaks down the door of a house where on one is committing a crime. City would probably pay to repair the damage, and that would be that.
Generally, whether a search is legal comes up when a defendant in a criminal trial tries to have evidence suppressed. If the there's no criminal trial (such as if the people in the house weren't committing a crime), there won't be anything for a judge to do.
The people in the house could file a civil suit against the police, but that rarely happens.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 17, 2011 - 01:49pm PT
|
BlahBlah wrote
Karl,
I generally agree with what you wrote, but I'm not sure it's fair to criticize police for enforcing laws, even if you (and perhaps the police themselves) think the laws are dumb. The police don't make or unmake laws--that's the legislature's role.
How would you like it is police stopped enforcing laws based on their own interpretations of what's good for society--maybe an Islamic police officer wouldn't enforce domestic violence laws because he thinks a certain amount of domestic violence is permissible? That's not the cops' call to make.
I'm not criticizing the police for enforcing laws. Just suggesting it is in the public interest not to give them too much carte blanche in the search and seizure department.
I've heard LEOs say that if they follow a car long enough, it's bound to break some law or another. (a few miles over the limit, cross the yellow line for an instant) If cops enforced every law to the letter, it would be madness, and if they then conducted a search in each case, the courts would be swamped. So cops make the call all the time whether something rises to the level of concern or not. (often it's a concern if the car is old with hippie sticker and not a concern if it's a new BWM)
So I'm suggesting the courts and legislature man up and quit eroding civil rights and protections and roll back things that have resulted in the US having the largest incarceration rate in the world. Do we have the WORST people in the world as everyone seems to claim we are the best? Why more people in prison per capita than anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. At yearend 2009 it was 743 incarcerated per 100,000 population.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 7,225,800 people at yearend 2009 were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population. 2,292,133 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails at yearend 2009."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!