fourth amendment, where'd you go?

[Schadenfroh]

I don't think I would want to be the first one through the door on a no-knock warrant in a community with high gun ownership.

If you are going so far as to issue a no-knock warrant, I am willing to bet that the guy you are investigating is armed, even if he does not have a firearm registered to his name.

 

[dmcowen674]

Next ruling will be that you must not have locks on, you must leave door open.

 

[Patranus]

It went along with the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause.

 

[Lithium381]

Next ruling will be that you must not have locks on, you must leave door open.

In california if someone robs your house you are required by law to help them carry it to their van, then give them a tip. oh, and then you're the criminal.


at least this way it's the COPS that are violating your freedom, but because they are acting under the guise of law, it's legit???

 

[ch33zw1z]

You know it's a really shitty ruling when damn near most of the P&N crowd agrees that it's a shitty ruling.

yup.

 

[wuliheron]

Wait for the anal probes. That might inspire a new amendment to the constitution.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wait for the anal probes. That might inspire a new amendment to the constitution.

If the TSA didn't inspire one, nothing will.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Nintendesert
You know it's a really shitty ruling when damn near most of the P&N crowd agrees that it's a shitty ruling.

yup.

You will comply

 

[JS80]

Conservatives have a sense of absolute entitlement and always want to be completely unleashed dogs. Sorry, but sometimes the reality of society requires you to place some leash on yourself so as to allow for other people's doggyness.
You are not the center of the universe. The burden is not placed on solely on everyone else to accommodate you. You have to accommodate others as well.
Such is just the way of reality. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your god. Ask him why he didn't actually make you the center of the universe and demand that he change it because, as the proper center of the universe, even your god should revolve around you. Amiright?

lol are you fucking retarded? You think this is a "conservative" crusade? This aligns more with a strong leftist police state that shits on the Constitution.

 

[BoberFett]

That is seriously fucked up. So cops can simply go anywhere they want and nobody can stop them? Warrants and due process be damned?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Why is this a shock? The tyrannical police state has been expanding bit by bit for years now. Just submit to your masters.

 

[PeshakJang]

lol are you fucking retarded?

Did you not realize who you were replying to?

 

[wuliheron]

That is seriously fucked up. So cops can simply go anywhere they want and nobody can stop them? Warrants and due process be damned?

Inflation. Now that the Evil Empire is dead and the Chinese are competing the cost of freedom has gone up.

 

[thraashman]

This. The statement that you have a right does not give you carte blanche to kill anyone who infringes in the slightest degree.
We are dealing with subjective perception on both sides. Neither the civilian nor the officer are given supreme ruling authority as to what the law does or does not say. The US Supreme Court gets the final say. So it is unsurprising that limitations are placed on both sides that move the decision to the realm of the courts.

Allowing the police to lose in the honest fulfillment of their duties would undermine the entire legal system. You must give them some wiggle room as an ideal as they never have surety as fact that they are covered. Judges are human -- they make mistakes and their decisions can be greatly influenced by moods. If you do not color them slightly towards giving the police the benefit of the doubt, the core functionality of the police is crippled.

Humans are emotional beings. If you do not allow them to proceed in daily life emotionally, they get bitchy.
Setting a rule that makes the civilian restrain his emotional perception once is better than setting one that places the burden on the police of restraining it all the time. The civilian is protected if his emotional perception turns out to be valid, so that doesn't rate anywhere near if the entire police force decides to up and give a middle finger to the legal system. If the police decide to let the system fail because it's too restrictive on them, you can't fix it while maintaining the restrictiveness. You may be able to put a band-aid on it by quadrupling their salaries, but the underlying moodiness will still be there.


Conservatives have a sense of absolute entitlement and always want to be completely unleashed dogs. Sorry, but sometimes the reality of society requires you to place some leash on yourself so as to allow for other people's doggyness.
You are not the center of the universe. The burden is not placed on solely on everyone else to accommodate you. You have to accommodate others as well.
Such is just the way of reality. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your god. Ask him why he didn't actually make you the center of the universe and demand that he change it because, as the proper center of the universe, even your god should revolve around you. Amiright?

To the current Ayn Rand idolizing, far right conservatives that are the Republican party, each individual person is expected to believe that they ARE in fact the center of the universe. The idea behind this ruling makes sense, the overly broad generalization of the ruling does not however. Remember, most conservatives hate any form of public servant and believe they should receive the smallest amount of funding possible. They hate teachers because they teach conservative children to think for themselves which flies in the face of being conservative. They hate police because an active police force gives them fewer opportunities to shoot and kill people. They hate industry regulators because they believe that corporations will treat everyone fairly and not fucking screw over everyone until it eventually comes back to bite them in the ass even though they know if they were in charge of that corporations they'd act the exact fucking same.

Also, as has been shown, we know conservatives are more prone to fear. They think a ruling like this which is intended to protect the safety of police will end in a 1984 police state sometime this November. They fail to realize that the protections in the Fourth Amendment are still in place and that there are legal recourses to protect yourself against violations of the 4th Amendment. But conservatives want to be able to shoot cops and take that law into their own hands, when even with this ruling if a cop illegally enters then they face consequences.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

And after the dust settles, every cop in that state would find his record cleaned with a fine-tooth comb and a LOT more policies restricting how they do their job.

VERY unlikely.


It has been shown time and time again that LEO were just 'following policy' when they screw up during problems with no knock and other intrusive warrants.


The court systems know that if people actually have recourse on these things then the next step is to limit them. Better for the 'system' to just slide the dead homeowner under the rug with the dust.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally Posted by Nintendesert
You know it's a really shitty ruling when damn near most of the P&N crowd agrees that it's a shitty ruling.



You will comply

is that so.

 

[alkemyst]

This is very screwed up. It also opens the door to the police killing your family dog(s) outright, detaining you and then saying "oops wrong house".

This allows the police to perform an illegal search as well.

There is no reason that this needs to pass. They can very easily take any 'perp' as they leave their home.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You know it's a really shitty ruling when damn near most of the P&N crowd agrees that it's a shitty ruling.

^ This.

 

[NetGuySC]

What is the alternative to this ruling? If a cop mistakenly enters your house instead of the crack house next door, you can legally shoot the cop?

I understood this ruling to say that basically complain afterward but you cannot fight police entering with a warrant, even if he is mistakenly enetering the wrong address, but perhap I am misunderstanding all of this

 

[ch33zw1z]

What is the alternative to this ruling? If a cop mistakenly enters your house instead of the crack house next door, you can legally shoot the cop?

I understood this ruling to say that basically complain afterward but you cannot fight police entering with a warrant, even if he is mistakenly enetering the wrong address, but perhap I am misunderstanding all of this

This ruling makes it ok for Police to enter your home with or WITHOUT a warrant. Under this ruling, the homeowner can no longer deny police entry, and cannot resist. The police are also allowed to arrest the homeowner during this illegal entry/search.

 

[MotF Bane]

Charge those three judges with treason, and hang them from the state capitol building.

 

[Darwin333]

I really dont wanna go to jail as a cop killer.
On the other hand, if I were a rapist I should think wearing a uniform would be the perfect method to get in without resistance.

Then it should comfort you to know that the chances of you going to jail as a cop killer are likely rather slim. Much more likely is that you will leave the scene in a bag. Cops rarely kick down doors alone.

 

[woolfe9999]

Would you agree that someone searching your home without your permission to be illegal?

EDIT: NVM brain fart. I see what you are saying now. However hasn't it been the custom to obtain first a search warrant? IMO I think a strong case for protecting your home from no warrant searches could be made being that the founders dealt with this kind of abuse before the revolution.

Returning once more to the thread to clarify my view. All I have said is the notion that physical resistance of a warrantless and/or unreasonable search is a right *guaranteed by the Constitution* is not in accord with "strict constructism" because the Constitution is silent regarding remedies for violations of the 4th Amendment. Quite clearly, the framers left the question of remedies for legislatures and courts. Arguing that it is unconstitutional to not allow one particular remedy is arbitrary. You could just as easily argue that with respect to any conceivable remedy. You could make one up on the spot and claim it is "unconstitutional" to not allow it.

I am not expressing an opinion as to whether people should in fact be permitted to physically resist. I personally wouldn't mind if the legislature permitted it so long as the person employing it did so at his or her own legal risk, i.e. if he turns out to be wrong and the search was legal, he is subject to full prosecution for his resistance. However, I don't think it's "unconstitutional" to prohibit it.

- wolf

 

[zinfamous]

Holy fuck.

Is Indiana a castle state?

And if so, would a resident be justified in capping a police officer that bursts into their home unannounced and unlawfully?

:hmm:

 

[zinfamous]

You know it's a really shitty ruling when damn near most of the P&N crowd agrees that it's a shitty ruling.

now, now.

spidey has yet to comment.