Idiot 9th Circuit Judges Owned Again

[dmcowen674]

12-2-2003 USSC Court Gives Police Victory in Waiting Time

In a victory for law officers, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that it was constitutional for police to wait 20 seconds before knocking down the door of a drug suspect. LaShawn Banks was taking a shower when masked and heavily armed officers broke into his Las Vegas apartment in 1998 looking for drugs.

Justice David H. Souter, writing for the court, said that because police believed there were drugs inside, officers had more reason to rush.

"Police seeking a stolen piano may be able to spend more time to make sure they really need the battering ram," Souter wrote.

Smart drug dealers, he said, would keep their contraband near a commode or sink.

Justices reversed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Banks' favor.

The appeals court had said that officers should wait "a significant amount of time" before making a nonforced entry, and a "more substantial amount of time" between knock and entry if property would be destroyed.

 

[SuperTool]

Bleh. I think it's time for the government to surrender in the war on drugs. Seems to me like a war on people.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bleh. I think it's time for the government to surrender in the war on drugs. Seems to me like a war on people.

Funny...I don't use or distribute drugs and the police haven't broke down my door and handcuffed me and beat me and drag me away to prison. I guess their "war on people" isn't going so well.

 

[rjain]

Dave, it's good to see the kind of maturity we've come to expect from you.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bleh. I think it's time for the government to surrender in the war on drugs. Seems to me like a war on people.

I don't use drugs, and wouldnt, but i'd have to agree with you. Probably not for the same reasons, though.... I'm all for police going after people who break the law. This "Banks" guy got what he deserved, and the 9th circuit court is a festering pile of ignorance.

That said, we dont need the government protecting us from ourselves. If people want to use drugs, let them. It's not as if after years and years of anti-drug ad's that people are oblivious to drugs negative side effects. Although if you murder someone, you cant use the "i didnt know what i was doing!!" plea. You chose to take drugs, you knew what could happen, and you lost the gamble.

 

[Zebo]

Why should they have to wait at all if they have a warrant?

 

[rjain]

The war on drugs is the same nonsense as the war on sex. It's people who can't control their own impulses trying to blame the government for their lack of resolve.

I think the concept of waiting to enter is along the lines of a reasonable search. Otherwise, they're damaging your property and you haven't even been convicted of a crime. A warrant simply indicates that there is reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in some criminal activity. Even then, just because someone is convicted of some crime doesn't mean that we should destroy any hope they may have to return to society as a productive member by destroying their posessions. Might as well use the death penalty on even minor criminals if we do that.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Why should they have to wait at all if they have a warrant?

Fourth Ammendment, you know, from that thing once called The Constitution which is being ignored and shredded.

 

[rjain]

The "idiot" 9th circuit tried to prevent the shredding of the Constitution, Dave. So are you with the idiots or against them?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: rjain
The war on drugs is the same nonsense as the war on sex. It's people who can't control their own impulses trying to blame the government for their lack of resolve.

I think the concept of waiting to enter is along the lines of a reasonable search. Otherwise, they're damaging your property and you haven't even been convicted of a crime. A warrant simply indicates that there is reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in some criminal activity. Even then, just because someone is convicted of some crime doesn't mean that we should destroy any hope they may have to return to society as a productive member by destroying their posessions. Might as well use the death penalty on even minor criminals if we do that.

*knock* *knock*
1
2
"Who's there"
3
4
"The Police...open up."
5
6
"Hang on."
7
8
9
10
11
*flush*
12
13
*flush*
14
15
*flush*
16
17
18
*sound of shotgun being loaded*
19
20
"Okay...come on in."

And please don't exagerate and turn a door hinge and coffee table into 'all his worldy possessions'.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: rjain
The "idiot" 9th circuit tried to prevent the shredding of the Constitution, Dave. So are you with the idiots or against them?

Shredding of the Constitution? How? They still need a search warrant and once you have a search warrant you're free to enter. This waiting period was rediculous. So please explain to me how they "prevented the shredding of the Constitution", King Melodrama.

 

[JoeBaD]

Bleh. I think it's time for the government to surrender in the war on drugs. Seems to me like a war on people.

Real bright idea. You must be college ejecated.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Zebo
Why should they have to wait at all if they have a warrant?

Fourth Ammendment, you know, from that thing once called The Constitution which is being ignored and shredded.

Explain? Having a warrant complies with the constitution to the letter.

 

[Zebo]

Smart drug dealers, he said, would keep their contraband near a commode or sink.

I don't know I'd have a 50/50 mixture of 18M Nitric/Sulfuric acid drum for an instant digestion of all evidence. You could be monitoring my sewer lines or intercept them.

 

[rjain]

Hero: Maybe you should read the thread before responding.

Oh, and few toilets take only 2-3 seconds to flush. How did the cops know what they'd break by breaking down the door? A search warrant isn't a license to blow down an innocent person's door. If I accuse you of dealing drugs, would you like to have your entryway destroyed and the security of your home eliminated? It's an accusation, not a conviction.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: JoeBaD

Bleh. I think it's time for the government to surrender in the war on drugs. Seems to me like a war on people.

Real bright idea. You must be college ejecated.

Real intelligent comment. You must have no control over your impulses.

 

[LunarRay]

Another one of those exigent circumstance cases. With warrant in hand to search and seize 'drugs' it should be easy for the Ninth to rule in favor of immediate entry. And, do so for a couple of reasons. Drug dealers usually have firearms so to knock at all is stupid. Forced entry may save lives (including the bad guys). As was pointed out, drugs get flushed quickly and there would go the evidence sought by the warrant.
I side with the USSC on this one and against the Ninth.. The Ninth's reasoning seems a bit misplaced and shallow, to me anyway.

 

[JoeBaD]

rjain,

my, my how naive you are. teenage girls must find you so charming and intelligent

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: rjain
Hero: Maybe you should read the thread before responding.

Oh, and few toilets take only 2-3 seconds to flush. How did the cops know what they'd break by breaking down the door? A search warrant isn't a license to blow down an innocent person's door. If I accuse you of dealing drugs, would you like to have your entryway destroyed and the security of your home eliminated? It's an accusation, not a conviction.

You need to get a search warrant from a judge who requires some kind of evidence...it's not just an accusation...search warrants are commonly denied.

And you seem a little overly-concerned with the extent which a destroyed front door can affect your life. I wonder what happens when you get a leaky faucet...do you sell the house and move? What about an overgrown lawn...there's pretty much no recoving from something like that, is there?

 

[rjain]

I must be naive because I have control over my impulses and I don't need weak-willed people making perfectly safe things illegal? I guess it's because these people have no control over themselves that they need to assert control over what others do. Just like that silly anti-porn crusader who hires prostitutes.

Yes, I agree that in some cases, there could be an exception made to this rule. However, there needs to be significant control over these exceptions, as it's a rather extreme thing to do to simply break down someone's door on a suspicion. Think about how you'd feel if someone brought up false charges on you and you ended up with a broken front door for being a law-abiding citizen.

I would assume that the cops had people watching in the windows, seeing that there actually was some activity indicating the presence of contraband. Of course, it's probably a moot point, as they already had a warrant, so they'd break down the door no matter what...

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

I'll take pity on you.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/catid/268BB6A8-8884-4677-89869B6AD8A75ADA/objectid/81B70BE7-806D-43EB-8632156E62570E6E

What is a search warrant?

A search warrant is a kind of permission slip, signed by a judge, that allows the police to enter private property to look for particular items. It is addressed to the owner of the property, and tells the owner that a judge has decided that it is reasonably likely that certain contraband, or evidence of criminal activities, will be found in specified locations on the property.

As a general rule, the police are supposed to apply for a warrant before conducting a search of private property; any search that is conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable. This means that the police officers will later have to justify the search-and why a warrant wasn't obtained first-if the defendant challenges it in court.



What does it take to get a search warrant?
A judge will issue a search warrant after the police have convinced her that:

it is more likely than not that a crime has taken place, and
items connected to the crime are likely be found in a specified location on the property.
To convince the judge of these facts, the police tell the judge what they know about the situation. Usually, the information given to the judge is based either on the officers' own observations or on the second-hand observations of an informant.The police are limited in their ability to use secondhand information. As a general rule, the information must be reliable given the circumstances. Generally, reliable information is corroborated by police observation. For example, a citizen's tip that someone regularly delivers drugs to a certain location would be corroborated if an officer observes the person's routine. But corroboration is not necessary in every case. Sometimes a judge will issue a warrant if the source of the information is known to the police and has provided trustworthy information in the past.

So you're saying a search warrant, period, is shredding the Constitution?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

You need to get a search warrant from a judge who requires some kind of evidence...it's not just an accusation...search warrants are commonly denied.

Absolutely, and I don't know what evidence was submitted at the hearing to get the warrant. The forcefulness of the entry should be based on what evidence is available about how certain we can be that there is actually evidence inside and how easy it is to dispose of that evidence quickly. I can't imagine that there is any kind of consideration given to these matters before the search is conducted. It's just in cases like this that the tactics are questioned... after the damage has been done.

And you seem a little overly-concerned with the extent which a destroyed front door can affect your life. I wonder what happens when you get a leaky faucet...do you sell the house and move? What about an overgrown lawn...there's pretty much no recoving from something like that, is there?

Do you realize that there is a reason why people have locks on their doors? The cops have just destroyed that means of security for that person. All the rest of his possessions are free for the taking, unless the cops were kind enough to get the door fixed. (Hah!)

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
So you're saying a search warrant, period, is shredding the Constitution?

It may be educational for you to figure out where that wording came from instead of randomly blathering in support of Dave's random apocalyptic eschatologies.

 

[Zebo]

random apocalyptic eschatologies.

Whoa.. dictionary time.. Between you and Lunar I think I got on the forensics bus instead of the football bus waiting. Whoops.

 

[rjain]

Apocalyptic eschatology is a very cool subject. Typically intertwined with persecutions as they see the apocalypse as the event that will give them their vengeance.