Kiss your freedom good bye if you live in New Orleans

[Nocturnal]

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html
Text

Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

POSTED: 3:55 pm CST March 26, 2004
UPDATED: 4:36 pm CST March 26, 2004

NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.

Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."

The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000.

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.

"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.

But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has big problems with the ruling.

"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition.

Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.

"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.

 

[TommyVercetti]

Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers.

Finally some common sense, I hate it when criminals hide behind the shroud of warrants.

"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.

Amen. :beer:

 

[jpeyton]

Wouldn't a search without a warrant constitute an "unlawful search"?

 

[BornStar]

Wow, remind me not to live there.

 

[HappyPuppy]

The Supreme Court will overturn this ruling.

 

[axelfox]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Wouldn't a search without a warrant constitute an "unlawful search"?

Though the general rule is that police need a search warrant (Fourth Amendment), there are several exceptions to that rule.

 

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.

Ah, yes. But will it work in a mansion? How about a shanty? What about a hall, or a loft-type construction?

 

[Renob]

The Supreme Court will overturn this ruling


Yes they will, and thank God.

 

[MrDudeMan]

i would support it if it werent going to be abused, which we all know it will.

 

[AlexWade]

Can't officers search with "probable cause"? For instance, a cop pulls me for speeding and I act all suspicious. He doesn't need a warrent to search my car.

Finally some common sense, I hate it when criminals hide behind the shroud of warrants.

I do too. But, if the law was allowed to search your property whenever they wanted, there could be a lot of abuse.

 

Thats just stupid. If you have a legitimate problem, wouldnt you be able to get a warrent anyway? BOO to this ruling.

 

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Thats just stupid. If you have a legitimate problem, wouldnt you be able to get a warrent anyway? BOO to this ruling.

^^ Agreed.

 

Originally posted by: AlexWade
Can't officers search with "probable cause"? For instance, a cop pulls me for speeding and I act all suspicious. He doesn't need a warrent to search my car.

Finally some common sense, I hate it when criminals hide behind the shroud of warrants.

I do too. But, if the law was allowed to search your property whenever they wanted, there could be a lot of abuse.

Yes they can search your car, and they don't need a warrent only because the courts have ruled that because there are so many cars, and because they are so mobile, that warrents would be cumbersome and slow. By the time the officer got a judge to sign the warrent, the car would be long gone, or the suspect, or both...

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Ah yes, how fitting that this would pass in the state that is rated as having the most corrupt city and state police in the country. :|

 

I wonder when the second coming of hitler will reveal himself.

 

[SuperTool]

That's what happens when GOP presidents stuff the courts with right wing activist judges.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: SampSon
I wonder when the second coming of hitler will reveal himself.

lol, you are already here 😛

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
That's what happens when GOP presidents stuff the courts with right wing activist judges.

:Q *hides*

 

Originally posted by: SuperTool
That's what happens when GOP presidents stuff the courts with right wing activist judges.

Then who's responsible for the injunction on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban?

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
That's what happens when GOP presidents stuff the courts with right wing activist judges.

Putting the "Tool" in "SuperTool" again, I see.

 

[Eli]

:Q

:disgust:

 

[SuperTool]

Just trying to start a debate on the reasons for this rightshift in our judiciary away from core constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seisure.
Next time a cop wants to search your house, and you ask for a warrant, he'll just say he is gonna take a quick peak, and go on with it. Keep some donuts handy, maybe he'll go easy on your stuff 😀

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
That's what happens when GOP presidents stuff the courts with right wing
activist judges.

Judges Carolyn Dineen King, Patrick E. Higginbotham, W. Eugene Davis, Edith H. Jones, Rhesa H. Barksdale, Emilio M. Garza, Fortunato P. Benavides, James L. Dennis, Edward Charles Prado and Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., sided with the majority opinion. Dissenting were Judges E. Grady Jolly, Jerry Smith, Carl E. Stewart, and Harold DeMoss Jr.

King - nominated by Jimmy Carter.
Higginbotham - nominated by Gerald Ford.
Davis - nominated by Gerald Ford.
Jones - nominated by Reagan.
Barksdale - nominated by George H.W. Bush.
Garza - nominated by Reagan.
Benavides - nominated by Clinton.
Dennis - nominated by Clinton.
Prado - nominated by Reagan.
Wiener - nominated by George H.W. Bush.

Jolly - nominated by Reagan.
Smith - nominated by Reagan.
Stewart - nominated by Clinton.
DeMoss - nominated by George H.W. Bush.

Doesn't look like either party is entirely guilt free, to me. What do you think?

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: AlexWade
Can't officers search with "probable cause"? For instance, a cop pulls me for speeding and I act all suspicious. He doesn't need a warrent to search my car.

Finally some common sense, I hate it when criminals hide behind the shroud of warrants.

I do too. But, if the law was allowed to search your property whenever they wanted, there could be a lot of abuse.

Yes they can search your car, and they don't need a warrent only because the courts have ruled that because there are so many cars, and because they are so mobile, that warrents would be cumbersome and slow. By the time the officer got a judge to sign the warrent, the car would be long gone, or the suspect, or both...

I think that is why they ruled the way they did. If a cop were to see suspicious activity at a residence, it is quite possible by time they got a search warrant said activity/evidence would be gone.

This doesnt give cops the right to search a house without probable cause. They have to have probable cause similar to what they'd have to have to search and automobile.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html
Text

Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

POSTED: 3:55 pm CST March 26, 2004
UPDATED: 4:36 pm CST March 26, 2004

NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.

Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."

The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000.

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.

"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.

But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has big problems with the ruling.

"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition.

Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.

"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.

Also this ruling would effect ALL areas that 5th circuit court of appeals has jurisdiction. IE: Texas, Louisana, Mississippi.