More Fourth Amendment Madness - Cops Smell Drugs? They can march right in, no warrant

[wuliheron]

Disappointing ruling, seriously you guys are starting to look like you need a revolution to clear things out.

Nah, we just need to kill more cops. They've just gotten too good at avoiding getting killed in recent years and it breeds overconfidence. During the 80s the cocaine wars in Miami were so vicious they were hiring anybody to be a cop. Before they knew it 1/3 of police force had felony convictions and were playing both sides of the street. That's the American way, competition.

 

[woolfe9999]

It's called sarcasm.

Yeah, I got that were were being snarky. You are also criticizing this 4th amendment ruling when the ruling is not really the issue.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

So I'm in my apartment, dressed up in chains and assless chaps...

Dude... all chaps are assless. Just FYI.

 

[crownjules]

http://blog.norml.org/2011/05/17/supreme-court-eviscerates-4th-amendment-over-marijuana-smell/

This is insane. This basically puts cops at their word about what they thought they smelled.

1. This is going to get cops killed. Cops get power hungry, and giving some of them this ticket is asking for them to run up in the wrong guys house.

2. WTF. What if I'm not smoking pot? What if I'm in the middle of sex, have my headphones on, etc. and I'm totally not suspecting cops to be running up in my house?

Only ONE judge dissented and basically said 'seriously wtf' the rest were like 'no its cool WAR ON DRUGS ALL THE WAY BABY'

I've had this happen to me already. Several years ago. Friends and I, all in our mid 20s, were out on the beach having a fire. We had the proper permit and everything. Around 11PM, I see a flashlight approaching and then I hear a female voice shout "Excuse me but I smell pot, what's going on?" Turned out to be the police of course and the office conducted a search and IDed us all. Once she saw we were all of age and not some high schoolers drinking underage, her demeanor changed completely.

But yeah. On a beach out in the open with a good wind blowing (and she didn't even approach from down wind) and you can smell pot? Riiiiiiighht.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.


Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.


At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.
However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.


http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...t-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

 

[wuliheron]

Bring it on fellas! Small towns with all their conservative wild west get tough on crime nonsense have already been there, done that. They used to elect the biggest assholes they could find to be Sheriff until they got their butts sued off. The few that still have assholes ready to abuse this law will quickly find out they can't afford the higher taxes.

 

[marincounty]

The justice "strict constructionists" love to hate, Ginsburg, was the sole dissenter.

Yeah, where were all of those right-wing justices that support the original intent of the framers of the constitution?
It just shows how much elections matter. Republicans have been stacking the courts with these insane judges for so long this country is starting to resemble the former USSR.

 

[Fern]

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

WTH!!!!

Kudos to all those Libs/Dems/Progressives in the Indiana thread arguing that ruling was no big deal.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Dude... all chaps are assless. Just FYI.

LOL

Fern

 

[Venix]

According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Seems like a load of bullshit to me. If the Sheriff actually said that, why doesn't the page provide an exact quotation?

In any case, only a complete moron could think that Barnes v. Indiana allows the police to conduct "random house to house searches." The decision does not legalize unlawful searches/arrests, it just disallows the use of violence to prevent them. The opinion even plainly states that "the aggrieved arrestee has means...for redress against unlawful police action."

Unless the sheriff is aiming for bankruptcy and potential jail time, he isn't going to be conducting any random warrantless searches.

Edit: I think the Barnes decision sucks, but dipshits who grossly exaggerate its implications suck more. Same with the King decision.

 

[wuliheron]

Unless the sheriff is aiming for bankruptcy and potential jail time, he isn't going to be conducting any random warrantless searches.

He was probably just mouthing off and trying to get a little free publicity for his election campaign. Still, you never know with some of these small town sheriffs.

 

[Zorkorist]

Someone up above already said this... but it could NOT be clearer...

The 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Smelling pot, is not a reasonable reason to search or seize anyone (or anything).

It's just, smelling pot.

-John

 

[wuliheron]

Smelling pot, is not a reasonable reason to search or seize anyone (or anything).

It's just, smelling pot.

-John

So if I smoke a pipe on the corner and it smells like pot the cops have no right to search or seize me. That's good to know.

 

[Zorkorist]

No, they don't. You are safe from unreasonable search and seizure, as described in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Do you think that upon smelling pot, a cop should immediately search and seize everyone (and everything) in his immediate vicinity?

That would be reasonable?

-John

 

[wuliheron]

Do you think that upon smelling pot, a cop should immediately search and seize everyone (and everything) in his immediate vicinity?

That would be reasonable?

-John

You'll have to ask the supreme court that. They're the ones who ultimately decide what is reasonable and what that stupid piece of legal paper they call the constitution means. I'm just an ignorant suburban fool raised on Gilligan's Island and Green Acres.

 

[actuarial]

Someone up above already said this... but it could NOT be clearer...

The 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Smelling pot, is not a reasonable reason to search or seize anyone (or anything).

It's just, smelling pot.

-John

I agree. And this ruling has NOTHING to do with that. First of all because smelling pot doesn't give police the right to search (and this court did not affirm that). And second because the court specifically stated they were not ruling on whether there was a reasonable reason to search.

So basically you're coming in and citing stuff that has nothing to do with this case. This case was ONLY about whether police knocking on your door is a violation, or a threat to violate, your fourth amendment right and thus denies any exigent circumstance that follows.

Why don't you comment on what this case was actually about?