Sometimes I hate my state (KY)... bye bye 4th amendment!

[Joemonkey]

http://cryptogon.com/?p=22378

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.
The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
Residents who “attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. “Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down,” she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.


EDIT: oh crap this should probably go in P&N my bad...

 

[dank69]

I always hate your state. Producing spidey alone is reason enough to level the whole place and start over.

 

[Joemonkey]

I always hate your state. Producing spidey alone is reason enough to level the whole place and start over.

woah now what about all the bourbon you'd be destroying!?

 

[zinfamous]

woah now what about all the bourbon you'd be destroying!?

NC/TN is sufficient.

The birthplace of moonshine

 

[Train]

while I agree there is room for abuse, this does fall into the probable cause category.

If the police see you flushing a pound of nose candy down the toilet through the window, thats enough probable cause to enter without a warrant.

If they HEAR the toilet flush 10 times while pounding on your door, I think that's probable cause too.

 

[Joemonkey]

NC/TN is sufficient.

The birthplace of moonshine

Brown-Forman, that owns Jack Daniel's among many other spirit brands, is in fact based in Louisville, just FYI

but even then, won't someone think of the horses?!

 

[rudder]

Bionic ears! But bionic sense of smells also. Police can claim they smelled illegal drugs and do the same thing.

If you grow pot in your house be careful.. this means the popo can use helicopters with thermal imaging to see your grow lights... thats next.

 

[AMDZen]

Sometimes? I think you have a typo in your Subject line

 

[wheresmybacon]

The Supreme Court made the ruling. As much as I'd love to insert a blast about barefooted hillbillies playing jugband music making moonshine and fathering illegitimate children in trailers, I'm not sure where Kentucky is to blame.

Lawyers and/or armchair lawyers, since this is a SC ruling, what's that mean with regards to the rest of us not in KY?

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I always hate your state. Producing spidey alone is reason enough to level the whole place and start over.

Other than being a telco shill hes actually a very smart guy. No reason to knock him.

 

[Joemonkey]

The Supreme Court made the ruling. As much as I'd love to insert a blast about barefooted hillbillies playing jugband music making moonshine and fathering illegitimate children in trailers, I'm not sure where Kentucky is to blame.

Lawyers and/or armchair lawyers, since this is a SC ruling, what's that mean with regards to the rest of us not in KY?

of course it applies to "everyone" but the case originated in KY

 

[Joemonkey]

Other than being a telco shill hes actually a very smart guy. No reason to knock him.

pfft i like the guy and know there are a hundred reasons to knock him :sneaky:

 

[Turin39789]

Other than being a telco shill hes actually a very smart guy. No reason to knock him.

lol

 

[Mo0o]

I dont get it. Why would they be knocking on the the door in the first place if they dont have a search warrant.

What if I'm in the crapper, get up, flush and go answer the door. They can just charge in and start searching for shit?

 

[dank69]

while I agree there is room for abuse, this does fall into the probable cause category.

If the police see you flushing a pound of nose candy down the toilet through the window, thats enough probable cause to enter without a warrant.

If they HEAR the toilet flush 10 times while pounding on your door, I think that's probable cause too.

The only thing that is probable is that the government shouldn't have any say about how much blow I can have in my house at any time.

 

[MotF Bane]

while I agree there is room for abuse, this does fall into the probable cause category.

If the police see you flushing a pound of nose candy down the toilet through the window, thats enough probable cause to enter without a warrant.

If they HEAR the toilet flush 10 times while pounding on your door, I think that's probable cause too.

No. Absolutely not.

 

[Train]

No. Absolutely not.

8 out of 9 Justices disagree with you

 

[ElFenix]

just going to point out that police have been able to enter if they thought evidence was being destroyed without a warrant for decades, since at least 1990. the only thing this really changed was creating 1 standard test for exigency and whether it was created by cops.

No. Absolutely not.

has been for decades.


the real issue in this case is that there were 5 different rules applied to the exigent circumstances doctrine at the lower level. now there is just 1.

in fact, the rule the supreme court decided applied to the nation as a whole yesterday, has applied in california and the rest of the 9th circuit since at least 1990.


edit: most of the law appears to have been developed in the 1970s
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e063.htm

 

[dank69]

8 out of 9 Backwoods Wingnuts disagree with you

 

[spidey07]

Umm, this is the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[dank69]

Umm, this is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oops, my bad, just wingnut then, forget the backwoods part.

 

[Linflas]

8 out of 9 Justices disagree with you

So you believe that is all it takes to make it right? So am I to assume you believe that they were also correct in Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott v. Sandford decisions as well?

 

[mugs]

just going to point out that police have been able to enter if they thought evidence was being destroyed without a warrant for decades, since at least 1990. the only thing this really changed was creating 1 standard test for exigency and whether it was created by cops.

This. If only people actually read the court decisions they were complaining about, they might actually understand what's going on.

 

[Jeeebus]

pretty sure my law school classmate argued this case to the Supreme Court for the US government.

Nothing really shocking and it really does conform with prior decisions, as pointed out above.

 

[piasabird]

This is kind of like hearing a woman screaming in pain or for help gives police the right to enter a house or apartment for the safety of individuals.