Now I'm no dave but this SEEMS to be going a bit too far.
I have a feeling this will be challenged further...atleast I hope it will be.
CkG
I have a feeling this will be challenged further...atleast I hope it will be.
CkG
WTF!? Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants
- Thread starter CADsortaGUY
- Start date
I guess people should request that they be "interviewed" outside then - no?
I'm still not sure why the police entered that guy's house when he wasn't even there though. That part seems a bit vague. Did he have an arrest warrant? Did someone else let them in? But anyway I really don't care about the case perse because the guy signed off on the guns I guess which to me means he was guilty of possession and whatnot anyway.
But this issue is bigger than just this one case. Who defines "danger" and who defines how deep they can search? Can they bring in dogs? How far is too far?
This brings up more issues than it resolves.
CkG
Before everyone panics......
This only applies IF the oficers have a reason to be there, I.E. A complaint filed, an arrest warrant, pursuit of suspect into the dwelling, or any reasonable probable cause to enter the dwelling.
Once inside, the officers have a right to a cursory (brief) search for guns, bombs, knives etc., or anything thay may risk the lives of the officers. They may have reason to look in closets, basements, attics, or any room of the house. They may also look under counters, in trash cans etc. It is much more complex than than it appears at first glance. It doesn't give officers the rights to search randomly, or to search for anything not directly related to preservation of evidence, and/or officer safety. It has always been done, just never really challenged too much.
This only applies IF the oficers have a reason to be there, I.E. A complaint filed, an arrest warrant, pursuit of suspect into the dwelling, or any reasonable probable cause to enter the dwelling.
Once inside, the officers have a right to a cursory (brief) search for guns, bombs, knives etc., or anything thay may risk the lives of the officers. They may have reason to look in closets, basements, attics, or any room of the house. They may also look under counters, in trash cans etc. It is much more complex than than it appears at first glance. It doesn't give officers the rights to search randomly, or to search for anything not directly related to preservation of evidence, and/or officer safety. It has always been done, just never really challenged too much.
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.
The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."
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.
"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the club CAD, took you long enough but you're getting there.
One word for this ruling and the new Police Powers; GESTAPO.
Yeah except this was a 11-4 ruling, or a super majority. Oh did I mention 3 of the 4 dissenters were republican appointees, so don't try and go partisan on this issue. All I can say is read the fvcking opinion before commenting on it. This does not give broad powers to police, it is a very narrowly focused opinion, one that is backed by a Supreme Court ruling, IE: precedent. Dont expect it to be overturned because of said precedent.
ITS QUITE SIMPLE. DO NOT GIVE POLICE CONSENT TO ENTER YOUR RESIDENCE.
The problem with that is it seems to give the police to the power to search your residence if they feel they are in danger. Now what I am concerned about is the lack of specifics surrounding their "judgment" calls. Yes, I'm looking at this from the slippery slope angle but it needs to be addressed. I'm all for making sure officers have enough latitude to protect themselves but I'm not I'm ready to allow their "discretion" to enter into this.
Here in Iowa you have to allow an officer search your vehicle if they ask....now supposedly they need "probable cause" but again that is "discretion" and can be abused. I will tell you that if an officer asks to look in my vehicle - I will ALWAYS refuse. If they have a specific concern I will address it with them but they will never be allowed free reign of my property on their "discretion".
Too many questions need clarified for me to feel comfortable with this ruling.
CkG
This whole case revolves SOLELY around police given consent to enter a building, and then doing searchs/protective sweeps. Do not give police consent to enter your house, ever without a warrant, simply as a safety reason, its quite easy for a robber to dress up as a cop. This ruling does NOT give them the ability to search your house because of their fear, if they are NOT already inside of it. They cant just say we have a fear for our safety, and then enter. They have to have consent then have a fear for their safety. They have to have a cause to be there as well.
Well I know this 'fears for safety' is already abused. Now I guess police just need a complaint or tip off to search your house. Hey thats a reason to knock on your door right? Once they are at your house they may fear for their safety if you open the door. Best idea is not open the door I guess. Psychic tip offs will too be grounds to search I guess just like the AA plane today got the flight stopped and searched for bombs because of a psychic tip-off. The whole things stinks. Its not even about the police searching without a warrant as they already do that.What it's about is them being able to use anything they find in court now. The whole search warrant thing is very minor protection against police abuse. There is not a great burden on police to get a warrant.Without that there is no protection at all. Police will search your house if they feel like it even with no cause. They can always claim they got an anonymous tip. That is a tactic they have long used to harrass people, myself included. One day just standing on a corner waiting for a ride after work two police officers decided to harrass me claiming an anonymous tip that someone was selling drugs on the corner, a very unlikely scenario given the non urban setting and the area not being known for any drug activity.
You will always have those idiots who say "well if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about."
If you have ever had your home searched by Police it is very much like your are being molested as a child. Thats how it feels.
You will always have those idiots who say "well if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about."
If you have ever had your home searched by Police it is very much like your are being molested as a child. Thats how it feels.
I REPEAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE CONSENT TO ENTER YOUR HOUSE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT. I REPEAT THEY HAVE TO LAWFULLY BE IN YOUR HOUSE IN ORDER TO DO A PROTECTIVE SWEEP. I repeat, they can not use this ruling, unless they were given prior consent to enter, and then felt their safety was being compromised. Thats what this case revolved around. Read the god damn opinion you sheeps being lead by the media who left out alot of key details of the case. This case uses Supreme Court case USA vs Buie.
Please read USA vs Gould and while you are at it USA vs Buie, before forming an opinion. Atleast then you would have an educated opinion. Also if you want to do some digging, there are also other cases that have been based off of USA vs Buie, and are quite similar to this ruling.
From the Opinion.
This should put to bed the thought that "cops can search without a warrant or consent to enter." Note how they arent ruling on that, because that was NOT the issue the court was asked to address.
Also this is an extremely narrowly focused opinion. The case involved police going to a home, based off a tip from the suspects employee. The police were there to talk to the man, who was accused of threating to kill multiple judges and public officials. The police were given consent to enter the house, and were told the suspect was in his room, when they did not see him, the looked to see if he was hiding in the closets. When they opened the closets guns were in plain view. This opinion says their "protective sweep", looking for the suspect in the closet after given consent to enter the house and to look for him in his room, was legitimate, and the evidence they came across, was thus admissible in court.
This should put to bed the thought that "cops can search without a warrant or consent to enter." Note how they arent ruling on that, because that was NOT the issue the court was asked to address.
Also this is an extremely narrowly focused opinion. The case involved police going to a home, based off a tip from the suspects employee. The police were there to talk to the man, who was accused of threating to kill multiple judges and public officials. The police were given consent to enter the house, and were told the suspect was in his room, when they did not see him, the looked to see if he was hiding in the closets. When they opened the closets guns were in plain view. This opinion says their "protective sweep", looking for the suspect in the closet after given consent to enter the house and to look for him in his room, was legitimate, and the evidence they came across, was thus admissible in court.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter