Supreme Court OKs warrantless searches

[Selta]

Not really sure if this immediately falls under the "political" umbrella or not. I posted it in the lobby initially, but I think it might fly here. Mods, as usual, if I'm wrong, lock 'er down.

Supreme Court OKs warrantless searches

Hopefully I don't have to ask people to not be childish and keep this straight?

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by SCOTUS vote

8-1

That's surprising.

[Metal Matt]

The Indiana supreme court just made a similar decision.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

"Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes."

The cops can break the law, and you'll be breaking the law if you choose to exercise your 4th amendment constitutional right to refuse them entry. ****ing disgusting.

EDIT...

Also, at the bottom of that article... "On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking."

So, stripping people of their right to resist unlawful entry makes cops safe, but allowing them to kick down a door without a warrant does? I'm sure that will go great when someone with a gun decides they should use it to defend their home after hearing their door being knocked down and they have no idea who it is.

[warwick.hoy]

This is a serious blow to the 4th Amendment. It essentially gives the police the right to break into your house whether you are breaking the law or not. It goes beyond whether or not you are breaking the law. You're neighbors could be breaking the law and the cops could mistakenly barge into your home.

"Smelling" Marijuana is crock. It's easy to say you "smelled" marijuana but incredibly hard to prove that you didn't.

[Selta]

I can easily see where they are coming from. If police are in pursuit of someone and they enter a residence, then sure, they should be able to go in, IMO (as long as they saw the individual actually enter). However, I disagree with them being able to enter just because they (claim) they smell something going on inside. It's definitely interesting, and it's interesting to see the public somewhat riled up about it. It's easy to say this is a slippery slope type situation, though time will only tell if it is or not. Definitely makes you wonder that if they can circumvent this so easily, what else are they considering.

[warwick.hoy]

Deleted

[Selta]

Originally Posted by warwick.hoy

Deleted

I think you need to take that one to another thread

[warwick.hoy]

I'll delete it....

[GregC]

Originally Posted by bassrique

That's surprising.

I agree. I find it shocking. Anyways, based on this story, I'm with Justice Ginsburg--this is opening the door too wide.

[Schlyder]

"Those who would give up liberty for safety, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

[Hawaii Islander]

"Slip sliden away" comes to mind.

[Kwesi]

Originally Posted by Ray Salamon

Hopefully I don't have to ask people to not be childish and keep this straight?

As opposed to what? Gay?! And here I thought this was a community of tolerance!

[Staredge]

May not be quite as bad as it seems.


The Volokh Conspiracy » Kentucky v. King and Police-Created Exigent Circumstances

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by Staredge

May not be quite as bad as it seems.


The Volokh Conspiracy » Kentucky v. King and Police-Created Exigent Circumstances

I tend to agree, And interestingly enough this ruling clearly shows how Alito (who wrote for the majority) would rule if the Indiana SC ruling was to be appealed. I am much more troubled by that ruling for the record.

Regular readers will recall that I was pretty worried about this case based on how confusing the oral argument was — and how confused the Justices seemed to be by the issues, and even the factual record. At first blush, though, my initial take is that Justice Alito’s opinion offers a pretty artful way of resolving a fairly difficult Fourth Amendment problem. The two key moves Alito made were (a) clarifying that the “lawfulness” test refers to compliance with the Fourth Amendment, not just lawfulness generally or under relevant state or federal statutes, and (b) adding a “threat” element to the lawfulness test, so that responses to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment will count as police-created and cannot be factored into exigent circumstances. If we assume that a police threat to violate the Fourth Amendment means a police threat to take steps that, construed objectively, would violate the Fourth Amendment, then that would mean that the police can’t create an exigency by threatening to break down the door or use excessive force. I can think of some possible ambiguities of the Court’s test, but they’re not the ambiguities that are likely to come up very often. So from a standpoint of selecting a rule, I think Justice Alito did a pretty sharp job.

In Indiana the court ruled in reverse, that even though the police action was unlawful (a threat) a citizen could not resist. So if Police claim that a person threatened them with violence (probable cause) but the threat was in response to an unlawful warrentless search, it was an unconstitutional action. In other words the Police can't create the situation that gives them probable cause and in this case exigent (emergency) circumstances.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the Court’s opinion is quite narrow. In particular, the Court did not conclude that the entry was lawful. Whether the police had exigent circumstances was not before the Court: The only issue was the test for police-created exigent circumstances. So now the case is remanded back to the Kentucky courts for more proceedings in light of the Court’s new test.

This is the other part. The SCOTUS did not declare the entry lawful, only that it met the test for exigent circumstances and wasn't "Police created". Had the police just been walking by and smelled pot, a warrant still would have been required, but since this was an action that occurred in the middle of an investigation in which a suspect fled into the apartment, the Police had a case of non-police created exigent circumstances, and up until that point the search was legal.

I haven't always agreed with the court on this stuff, I did feel that the case that allowed for random DUI checks was unconstitutional and I still do, but it appears they got this one right.

[Blort]

Just about everyone I know has legal access to medical marijuana, so I'd love to see the police storm into their house because they "smell something".

[Metal Matt]

At least mainstream US media is hard at work reporting on the real issues today, like The Terminator having a secret kid, or the IMF head exposing himself to a maid, or how about mindless details about Bin Laden, some seem content on their normal reporting of pointless political bickering. Pretty sure there's nothing more important to tell their viewers about the world around them.

Then again, maybe they'll briefly mention it tomorrow or the next day, and only give it a small amount of airtime like they seem to regularly do when it comes to real news.

[basstotheface]

I don't think you guys get it. Their ruling was kinda... not real. They didn't say the entrance was lawful or unlawful, constitutional or unconstitutional. They're also not giving cops the right to smell marijuana and jump in. Please read the FULL article before posting.

[basstotheface]

Originally Posted by Metal Matt

At least mainstream US media is hard at work reporting on the real issues today, like The Terminator having a secret kid, or the IMF head exposing himself to a maid, or how about mindless details about Bin Laden, some seem content on their normal reporting of pointless political bickering. Pretty sure there's nothing more important to tell their viewers about the world around them.

Then again, maybe they'll briefly mention it tomorrow or the next day, and only give it a small amount of airtime like they seem to regularly do when it comes to real news.

If this was real news, there would be reporting, seeing as it is not, there isn't much reporting.

[Munjibunga]

"Your honor, we heard loud farting in the house, and we were certain it was being done to mask the odor of marijuana, which we otherwise would have smelled."

[GregC]

Originally Posted by Metal Matt

At least mainstream US media is hard at work reporting on the real issues today, like The Terminator having a secret kid, or the IMF head exposing himself to a maid, or how about mindless details about Bin Laden, some seem content on their normal reporting of pointless political bickering. Pretty sure there's nothing more important to tell their viewers about the world around them.

Then again, maybe they'll briefly mention it tomorrow or the next day, and only give it a small amount of airtime like they seem to regularly do when it comes to real news.

By Tribune Washington bureau and The New York Times

The story's byline fits any reasonable definition of "mainstream media".