INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Parts on May 18, 2011, 04:57:18 PM
-
Very disturbing news from the courts I am surprised it has not garnered more interest I read about it the other day but it was not out in front like you would think it should be.
First from the US Supreme Court a ruling that if the police announce themselves and you don't answer they come in anyway if they believe they have a reasonable suspicion your are doing something wrong and you are destroying evidence even without a warrant :zombiefuck: It was implied that if you answer the door and deny their entry they can't come in. I can see it now... knock knock police then ten seconds later, if that, they kick in the door. Anybody who thinks this will not be abused is out of their minds
On May 16, the United States Supreme Court reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court decision that found evidence obtained without a search warrant to be inadmissible in court. Good job, Kentucky!
In this particular case, officers were in pursuit of a drug suspect who sold cocaine to an informant. They followed the suspect to an apartment building, and down a hallway that led to two closed doors, each with the potential to lead officers to the suspect. And, just like many of the contestants on "Let's Make a Deal," the officers chose the wrong door.
The suspect, of course, was behind Door Number Two. But, unlike the game show contestants, the officers had probable cause to suspect they chose the correct door; they could smell marijuana, and they were looking for a drug dealer. After banging on the door, the officers heard what they thought to be the destruction of evidence and kind of panicked. They followed the knock-and-announce rule, but they forgot one key requirement before breaking down the door and entering -- a search warrant.
Apparently, though, they didn't need one. The Supreme Court ruled that the officers had reasonable cause to enter without a warrant, and therefore the evidence was admissible. You can read better details here. Basically, Justice Sam Alito, who issued the Court's opinion, said it was up to the occupant behind Door Number One to answer the door and reject the officer's request for entry. Of course, had an officer seen any drugs or paraphernalia when the door was opened, he could have entered anyway.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110517/cm_ac/8488793_in_kentucky_v_king_supreme_court_reminds_citizens_to_know_their_rights)
Second from Indiana Supreme Court residents can not keep police from entering their homes even if it is an unlawful entry.link (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/05/indiana-trounces-fourth-amendment) Basically the police can go into any home when ever they want without a warrant and your only recourse is to sue them later. Sheriff Hartman of Newton County even says he'd use random house checks and thought no one would mind if it meant catching criminals link (http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2011/05/sheriff-dan-hartman-sr-is-no-friend-of.html)
Indianapolis—
Debate rages over a landmark ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that some say violates your right to privacy.
The ruling essentially says you can't fight back when a police officer comes into your home illegally.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana residents cannot keep police from entering their homes even if the entry is unlawful. In a 3-2 decision, the justices ruled that valid reasons would allow officers to come in without a warrant and that it's against the law for homeowners to resist.
"That has never been the law in the state. Our courts have always held that if police are trying to enter your home illegally, you can resist that entry," attorney Jack Crawford said.
-
I believe the Indiana ruling will be overturned. I hope the Kentucky one is as well.
-
Land of the free indeed
-
That's scary.
-
Smoking a joint will always be considered "destruction of evidence", so the smell of marijuana is immediate grounds for kicking your door down.
-
I believe the Indiana ruling will be overturned. I hope the Kentucky one is as well.
The Indiana one I am sure will be but the other was from the US Supreme court :zombiefuck:
I read one conservative blog on it where the writer said he couldn't believe he was siding with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg who was the one dissenting opinion.
-
If you answer it and tell them they can't come in supposedly they can't
-
What if no one's home?
-
What if I am too high?
The law now states I must answer my door? :thumbdn:
-
What if I am too high?
The law now states I must answer my door? :thumbdn:
If you don't want it kicked in.
I only hope they abuse it very badly soon and turn the public opinion so strong against it the laws are changed. I feel it's the only way it will get publicity as not many seem to know about it did any of you before this?
-
I hadn't.
So if I am a deep sleeper and am asleep on my couch and don't answer the door because I don't hear it, but jump up when my door is suddenly kicked in and empty a Glock into the cop, am I the one in the wrong?
-
Also even though the Indiania one will likely be overturned the fucking balls the court had to come up with that ruling.
They are apparently receiving threats do to it also
State Supreme Court Receiving Threats After Ruling
By Reed Parker
5/17/2011
Capitol Police are investigating threatening emails and phone calls to the Indiana Supreme Court after a recent contentious ruling.
Indiana Supreme Court spokesperson Kathryn Dolan says "a number of threatening phone calls and emails have been received, directed primarily to police officers."
Police won't say how many calls and messages have been received or if they were directed at a specific justice.
The state's highest court ruled on Thursday that people confronted with an illegal police entry into their homes should allow them to enter and sue for damages at a later date.
-
I hadn't.
So if I am a deep sleeper and am asleep on my couch and don't answer the door because I don't hear it, but jump up when my door is suddenly kicked in and empty a Glock into the cop, am I the one in the wrong?
I don't think so but if you live after doing that I have the feeling they will say yes
-
Seems like a bad idea all the way around
-
Good judges don't grow on trees. They need to be put there by citizens who care.
In the Kentucky case it sounds like hot pursuit directly leading to evidence of other law breaking.
-
Good judges don't grow on trees. They need to be put there by citizens who care.
In the Kentucky case it sounds like hot pursuit directly leading to evidence of other law breaking.
Well their seems to be a lot of piss poor ones out there now. I would settle for some average ones at this point.
-
I wonder what would happen if the cops knocked on my door while I was asleep, busted in and fell face-down into my hoard!
Could they prosecute or sue me for endangering their safety by the conditions of my dwelling? :dunno:
-
I wonder what would happen if the cops knocked on my door while I was asleep, busted in and fell face-down into my hoard!
Could they prosecute or sue me for endangering their safety by the conditions of my dwelling? :dunno:
They could try. It would be free for them, and costly for you. Regardless of who wins, you lose.
-
I wonder what would happen if the cops knocked on my door while I was asleep, busted in and fell face-down into my hoard!
Could they prosecute or sue me for endangering their safety by the conditions of my dwelling? :dunno:
They could try. It would be free for them, and costly for you. Regardless of who wins, you lose.
Great, I can just see myself in prison for being a messy housekeeper. :thumbdn:
-
I wonder what would happen if the cops knocked on my door while I was asleep, busted in and fell face-down into my hoard!
Could they prosecute or sue me for endangering their safety by the conditions of my dwelling? :dunno:
They could try. It would be free for them, and costly for you. Regardless of who wins, you lose.
In my town they would try it they are petty assholes and would do it just to cover up their screw up
-
Actually they opened the door for this in 2001 in the anti-terrorism bill with the "sneak and peak" warrant.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-anti-terrorism-bill-expands-law-enforcement-sneak-and-peek-warrants (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-anti-terrorism-bill-expands-law-enforcement-sneak-and-peek-warrants)
Personally, I think it's fucked up.
-
Land of the free indeed
..and people thought I was crazy for advocating a declaration of war against the U.S. Govenment.
These rullings are a de-facto declaration of war, by the U.S. Gov, against the American People.
-
:viking:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qX_C6pKTUwY/TT5eTUfrXcI/AAAAAAAADiI/4zjX6wrbOQE/s640/washington-shot-them.jpg)