National Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant - Unanimous Ruling 5/17/21-

[Knebel]

I pity the private citizen who has to decide how to respond to that knock on the door.

Why should an American citizen have to choose hiding constitutionally protected personal property versus putting his life/wealth on the line to defend that property.

Respond? First rule in life, you don't open the door when the cops knock, you pretend to not be there.

 

[arakboss]

Looks like they somewhat kept police powers in check:

Supreme Court declines to broaden police authority to search homes

The court ruled that police in Rhode Island went too far when they searched for a gun in the home of man who had agreed to seek a mental health evaluation.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[arakboss]

Looks like they somewhat kept police powers in check:

Supreme Court declines to broaden police authority to search homes

The court ruled that police in Rhode Island went too far when they searched for a gun in the home of man who had agreed to seek a mental health evaluation.

www.nbcnews.com

I was a day late and a dollar short with this news.

 

[Lennie]

This court case involved the taking of firearms from a home under the pretense that the firearms presented a danger to the owner.

SCOTUS Rules Police Cannot Search Homes Without Warrants in the Name of 'Community Caretaking'

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an exception to the Fourth Amendment for “community caretaking” does not allow police to enter homes without a warrant.

time.com

 

[OldBroad44]

Very cheering. Both the result and the fact that it was unanimous.

 

[LibertyNews]

Well Duh

 

[SrMachoSolo]

I think the entire headline is important...

SCOTUS Rules Police Cannot Search Homes Without Warrants in the Name of 'Community Caretaking'

The incident occurred in 2015, only took how many years before it was decided...

-Robert

 

[po18guy]

Government power is a doubled-edged sword. It can oppress both evil and good. Lately, it has chosen the good, as they mostly do not resist oppression.

 

[titsonritz]

9-0 smackdown.

Don't see that often.

 

[po18guy]

Don't see that often.

It only furthers Joe Blow's intention to pack the court.

 

[Jonnyuma]

SCOTUS Rules Police Cannot Search Homes Without Warrants in the Name of 'Community Caretaking'

Time to put together a committee to study new names for it... thanks Supreme Court!

Should only cost a few $Million, not counting travel for fact-finding junkets to Pedo Island and an awards banquet at Benihana.

I don't want to join their bubblegumming committee club, but I'd like to submit "Neighbor-Nanny" and "Closet Creeping" for consideration as new, SCOTUS-friendly names for 4A violations.

 

[Stomper]

Keyboard warriors.

No, no, no!! The term is OPERATORS…. Thank you!

 

[Stomper]

View attachment 821841
It's a JOKE folks.

Aloha, Mark

That boy got more neck fat alone than the combined BMI of a dozen of his average NORKS….

 

[ma96782]

It's encouraging that SCOTUS made the connection, but the decision in this case has no bearing on red flag laws yet. Unfortunately, some poor soul will need a red flag taken out on them, then they will need to sue and take the case to the supreme court to get a decision that has a direct effect on those awful laws.

Good observation.

++++++++

BTW....I don't exactly recall. But maybe....the original article did not mention that the wife was actually NOT in the same household as the husband. Thus, she was in no REAL immediate danger.

Soooo.......
Maybe, IF she expanded her "concerns" that he was gonna come after her. Yup....seen that too. Rrrright. I can see the ABUSE POTENTIAL (in fact I have)......

Consider......
Angry wife claims that she fled the family household because of a "potential for violence".
Think of the "abuse shelters" that many cities have. Though some don't have them.
Yup.....call the police (or the newly formed community out reach worker) with "concerns about his mental health".
Then The Comedy ensues.
Be it via....."Welfare Check" or "Red Flag". Add a restraining order too (for good luck).

All in the name of "safety".
Or, was it really? Concern? Or, maybe with a bit of "revenge" thrown in?

Aloha, Mark

PS.....don't get me wrong. Lacking anything big......I don't see a need for the Police to "enter". The interview could have been conducted at the doorway. Though YES.....I'd much rather have a "view" of the person I'm talking to.

LOL. Speaking about actually seeing your subject.

A guy's wife once claimed that her husband had threatened suicide and had poured gasoline over his head. Yeah, his head was wet.....but, there was no gasoline smell. When interviewed, he said that he was not suicidal. He explained that his head was wet because his wife had "forced him" to live out of the garden shed.....and he was showering. Anyway.....she insisted that he leave.

Not seeing the love from his wife.....he left in his car. Rrrright......not even a couple of minuets later......he had somehow crashed into a tree and survived. Was it an attempted suicide of just an accident?

Consider.....what would the vehicle's insurance company cover? And, if he had died as a result? What sort of $ would she/could she have gotten as a result if it were ruled one way or the other?

 

[Ridge Walker]

This court case involved the taking of firearms from a home under the pretense that the firearms presented a danger to the owner.

SCOTUS Rules Police Cannot Search Homes Without Warrants in the Name of 'Community Caretaking'

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an exception to the Fourth Amendment for “community caretaking” does not allow police to enter homes without a warrant.

time.com

Was one a Sig or something?

 

[Stomper]

Good observation.

++++++++

BTW....I don't exactly recall. But maybe....the original article did not mention that the wife was actually NOT in the same household as the husband. Thus, she was in no REAL immediate danger.

Soooo.......
Maybe, IF she expanded her "concerns" that he was gonna come after her. Yup....seen that too. Rrrright. I can see the ABUSE POTENTIAL (in fact I have)......

Consider......
Angry wife claims that she fled the family household because of a "potential for violence".
Think of the "abuse shelters" that many cities have. Though some don't have them.
Yup.....call the police (or the newly formed community out reach worker) with "concerns about his mental health".
Then The Comedy ensues.
Be it via....."Welfare Check" or "Red Flag". Add a restraining order too (for good luck).

All in the name of "safety".
Or, was it really? Concern? Or, maybe with a bit of "revenge" thrown in?

Aloha, Mark

PS.....don't get me wrong. Lacking anything big......I don't see a need for the Police to "enter". The interview could have been conducted at the doorway. Though YES.....I'd much rather have a "view" of the person I'm talking to.

LOL. Speaking about actually seeing your subject.

A guy's wife once claimed that her husband had threatened suicide and had poured gasoline over his head. Yeah, his head was wet.....but, there was no gasoline smell. When interviewed, he said that he was not suicidal. He explained that his head was wet because his wife had "forced him" to live out of the garden shed.....and he was showering. Anyway.....she insisted that he leave.

Not seeing the love from his wife.....he left in his car. Rrrright......not even a couple of minuets later......he had somehow crashed into a tree and survived. Was it an attempted suicide of just an accident?

Consider.....what would the vehicle's insurance company cover? And, if he had died as a result? What sort of $ would she/could she have gotten as a result if it were ruled one way or the other?

I can tell you right now she'da been out the $500 deductible right off the bat!

 

[po18guy]

This is a right restriction on governmental power and applies the 4th amendment strictly. All of this was tried by King George III in the 1760s and onward. Why do we suppose that those Articles and Amendments were written in the first place? Today, the first, second and fourth Amendments are under severe attack. Can the third, relating to the quartering of troops (i.e. stemming from the Nat. Guard at the Capitol etc.) be far behind?

In an eerie parallel (and warning to us), consider this fact about King George III during the years he tried to forcibly re-take control of the American Colonies:

"In the later part of his life, George had recurrent, and eventually permanent, mental illness."

Sound familiar?

 

[SrMachoSolo]

In an eerie parallel (and warning to us), consider this fact about King George III during the years he tried to forcibly re-take control of the American Colonies:

Doomed to repeat history.

Wait, I'm near Portland, I mean... uh... Justice for King George III!

-Robert

 

[ma96782]

What I found interesting/of great interest was that one of the articles said.....

"Meanwhile, the court limited the reach of last year's ruling that rejected non-unanimous jury verdicts in serious criminal cases. The justices said then that the Constitution as originally understood meant a jury must be unanimous to find someone guilty.

Only two states — Louisiana and Oregon — had permitted guilty verdicts based on a 10-2 or 11-1 vote, and both had agreed to end the practice."

Taken from : https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...believe-someone-in-danger-at-home/ar-BB1gPRRx

"Come on man."

WTF is WRONG with OR and Louisiana? Why'd it take soooooo long?

Yeah.....I can remember someone speculated that the Strickland case might have gone to a Judge because he was afraid that a Jury verdict might still find him guilty (instead of counting on a "hold out" to save him).

Aloha, Mark

PS....for those that want to know more about the Strickland case click here : https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...lled-gun-to-stop-advancing-antifa-mob-n383093

 

[Elws25]

Smart enough to not talk trash on a public forum.

A little late for the "not talking trash" part