U.S. supreme court reduces 4th amendment protection.

[bryan7675]

I'm kinda of surprised this is not already posted.

In a case from Kentucky; police where chasing a drug suspect into an apartment complex, and lost sight of the suspect. In searching the complex they come to a door and smelled marijuana. They knocked and announced, though they heard evidence being destroyed; busted down the door.

The supreme court 8-1 said this is ok.

<broken link removed>

I personally thinks this goes way beyond drugs. Now if the cops what to search your home it is an easy 3 step process:
1) Knock and announce.
2) Wait a second or two and hear something that might be destroying evidence. This could be a flushing of a toilet, typing on a keyboard, paper shredder.
3) Bust down your door.
4) Well OK here is number 4. Make up a reason after word.

I have no problem with the police, most of them are top notch people who do a very hard job; and get very little in thanks. So if your a cop, thanks for what you do for us.

The state, including the police have great power, and the bill of rights was setup to protect the people from that power. The fourth and fifth amendments are not to protect the guilty, they are to protect the innocent.

Read More

 

[joeroket]

The fourth and fifth amendments are not to protect the guilty, they are to protect the innocent.

They are for the protection of everyone against unwarranted intrusion not just innocent people. Technically everyone is innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers. Even then the system fails.

This ruling does not surprise me at all. The officers were in a common area searching for a drug suspect and could smell the marijuana and heard rustling and what sounded like toilets flushing. To me this would give PC that a crime was being committed and authorize a warrantless entry. Then again there is nothing going on in my house that would give cause for PC for entry into my house.

 

[Redcap]

This is a slippery, dangerous slope...

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

What Redcap said

 

[saxon]

to quote george orwell " i mean how can we have a slogan like freedom is slavery when the idea of freedom has been done away with years ago "
for a police officer to "think he heard something or smelt something" gives him PC ??? to over ride the 4th????
better go back to school sunnny boy and read your bill of rights and KNOW of what you speek of


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

that means even WITH PC they MUST get a Warrant also,
as ruth even said

"In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case had handed the police an important new tool.

"The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases," Ginsburg wrote. "In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant."

She said the Fourth Amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ... forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.

"

 

[joeroket]

for a police officer to "think he heard something or smelt something" gives him PC ??? to over ride the 4th????
better go back to school sunnny boy and read your bill of rights and KNOW of what you speek of

And you need to go back to school. Do you really expect people to take you serious with spelling and grammar like that? Unless you are around 100 years old please refrain from calling me sunny boy (sic). Next time though you might want to spell it correctly. Go try and insult someone else please.

I know what the 4th says and I know what the courts have ruled in the past. Apparently you do not. Warrantless searches and exigent circumstance, Google those phrases. If you then want to attempt to argue your point intelligently I will be more than willing to engage you in discussion. You have shown a lack of intelligence and the inability to look at the totality of the circumstances that resulted in the search at hand. Until you can do so I am done with this thread.

 

[joeroket]

This is a slippery, dangerous slope...

I agree it is but I do not believe this ruling gives the police power to knock and enter at will without having PC of a crime being committed. There are a very specific set of circumstances that are involved in this case.

 

[The B]

I agree it is but I do not believe this ruling gives the police power to knock and enter at will without having PC of a crime being committed. There are a very specific set of circumstances that are involved in this case.

and all of them must be taken at the officer's word.

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

This decision GUTS the 4th amendment. Sugar coat it how you like - you have no more 4th amendment protection. Who would have thought that the recent Indiana supreme court decision could have even been possible? Given that SCOTUS has no respect for the constitution and Bill of rights, watch the rest of your rights evaporate like mist in the morning. The 1st is under severe attack, and they will find some weasel way around the 2nd soon. I don't know for sure where this is going, but it's not a good place for the american people. This is how the republic ends - not with a bang - but a whimper.

 

[dmancornell]

and they will find some weasel way around the 2nd soon

Soon? NFA34?

 

[Redcap]

I agree it is but I do not believe this ruling gives the police power to knock and enter at will without having PC of a crime being committed. There are a very specific set of circumstances that are involved in this case.

You seriously believe that drivel?

This ruling opens the door for blatent (and now protected) abuse.


Makes me glad I live out in the sticks.

 

[saxon]

wow to think i was talking to you, when what i said is right out of the article and in relation to,
The other chief Justus's that used the 4th amendment to say it was ok.
About the only thing I used from you was the short version PC (probable cause)
Guess I should not type on my cell phone then.

but thanks for showing me that you are upset, as i belive we all are about this subject.

And in regards to the george orwell quote and the sunnny boy comment,,,,,,,,,,,
This article and the patriot act have already done away with the 4th amendment
As it was meant to be.

(H.R. 3162, the "USA PATRIOT Act") to allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. This means that the government could enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupant was away, search through her property and take photographs, and in some cases seize physical property and electronic communications, and not tell her until later. This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States.
The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures requires the government to both obtain a warrant and to give notice to the person whose property will be searched before conducting the search. The notice requirement enables the person whose property is to be searched to assert her Fourth Amendment rights. For example, a person with notice might be able to point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that because the warrant is limited to a search for a stolen car, the police have no authority to be looking in dresser drawers. The Supreme Court recently affirmed that notice is a key Fourth Amendment protection. However, it has not ruled on the constitutionality of sneak and peek searches.
The major rationale for requiring a warrant before conducting a search is to ensure that a neutral and detached third person - usually a magistrate - will review a warrant prior to issuance. The invasion of privacy must be held to a minimum. In a covert search warrant,
there are often no limitations on what can or will be searched. Any protections afforded by a warrant are meaningless when the searching officer has complete and unsupervised discretion as to what, when and where to search and the individual owner is not provided notice so cannot assert and protect her rights.

 

[joeroket]

You seriously believe that drivel?

This ruling opens the door for blatent (and now protected) abuse.


Makes me glad I live out in the sticks.

I don't think it opens the door for blatant abuse but it certainly does open the door for more challenges that would further rip the 4th apart. the next few years will definitely be interesting.

 

[joeroket]

wow to think i was talking to you, when what i said is right out of the article and in relation to,
The other chief Justus's that used the 4th amendment to say it was ok.
About the only thing I used from you was the short version PC (probable cause)
Guess I should not type on my cell phone then.

but thanks for showing me that you are upset, as i belive we all are about this subject.

And in regards to the george orwell quote and the sunnny boy comment,,,,,,,,,,,
This article and the patriot act have already done away with the 4th amendment
As it was meant to be.

(H.R. 3162, the "USA PATRIOT Act") to allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. This means that the government could enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupant was away, search through her property and take photographs, and in some cases seize physical property and electronic communications, and not tell her until later. This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States.
The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures requires the government to both obtain a warrant and to give notice to the person whose property will be searched before conducting the search. The notice requirement enables the person whose property is to be searched to assert her Fourth Amendment rights. For example, a person with notice might be able to point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that because the warrant is limited to a search for a stolen car, the police have no authority to be looking in dresser drawers. The Supreme Court recently affirmed that notice is a key Fourth Amendment protection. However, it has not ruled on the constitutionality of sneak and peek searches.
The major rationale for requiring a warrant before conducting a search is to ensure that a neutral and detached third person - usually a magistrate - will review a warrant prior to issuance. The invasion of privacy must be held to a minimum. In a covert search warrant,
there are often no limitations on what can or will be searched. Any protections afforded by a warrant are meaningless when the searching officer has complete and unsupervised discretion as to what, when and where to search and the individual owner is not provided notice so cannot assert and protect her rights.

I will give you that. The patriot act was and is a gross injustice to the american people but it does not strip away the search warrant requirement. Officer have been able to conduct warantless searches for many years, some cases are very similar to the one in the OP. It just has not been fully challenged until recently. This ruling does not give them any more powers than they had before under lower court rulings.

 

[AMProducts]

While I do agree there is a slippery slope, I am not sure this is where the grade starts.

For example, in the stated case, the officer smells marijuana, hears evidence being destroyed, and upon entry finds a nuclear weapons lab. The true test of this ruling will come when no marijuana is found, and nobody was stoned, is the nuclear weapons lab still admissible in court since PC was false?

Realistically, if the police are walking by your front door, and they hear someone screaming "oh god help me" they have PC to kick down your door and make sure everyone is ok. Is this an overreach of PC?

If you drive a car just about anywhere in the US, you are bound to deal with these same kinds of rights issues and you have to know how to deal with them. Rather than being a legal scholar, you're probably better off learning how to deal with people, police included. Everyone has a few stories about being stopped by cops and harassed, just like everyone has stories about how they got away with something. The best way to avoid being harassed is don't do shady things, don't act shady, don't use drugs, don't look like you use drugs, don't go near places where people use, sell, or buy drugs, and chances are your life will be pretty mellow.

 

[The B]

and what happens when police kick in your door, you DO have marijuana, but it's less than an ounce? you cannot kick in doors for violations.

 

[2506]

I think it's interesting to note that this was an 8-1 decision. If it is indeed a slippery slope as others have posted, why then wasn't it 5-4 or 6-3 as is typical in most cases on the subject of personal protection? I for one, in this case, am not worried about the erosion of my rights. Other recent SCOTUS, however, do.

 

[MrB+]

The officers ... heard what sounded like toilets flushing. To me this would give PC that a crime was being committed...

Then again there is nothing going on in my house that would give cause for PC for entry into my house.

You never flush the toilets at your house?

MrB+

 

[bugeye]

I don't think it opens the door for blatant abuse but it certainly does open the door for more challenges that would further rip the 4th apart. the next few years will definitely be interesting.

Was 'opens the door' a pun, cause it if wasn't it should have been!

 

[bugeye]

You never flush the toilets at your house?

MrB+

"But we waited until we heard the plunger."
"Of course we had probable cause, it was obvious he was full of poop!"
We knocked several times but all he said was "Dave's not here man"! (Note: this one was for men of a certian age if you don't get it don't worry!)