|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 20, 2011 8:49:17 GMT -5
I still think it's insane that a botched chase could produce what is considered valid plain view evidence which only came into plain view after they fucked up the chase and went into a private area that they otherwise couldn't enter. But maybe that's just me. Also, it's not as clear cut as some of you make it out to be because the SCOTUS *did* have to overturn the state supreme court decision, and I assume the state supreme court also knows a little about the law. But, agree to disagree, etc. I'm done, laugh out loud. Please define botched. Please explain to me what you would do when you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right door during a chase. Please explain to me what you would do if you picked Door #1 that had evidence of a serial killer at large. You just going to go 'WHOOPS! Wrong door. Better go get another search warrant even though the evidence will probably vanish before I get back! Oh well! Serial killer will get away! But at least people won't accuse me of anything!' Well obviously the cops were supposed to just throw up their hands and give up. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 20, 2011 8:50:44 GMT -5
What kills me is that everyone is assuming that the police were correct in ASSUMING the sounds behind the door were people "getting rid of evidence". They could just as easily have been, oh, running around and getting dressed so they could answer the door. Oh boy, look who's here How does that change anything? They had to pick one door of two, they heard noise behind one. They opened that one. |
|
|
|
Post by perv on May 21, 2011 3:06:09 GMT -5
Oh the poor widdle coppers. Having to put up with a constitution would be so annoying. Nobody is saying they should have just given up and gone home. The lower court had exactly the right answer, sure they can go after their suspect, but they shouldn't be allowed to abuse the situation to perform a warentless search on some random home.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 21, 2011 3:46:02 GMT -5
It wasn't "some random home". They had probable cause to enter that apartment. It was the one that sounded like people were inside. But we can't let a little thing like that get in the way. Erictheblue's only got lawschool experience to back him up.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 21, 2011 8:17:17 GMT -5
Oh the poor widdle coppers. Having to put up with a constitution would be so annoying. Nobody is saying they should have just given up and gone home. The lower court had exactly the right answer, sure they can go after their suspect, but they shouldn't be allowed to abuse the situation to perform a warentless search on some random home. For those that didn't read the link "Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside an apartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search. The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent circumstances—the need to prevent destruction of evidence—justified the warrantless entry. Respondent entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed. The court assumed that exigent circumstances existed, but it nonetheless invalidated the search. The exigent circumstances rule did not apply, the court held, because the police should have foreseen that their conduct would prompt the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence. " As was asked earlier and was skipped over, if a cop sees a rape unfolding through a window or cries for help inside, should they do their job or obtain a warrant first? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 21, 2011 8:18:23 GMT -5
Hell, I think just smelling marijuana is enough to establish probable cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 21, 2011 11:14:48 GMT -5
It wasn't "some random home". They had probable cause to enter that apartment. It was the one that sounded like people were inside. ... Ok but how is that probably cause? Don't people normally reside in their own homes? And the reason that people were moving inside is because the police banged on their door. So it would suggest that all police have to do to get probably cause is do something to make you react to them. Not moving when someone is banging on your door yelling "Police Police Police!" seems unreasonable. Now I dont' have a law degree but these were the same points brought up in the dissent by Ginsburg and she does have a law degree. So I think this might have some merit. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 21, 2011 11:28:15 GMT -5
... For those that didn't read the link "Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside an apartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search. The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent circumstances—the need to prevent destruction of evidence—justified the warrantless entry. Respondent entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed. The court assumed that exigent circumstances existed, but it nonetheless invalidated the search. The exigent circumstances rule did not apply, the court held, because the police should have foreseen that their conduct would prompt the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence. " As was asked earlier and was skipped over, if a cop sees a rape unfolding through a window or cries for help inside, should they do their job or obtain a warrant first? Ok except reading the link your analogy doesn't seem to fit. There was no crime in plain view being done in the apartment. The police couldn't see into the apartment until after they came inside and they went inside because they heard movement. But they heard movement because they were banging on the guys door. And yes smelling marijuana is suspicious. But as someone who lives in a city where a lot of people smoke pot (and there's just tonnes of other not so pleasant smells) it can really hard to pin point where it's coming from. humans do not have a directional sense of smell. We are not dogs. guessing correctly from time to time doesn't change this fact. My point here is so far the arguments supporting this seems to boil down to that this would inconvenience the police. I think some of us are forgetting civil rights are by their nature inconvenient to the police. But we dont' have them for the police's sake. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 21, 2011 11:29:17 GMT -5
It wasn't "some random home". They had probable cause to enter that apartment. It was the one that sounded like people were inside. ... Ok but how is that probably cause? Don't people normally reside in their own homes? And the reason that people were moving inside is because the police banged on their door. So it would suggest that all police have to do to get probably cause is do something to make you react to them. Not moving when someone is banging on your door yelling "Police Police Police!" seems unreasonable. Now I dont' have a law degree but these were the same points brought up in the dissent by Ginsburg and she does have a law degree. So I think this might have some merit. People normally don't sound like they're trying to destroy evidence. There's a difference between the sounds of hurrying to get dressed and the sounds of someone trying to light counterfeit money on fire or throwing marijuana plants out the window. Plus... what if there is no sound? What if nobody is home? It happens a lot where the police announce their presence then push their way inside. But what if... now follow with me, here please... what if they see evidence of unregistered weapons, or illegal drugs while going through to find their suspect? Or maybe there's something about the person having committed murder? Should they ignore it because 'whoops, wrong door'? And don't even start with me about how drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Not part of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 21, 2011 11:45:16 GMT -5
.... People normally don't sound like they're trying to destroy evidence. There's a difference between the sounds of hurrying to get dressed and the sounds of someone trying to light counterfeit money on fire or throwing marijuana plants out the window. Ok maybe you should clarify something. What exactly does "destroying evidence" sound like because from the link and related articles, all the sounds that came from that apartment were movement. The police assumed that could be destroying evidence. IF I heard banging on my door and someone yelling police I would undoubtidly do a lot of movement a swell and none of it for nefarious reasons. It's not as if they heard a wood chipper behind the door. I mean, flushing a toilet could be destroying evidence. Or it could be they came by at a really inconvenient time. And from the statement that "drugs were in plain view" when they entered implies that they weren't destroying evidence. That they probably didn't even have time to think that far ahead. Cops tend to see (and hear) things in a nefarious light. That's not unreasonable. It's their job. But we should be aware that this can easily be taken too far and used as a carte blanc. People (cops included) always consider what they do reasonable at the time they are doing it. Whether it is or not. Sorry I am not following how this is relevant? I mean it seems almost as if you are saying that its ok to bust into a house as long as the cops manage to find something even if the probably cause they use dot justify it was of their own doing. I don't think that's how that's supposed to work. Actually sometimes that does happen that way. These rights, as I said, are not to make the police's job easier. They don't make their job easier. Well as I never brought up that up then..I agree it wasn't part of the question. That's probably why I didn't bring it up. Congrats on refuting an argument I never made?! Anyway, can we at least acknowledge that there was a dissenting opinion on the court about this? |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 21, 2011 11:57:48 GMT -5
I never said you did, I was stopping you in your tracks.
Besides, it isn't just about this one case. It's about all the others that would be popping up. Should we just be whistling and walking along on our merry way if we know that the cops saw evidence at all? Not to mention the movement could be the suspect or someone else trying to destroy evidence. You don't know. You can't know until we get equipment to every police force that can look through walls.
How about that? How about you spend money so that we can look through walls instead? But oops... invasion of privacy. So you have to get the door open. What if you take too long for the person to open the door and it's in fact the suspect and he gets away?
No. not 'as long as'. I'm saying that a lot of times if they find the wrong door and there's nothing there they will pay for damages or at least help with it.
Seriously this whole thing falls under one flag. People getting jumpy because the cops can better do their jobs that people are bitching about in the first place.
Let me put it this way... if you made the cop's job easier they wouldn't be as stressed and you wouldn't get the book thrown at you. If the cop's job was easier you'd have more solved cases instead of cold cases. Less stressed cops equals less police brutality.
It's like a game of dominoes. Every thing falls into place.
But do you want that?
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 21, 2011 12:37:16 GMT -5
I never said you did, I was stopping you in your tracks. Uhh ok, then you shouldn't bring up hitler and enemas and eating kittens. Those are also not part of the question. There, I stopped you from making an argument you didn't make. Now we are both very clever.[/sarcasm] Well yes obviously any case that goes before the SCOTUS is going to effect the law nationally (Gore v Bush not withstanding). I believe that was acknowledged in the OP and why this case was seen as a problem in that same OP. Ok I have to ask. do you understand WHY we have a fourth amendment? These rights do not exist for the benefit of the cops. They weren't made to make a cops job harder but they do as a matter of consequence. Which means sometimes, yes, evidence that would prove guilt gets thrown out. It's not that we want guilty people roaming free on the streets but long ago it was decided the alternative was worse. But you know, it's not as if the cops have no power concerning evidence. They can still collect evidence and stop crimes. they just have to do it a certain way. Plenty of guilty people still get arrested and got to jail based on evidence gathered against them with no constitutional questions raised. Which makes your examples seem hyperbolic. And buying duct tape could mean you plan on kidnapping someone. You don't know. So is the presence of duct tape probable cause? We can take your logic to absurd levels really quickly and without a lot of effort. Again you seem to not understand WHY we have a fourth amendment. Ok well the cops generally don't. Pay for damages they cause that is. But that's a topic for another time. Anyway, I am not sure "we got lucky this time" is an acceptable excuse to violate civil rights. Uhh did you just say that police don't ever abuse power or have lapses in judgement? I hate sounding like a broken tape recorder but... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionwww.enotes.com/law/group/discuss/why-do-you-think-4th-amendment-important-83825There are lots of interpretations as to what the 4th entails and how far it should go. But none of those posit that it is secondary to the convenience of the police or that the cops are the sole deciders for what is "reasonable" Your argument will always be lacking if you continue to have these blind spots. You don't have to put it "that way" You made that point very clear. It's just wrong. Regardless of how you state it. It is in fact contrary to the reason we have a bill of rights. You mean like in dictator ships where they don't have these pesky civil rights to keep the cops from doing what they want and getting in their way? Or to put it another way .. "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." Miquel Vargas |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 21, 2011 13:03:44 GMT -5
... For those that didn't read the link "Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside an apartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search. The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent circumstances—the need to prevent destruction of evidence—justified the warrantless entry. Respondent entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed. The court assumed that exigent circumstances existed, but it nonetheless invalidated the search. The exigent circumstances rule did not apply, the court held, because the police should have foreseen that their conduct would prompt the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence. " As was asked earlier and was skipped over, if a cop sees a rape unfolding through a window or cries for help inside, should they do their job or obtain a warrant first? Ok except reading the link your analogy doesn't seem to fit. There was no crime in plain view being done in the apartment. The police couldn't see into the apartment until after they came inside and they went inside because they heard movement. But they heard movement because they were banging on the guys door. And yes smelling marijuana is suspicious. But as someone who lives in a city where a lot of people smoke pot (and there's just tonnes of other not so pleasant smells) it can really hard to pin point where it's coming from. humans do not have a directional sense of smell. We are not dogs. guessing correctly from time to time doesn't change this fact. My point here is so far the arguments supporting this seems to boil down to that this would inconvenience the police. I think some of us are forgetting civil rights are by their nature inconvenient to the police. But we dont' have them for the police's sake. And as for the cries for help from inside? Seriously, they picked the wrong door because they heard noise and smelled weed. Did you expect the cops to stand outside and wait for 10 minutes or so? I've had cops enter my house when I was away before. When I got home they hassled me over two of my guns and their registration. Yeah, it pissed me off, but I don't expect them to just ignore things either. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 21, 2011 13:16:00 GMT -5
I never said they don't abuse power. They do. But not all of them and not all the time. You're making it seem like this will give them the green light to bust into anyone's house no matter what is happening. That simply is not true.
I understand why. But again, you're getting all up in arms.
Again, they picked the wrong door and you seem to want them all lynched and cry about how all of your rights are being violated.
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 21, 2011 13:30:31 GMT -5
.... And as for the cries for help from inside? what cries for help from inside? The sound was movement, which is expected if you knock and someone is home. did you read the dissenting opinion? Why were they entering your house? And are you saying it's ok f or them to break into your home since they didn't find anything? I feel like you are leaving way too many details out for me to determine if your example has relevancy here. And as I told shane, this is not about "ignoring things". please respond to what I said, not what you think I said. |
|
