US Supreme Court guts the fourth amendment

[booley]

May 21, 2011 13:16:00 GMT -5 Shane for Wax said:

I never said they don't abuse power. They do.

and do you think that might be why there are limits on how and when cops can enter a home and when evidence is allowed?

Here's my problem. Your earlier statements suggest that you don't acknowledge that cops can and do abuse power. In fact, just the opposite.

But not all of them and not all the time.

So what? Seriously, so fucking what? As even you just admitted, some do. So if we aren't going to hold everyone to the same rules then what's the point?

No, not all cops abuse power. but the ones that do have an effect far beyond their numbers. Nor do the ends justify the means. No one thinks they are the bad guy. Everyone thinks their motives are good.

And seeing as how the courts are no more omniscient gods then the police are, we can't just pick and choose when these rules apply and when they don't.

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.

By itself maybe not but it is one more step in that direction.
The police entered when they heard movement. But the reason there was movement was because they were banging on the door.

So the gist of this is the cops prompted an action and then used that as "probable cause", using nothing but their own determination even though there is reason to believe that a warrant could have been obtained.

So if a cop can enter your home because you reacted to something they did and they don't have to even get an impartial judge to agree f that reaction was reasonable, then what exactly is supposed to stop them?

I understand why. But again, you're getting all up in arms.

Yes. I admit I think cops should have limits on what they can do. I am biased on that.

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.

I want them lynched? Where did I say that exactly? Where did I even imply that?

You see, calling me hyperbolic seems less credible when you are hyperbolic in doing it.

But hey if you want to know what I want, I am happy to tell you all.

First, that people at least consider Ginsburg's dissent. That there might be a creeping authoritarianism that puts the police's convenience over individual rights.

and secondly, that so many on this board stop acting as if mentioning that the cops can and do abuse power and should have limits is the same as "off the pigs"

[Shane for Wax]

I read the entire PDF.

Faulting the police for failing to apply for a search warrant at the earliest possible time after obtaining probable cause imposes a duty that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

Besides, the courts already pick and choose.

[booley]

May 21, 2011 14:24:42 GMT -5 Shane for Wax said:

I read the entire PDF.

your earlier comments suggest otherwise. Or at least you did not understand the subject matter.

I mean why do you think we have a fourth amendment? and how does this square with your earlier comments that the convenience of the police should take precedence?

Faulting the police for failing to apply for a search warrant at the earliest possible time after obtaining probable cause imposes a duty that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

I think it is to be found..

"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."

Besides, the courts already pick and choose.

Uhh no courts of law are not arbitrary. and even if they were and got away with it, that wouldn't excuse it.

[Shane for Wax]

I think the supreme court knows the Constitution better than you, considering I got that quote FROM the PDF. It does NOT state anywhere that there has to be a timeline. It's on page 14 of the PDF if you'd like to double check.

I never said it excused it. But I should have said that the varying courts often disagree on interpretation. Hence why we had this case pop up on a higher court it usually would have.

when did I say it should take precedence? I said jobs should be made easier. I purposely did not state anywhere that it should take precedence.

[booley]

May 21, 2011 14:40:14 GMT -5 Shane for Wax said:

I think the supreme court knows the Constitution better than you

This is an appeal to authority.

But ok lets quote a member of that court...

“If the officers in this case were excused from the
constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a
magistrate, it is difficult to think of [any] case in
which should be required.” Id., at 14–15.
I agree, and would not allow an expedient knock to over-
ride the warrant requirement.* Instead, I would accord
that core requirement of the Fourth Amendment full
respect. When possible, “a warrant must generally be
secured,” the Court acknowledges. Ante, at 5. There is
every reason to conclude that securing a warrant was
entirely feasible in this case, and no reason to contract the
Fourth Amendment’s dominion.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

(the first paragraph is actually the justice quoting another precedent to back up her arguments)

Now if you were quoting the SCOTUS when you claimed that "Faulting the police for failing to apply for a search warrant at the earliest possible time after obtaining probable cause imposes a duty that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.", perhaps you should quote them exactly here and cite who said it because you made it sound like it was your opinion. It also doesn't help that a reading of the 4th would seem to contradict that claim. Being a Justice imparts no infallibility.

Making me do it and try to figure out what you were thinking when you wrote it just sounds like you dodging responsibility. Especially when you have already glossed over so many other points you made that fell apart once examined.

Where did I say I wanted the police lynched, btw?

I never said it excused it.

Ok did someone hack your account because in all of your previous posts, it sure looks like you have devoted a lot of time defending (i.e. excusing) it.

But I should have said that the varying courts often disagree on interpretation. Hence why we had this case pop up on a higher court it usually would have.

Yes you should have said that as it's completely different from what you claimed before that courts "already pick and choose"

..when did I say it should take precedence? I said jobs should be made easier. I purposely did not state anywhere that it should take precedence.

Ok read back what you just wrote to yourself as if you are hearing it for the first time.

Because if getting a warrant was unnecessary even though it could have been done because it would have made the cop's job more difficult, then the convenience for the police trumping the 4th is exactly what you are arguing.

here are some more examples..

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'?

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.

Not only do you continue to display a complete lack of understanding of WHY we have a 4th amendment but yes, the logical conclusion from your statements is that we need to make the job of the police easier and if that means fudging things to get the evidence then so be it.

Seriously, do you really think I didn't consider what you were writing all this time and what it meant?

The most generous interpretation I can give your statements is they display ignorance which makes your arguments without any bearing on this topic at all. That you have failed to understand why we have a bill of rights and why "making the job of the police easier" is not a good counter argument when it comes to limiting what must be done to satisfy a civil right.

At worst I think you might be willfully obtuse, especially given how often you have tried to refute things I never said. I mean how many times do I have to repeat my damn point?

Ok I don't think you are debating me in good faith and I am very hungry so I am going to just go now.

[Shane for Wax]

You think I fail to understand. That's fine. What you fail to do is think about the other argument wisely. I can understand you're concerned that the 4th amendment has been thrown out the window (it has not). But... you're really taking it to an extreme level.

But at this point it's best to just agree to disagree.

[erictheblue]

May 21, 2011 11:14:48 GMT -5 booley said:

Ok but how is that probably cause? Don't people normally reside in their own homes?

Because the police were at that door after chasing a suspect to 1 of 2 doors. One had no sounds, the other had sounds. Which one is more likely to just have had someone run in?

The point you seem to be forgetting is that the police had just chased the suspect to that location. It isn't as if the police had just strolled up to the door and knocked - they had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly which door their suspect had run through. They guessed wrong.

[Shane for Wax]

I'm guessing we could have avoided this whole thing if they'd been able to hear when the other officer told them which door the suspect had run into. But they didn't hear.

[booley]

May 21, 2011 15:27:11 GMT -5 Shane for Wax said:

You think I fail to understand. That's fine. What you fail to do is think about the other argument wisely.

I did consider your arguments. I have spent several posts now dissecting them.

You have failed to defend them or address my points. In fact, as I said, you often failed to even acknowledge what I said in favor of some straw man of your own devising.

For instance, i asked you before , if the police can ignore getting a warrant even though they could get one, on the police's own initiative and because one reacted to the police's actions, then what limits do they the police have?

IF moving after someone bangs on your door is "probable cause" and emergency then what wouldn't be?

But... you're really taking it to an extreme level.

You have been unable to defend your position without one fallacious argument after another. Therefore I do not feel you can judge what is extreme and what is reasonable.

But at this point it's best to just agree to disagree.

all right. But understand this.

My frustration is not that we disagreed. I disagree with people all the time and don't think much of it.

It's that you argued so poorly and dishonestly. That so much of your argument were straw men and that you couldn't even do me the courtesy of addressing what I was saying.

[Shane for Wax]

Sorry. All of my good arguing is in my other pants.

[jackmann]

There are two parts to this. Were the cops right to enter the apartment, and were they right to make an arrest based on the evidence they saw when they entered?

For the first part: I'm going to say yes. They were in hot pursuit. They didn't know which door their suspect was on. They heard movement behind one of the doors, and decided it sounded like their suspect destroying evidence, and so they entered. While they were wrong in their assumption, it was not an unreasonable one. Of the two doors, they went into the one they could tell was occupied. Now, if they'd just been walking by, or if they'd already caught their suspect, this would have been an illegal entry, and the cops would certainly be in the wrong. But they had reasonable cause to think that their suspect was in the apartment.

While looking to see if the suspect was there, they saw the drugs in plain view. Notice, they did not go searching until after that point. These were drugs that were out in the open. They grabbed the drugs as evidence. This is permissible under the plain view doctrine. The police were there legally (under hot pursuit), and they didn't need to move anything to see the drugs.

So yeah, the Supreme Court ruled correctly. If they hadn't been in hot pursuit at the time, if they hadn't had reasonable cause to think their suspect was in the apartment, they would have been in the wrong. But because they did, they didn't do anything wrong.

[Dragon Zachski]

May 21, 2011 15:33:42 GMT -5 erictheblue said:

May 21, 2011 11:14:48 GMT -5 booley said:

Ok but how is that probably cause? Don't people normally reside in their own homes?

Because the police were at that door after chasing a suspect to 1 of 2 doors. One had no sounds, the other had sounds. Which one is more likely to just have had someone run in?

The point you seem to be forgetting is that the police had just chased the suspect to that location. It isn't as if the police had just strolled up to the door and knocked - they had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly which door their suspect had run through. They guessed wrong.

This. This this this this. So much this.

What part of this isn't being understood in this conversation?

[dasfuchs]

what cries for help from inside? The sound was movement, which is expected if you knock and someone is home.

Go back and read my example you so "thoroughly" defeated

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?

Because a neighbor thought someone broke into my house. They came and kicked open my door. I was upset, but not the "U R VIOLATIN' MY RITES!!!111"

[canadian mojo]

May 21, 2011 17:08:51 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

May 21, 2011 15:33:42 GMT -5 erictheblue said:

Because the police were at that door after chasing a suspect to 1 of 2 doors. One had no sounds, the other had sounds. Which one is more likely to just have had someone run in?

The point you seem to be forgetting is that the police had just chased the suspect to that location. It isn't as if the police had just strolled up to the door and knocked - they had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly which door their suspect had run through. They guessed wrong.

This. This this this this. So much this.

What part of this isn't being understood in this conversation?

I think it is understood, it is just concern over where the 'reasonable' line will get drawn. 1/3, 1/5, 1/10, the suspect ran into that apartment complex over there? With a broad interpretation, it has the potential for a lot of abuse.

[dasfuchs]

May 21, 2011 17:08:51 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

May 21, 2011 15:33:42 GMT -5 erictheblue said:

Because the police were at that door after chasing a suspect to 1 of 2 doors. One had no sounds, the other had sounds. Which one is more likely to just have had someone run in?

The point you seem to be forgetting is that the police had just chased the suspect to that location. It isn't as if the police had just strolled up to the door and knocked - they had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly which door their suspect had run through. They guessed wrong.

This. This this this this. So much this.

What part of this isn't being understood in this conversation?

The part that explains this isn't a violation of rights, law, or the Constitution.