US Supreme Court guts the fourth amendment

[Haseen]

The police did not create the exigent circumstances. The suspect did by running into an apartment.

The police subsequently knocked on the wrong door. Those knocks (which the police did, not the suspect) are what actually triggered the possible destruction of evidence. I'll agree they didn't *mean to* create an exigent circumstance by their own actions, but they did. I'm not saying they shouldn't have gone in, because at the time they honestly believed the suspect was there. But any evidence that was not in plain sight *before* they entered a private area they would not normally be able to enter should be void.

Okay, let us play make believe: A suspect runs into an apartment. The police follow him. If they seem criminal actions occurring that are unrelated to the fleeing suspect, is that unreasonable search?

In an otherwise private area where the suspect had trespassed, and the police had to enter to catch him? Then they should break up any illegal activity, confiscate illegal items, rescue any victims, etc.

As far as what should be usable for prosecution (this is just my opinion, may not be in the law, but the law is not always right) victim's rights/warrant > privacy > evidence collection.

[dasfuchs]

Where's our perp? Knock on the door Bob. Sounds like activity behind the door. Ohwell, let's go, he's obviously not here.

[Paradox]

They hate us for our freedoms.

[booley]

May 23, 2011 11:09:13 GMT -5 dasfuchs said:

Where's our perp? Knock on the door Bob. Sounds like activity behind the door. Ohwell, let's go, he's obviously not here.

and if that was what this was about, your argument wouldn't sound silly.

Police were not stopped from doing their jobs before. How do you guys think all the legitimate arrests were made before this ruling?

Magic?

[booley]

May 21, 2011 23:35:15 GMT -5 Shane for Wax said:

I think the PDF stated that was probable cause

Uhh the PDF stated the majority of justices held it be probable cause.

The dissent did not.

So it seems disengenous to act as if this is an objective fact.

Also... the point of incense is to smell nice, not make it smell like armpit.

Yet there is incense that smells like pot. and it's legal.

[Shane for Wax]

booley- If by doing their jobs you mean being able to catch someone using one tiny shred of evidence instead of that big lockerful that couldn't be used cause of someone crying all of their freedoms were violated then sure...

See the thing is you can't just say what you did. It's foolish. Yes there have been 'legit' arrests then there are the arrests that turn up empty because a lot of stuff is decided to be inadmissable. In these types of cases [in general, not the one I just mentioned in the last sentence] it's next to IMPOSSIBLE to know what was plain view, what wasn't. It's next to IMPOSSIBLE to know if Sergeant McGreeley is telling the truth about where he found the joint-- under the couch or on the arm of it? You can't know!

Unless you want the police to be carrying around video cameras all the time on their shoulders so you can see in court what they saw when they first went in. But imagine how much money that is. I'd love to be able to see them with them. But it just can't HAPPEN because a lot of departments are barely getting enough funding for weapons, armor, uniforms, and cars.

Would I jump up and down happily if it happened? Of course. Then we'd have fewer cases of 'well the cop conjured up the whole scene in his head... case thrown out. No evidence admissable!'

As for the case that spawned this thread and the Supreme Court ruling... *sighs*

I'm sorry but it seems a paradox is created by a lot of people.

RE: Incense that smells like pot: I never said it wasn't legal? I said it was a stupid scent. I've seen it in Spencer's. It's stupid.

@haseen- I said it on the last page-- police will ALWAYS create these circumstances. There's no stopping it. I'd rather a police officer knock and announce than not do anything or just barge in.

The PDF took a couple of pages to explain it. You're stating things that could be answered by reading it.

((If none of that makes sense I blame my sleepiness. And the fact I'm tired of arguing))

[Bluefinger]

May 23, 2011 14:36:17 GMT -5 booley said:

and if that was what this was about, your argument wouldn't sound silly.

Police were not stopped from doing their jobs before. How do you guys think all the legitimate arrests were made before this ruling?

Magic?

And I'm sorry to say this, but at this point, you are the one looking incredibly silly. Mountain out of a molehill, even when considering the circumstances and subsequent ruling. The situation the officers were in meant they had to act in order to try to catch a suspect, who had escaped and trespassed into property, of which they weren't sure which turn to take.

I don't see how the officers were in the wrong for wrapping up something else they came across during a chase. You can't expect a cop to ignore it, especially when the law is clear on circumstances like this.

At this point, the attempt to paint this as a constitutional issue is just... misguided.

[booley]

May 21, 2011 15:56:31 GMT -5 jackmann said:

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?

Actually I would say there is only one part, the first. Under the circumstances in which the police entered, should the evidence they found been allowed in the trial?

Without that, the second part becomes moot. Worse, it's being used over and over where as a straw man.

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.

Ok I am (to no one's surprise) say no.

It wasn't just hot pursuit. They didntt know where this guy went and the reason they went into that particular door didn't even have anything to do with the person they were chasing.

In other words, the logical conclusion is that if the police are chasing anyone, they can randomly search any home in the general area if they"suspect" that something might be going on. and they don't have to even get a judge if he agrees even if they have the time to do so.

In short, what does limit the police then from searching some one's home anytime they want to?
Police can always come up with a pretense and judges aren't mind readers that can tell if it was legitimate at the time so long after the fact.

They heard movement behind one of the doors,

AFTER they banged on the door. (all of these facts matter)

I have yet to hear how moving when you hear banging on one's door is in any way unusual. By this logic even immediately complying with the police's order would be suspicious.

But they had reasonable cause to think that their suspect was in the apartment.

No they thought they had reasonable cause and they didn't ask an impartial third party if he agreed.

This is why we separated these powers. Because what cops think in the heat of the moment and what an impartial magistrate thinks might not coincide.

While looking to see if the suspect was there, they saw the drugs in plain view.

I hate to keep bringing this up but that's not relevant.

IF they had gotten a warrant (which the lower courts believed they had had time to do and had been done in previous cases before) then they would have had the guy dead to rights and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Every time it's said or implied that ruling the other way means that cops can't arrest criminals, it's a straw man.

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.

What reasonable cause did they have to think the guy was in that apartment?

They didn't see the original suspect enter that apartment. It was the smell of what they thought to be marijuana. It was a completely separate thing.

I mean, if we are going to talk about "reasonable" how reasonable is it to think that someone running from the police is going to toke up and create an aroma of weed in the few seconds he was out of their sight?

That seems an unreasonable assumption.

[booley]

May 23, 2011 14:46:28 GMT -5 Shane for Wax said:

booley- If by doing their jobs you mean being able to catch someone using one tiny shred of evidence instead of that big lockerful that couldn't be used cause of someone crying all of their freedoms were violated then sure...

Sorry could you rephrase that in away that doesn't sound like wargarble.

Maybe quote back to me the exact phrase you are responding too?

But let me take a wild stab at what I think you are claiming because it sounds like the same point you keep making that I have addressed ad nauseum.

That the power of the police trumps individual rights. That if it's a choice between the cops" getting their guy" and protecting someone's rights (yes, even those that are doing bad things), then it's the police that should get the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately as I have said and you really never refuted, that is NOT why we have a bill of rights. The founding fathers did not put limits on the powers of the police for the sake of catching criminals.

Yes, the 4th amendment as people like Ginsburg see it does make the job of the police much more difficult. I have never denied that.

However there is a place where the police can gather any evidence they like and not have to worry about "violating rights'. They a called police states. The job of the police is much easier in a police state.

You may think this hyperbole but you have yet to state how this is untrue. You so far haven't even explained what limits do the police have.

See the thing is you can't just say what you did.

Considering how many straw men and other fallacious arguments you have made and how you didnt' even bother to quote back what I said you are responding too, it's clear to me you can't judge if what "I said" is foolish or not.

Yes there have been 'legit' arrests then there are the arrests that turn up empty because a lot of stuff is decided to be inadmissable. In these types of cases [in general, not the one I just mentioned in the last sentence] it's next to IMPOSSIBLE to know what was plain view, what wasn't. It's next to IMPOSSIBLE to know if Sergeant McGreeley is telling the truth about where he found the joint-- under the couch or on the arm of it? You can't know!

Besides that that yes there are ways to know at least most of the time, you also just made my case for me.

Yes you are right. Police can lie. Police can be mistaken. Which is why the bill of rights was put on the side of those that could be targeted by the police.

Even if that means sometimes Police can't use a "lockerful of evidence" in a trial as proof of what they claim.

Unless you want the police to be carrying around video cameras all the time on their shoulders so you can see in court what they saw when they first went in.

Actually many they do. But that's not even part of the question.

Ok here's the irony, In the rest of your post, you are actually making my case for me. Which leads me to believe you really don't understand what this is all about to begin with.

[booley]

May 23, 2011 14:46:47 GMT -5 Bluefinger said:

...
Mountain out of a molehill, even when considering the circumstances and subsequent ruling.

Then why can't any of you explain what limits remain? If the cops can enter your home because you moved after they knocked on your door, then what isn't probably cause?

The situation the officers were in meant they had to act in order to try to catch a suspect, who had escaped and trespassed into property, of which they weren't sure which turn to take.

A statement you can only make by ignoring the facts of the case.

You can call me silly but it's been the people arguing against em that claimed the original suspect entered the apartment, that the cops had reason to believe the original suspect had entered, that there were cries for help, that the sounds of flurried movement came before the cops announced they were there or that the reason the cops entered the apartment had anything to do with why they went into the apartment building to begin with.

ANd some of these are people who insisted i read the PDF (as if I hadn't)

IF you have to fudge the facts or ignore them outright to make your case, you have the problem, not I.

You can't expect a cop to ignore it, especially when the law is clear on circumstances like this.

Ok let me state this one more time. Let me even break nettiquette since being polite does not seem to work.

I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT POLICE HAD TO IGNORE EVIDENCE. THE DISSENT BY GINSBURG NEVER FUCKING SAID POLICE HAD TO IGNORE EVIDENCE.

THAT IS A FUCKING STRAW MAN. YOU WEAKEN AND EVEN DESTROY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT EVERY FUCKING TIME ONE MAKES IT.

What I am saying is there is a right way and a wrong way to get evidence. And the right way recognizes that the accused have rights no matter how obviously guilty they appear to be.

At this point, the attempt to paint this as a constitutional issue is just... misguided.

so Justice Ginsburg is misguided? What did she say that was wrong?

So far I haven't seen anyone actually address what she said.

Maybe I missed it (i'll go look later) but again, if you have to ignore large parts of the story, you might be suffering from GIGO.

I mean, you like many others, don't even seem to understand what I said despite me saying it over and over.

So would you know if I was misguided or not?

[Shane for Wax]

*sighs and shakes head* Whatever. It's really not worth continuing this.

[Kit Walker]

May 23, 2011 15:37:50 GMT -5 booley said:

Then why can't any of you explain what limits remain? If the cops can enter your home because you moved after they knocked on your door, then what isn't probably cause?

They can enter a dwelling that they have a reasonable belief a suspect just entered. If they turn out to have made the wrong decision but there is still illegal activity going on in the apartment, they are not expected to ignore but instead can act on it. That is not an unreasonable standard.

They weren't canvassing a neighborhood. They weren't going door to door through an apartment complex. They chose from one of two doors. They chose the door with audible movement behind it. The probable cause was that their suspect had just fled into one of these two apartments. Now, the reasons for their choice of apartment to search first is somewhat immaterial, so long as they were reasonable and the search was done in good faith.

[booley]

May 23, 2011 15:55:11 GMT -5 Kit Walker said:

They can enter a dwelling that they have a reasonable belief a suspect just entered.

Yes. If that had been what had happened, there probably would not be a case.

That's not why they entered that apartment, however. They thought a separate crime was occuring.

They weren't canvassing a neighborhood. They weren't going door to door through an apartment complex.

if they had been, what would have stopped them doing so?

I mean, humans aren't dogs. I smell what I think is weed all the time. By the cop's logic, every home on my block could be entered without warrant since there might be a crime going on in one of them.

[Kit Walker]

May 23, 2011 16:02:44 GMT -5 booley said:

Yes. If that had been what had happened, there probably would not be a case.

That's not why they entered that apartment, however. They thought a separate crime was occuring.

That separate crime being the destruction of evidence. And possibly someone smoking a joint. Still, if they reasonably believed that their suspect was in there committing at least one of the crimes they believed to be going on, the search was reasonable and in good faith. End. Of. Story.

if they had been, what would have stopped them doing so?

I mean, humans aren't dogs. I smell what I think is weed all the time. By the cop's logic, every home on my block could be entered without warrant since there might be a crime going on in one of them.

Because the smell of weed alone is not probable cause. The smell of burning weed plus people moving about plus suspect having had a 50/50 shot of entering the apartment equals probable cause. The final one is the most important.

[dasfuchs]

May 23, 2011 14:36:17 GMT -5 booley said:

May 23, 2011 11:09:13 GMT -5 dasfuchs said:

Where's our perp? Knock on the door Bob. Sounds like activity behind the door. Ohwell, let's go, he's obviously not here.

and if that was what this was about, your argument wouldn't sound silly.

Police were not stopped from doing their jobs before. How do you guys think all the legitimate arrests were made before this ruling?

Magic?

No, that's what it sounds like some expect the cops to do.
They chased a perp into the building. Not knowing which door he was behind, they went to the one they smelled pot and knocked and people started scrambling. Now here's where the logic seems to get screwy, apparantly at this point it's time to give up the chase according to some because they don't know who it is and entering would be a crime since the perp wasn't there. Then seeing illegal drugs in plain view they're supposed to say "sorry" and ignore it.