And...another little chip off the Constitution..

**BigVrunga** · 05-30-2006, 01:22 AM

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003672101

I can see the point they are making here, but it does open up a potential for abuse, like most of the newest 'adjustments' to the constitution meant to 'keep America safe'.

**yeahright** · 05-30-2006, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigVrunga

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003672101

I can see the point they are making here, but it does open up a potential for abuse, like most of the newest 'adjustments' to the constitution meant to 'keep America safe'.

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and I didn't understand why this case was appealed to the SCOTUS. From the fact pattern, it seems pretty clear that the cops had probable cause and didn't exceed actions reasonably related to the incident giving rise to PC.

With that said, the 4th amendment has been getting brutalized since the 1980s and our current administration has decided to ignore it alltogether.

rugbybum · 05-30-2006, 02:12 AM

there is no reason for that. how hard is it to say POLICE than kick the door in. I completely aagree they had every right to go in but is there really a reason to put it in writing that they dont have to say anything? I thought that the whole probable cause thing kinda covered that. Our freedoms are slowly but surely being chipped away and the masses remain oblivious to it all. We are not very far away from becoming a military state and have all our lives controlled in every aspect by the government

goldylight · 05-30-2006, 10:09 AM

move to the south - buy a gun - lol.

Spartan117 · 05-30-2006, 11:25 AM

that is exactly how i feel rugbybum, I feel like government is way too big and they continually overstep their boundaries especially with this administration. Just my opinion.

MaynardMeek · 05-30-2006, 11:40 AM

This is nothing new.. police have been doing this for years and years.. it is actually what someone would expect... if there is an emergency in any location where an official of the law is around.. one feels it is their duty to conduct such a aid of rescue... the difference now.. its just in the books as part of the duty

rugbybum · 05-30-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaynardMeek

This is nothing new.. police have been doing this for years and years.. it is actually what someone would expect... if there is an emergency in any location where an official of the law is around.. one feels it is their duty to conduct such a aid of rescue... the difference now.. its just in the books as part of the duty

Exactly they have always done it wth probable cause and that is absolutely ok. But what if you are watchng a movie to loud and they just bust in turn it down and leave I know that is a stretch but still. They could very easily violate the privacy of your home

**jrkarp** · 05-30-2006, 12:48 PM

I really don't see what the problem is here.

They saw a fight, the occupants could not hear them over the noise, so they entered. They were doing their job.

What's the problem?

The headline is horribly misleading. The Supreme Court said no such thing. The headline should read "Supreme Court Says Police Can Enter Homes Without Notice After Observing a Fight Through a Window When Occupants Cannot Hear Police Asking to Enter."

**jrkarp** · 05-30-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rugbybum

Exactly they have always done it wth probable cause and that is absolutely ok. But what if you are watchng a movie to loud and they just bust in turn it down and leave I know that is a stretch but still. They could very easily violate the privacy of your home

I haven't read the decision yet, but the article indicates that the decision regards preventing violence, so it could not be extended to cover you watching a movie turned up loud.

rugbybum · 05-30-2006, 12:52 PM

I was just using that as an extreme example. But hey cuold say that the movie sounded as though someone was being hurt

**jrkarp** · 05-30-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rugbybum

I was just using that as an extreme example. But hey cuold say that the movie sounded as though someone was being hurt

Yeah, I know. My point was that this isn't such a slippery slope.

They could say the movie sounded like that, but honestly, if a movie is turned up that loud, it's going to be obvious it's a stereo, not real people (not to mention background music, etc). Also, the police in this case saw the fight through a window, so that adds another element.

rugbybum · 05-30-2006, 12:59 PM

True had a frend that was murdered and the police werent going to go in the huose even thogh there had been reports of gun shots. Then they saw 3 bodies thru a window and then they had their probable cause they then found out 3 people were dead and a 4th was wounded crawling down the street of the neighbor hood trying to escape

MaynardMeek · 05-30-2006, 01:24 PM

i would say.. if the cops break down your door. and a movie is playing.. take pictures of everything, get a copy of the police report and have the state, town, city pay for a new door

rugbybum · 05-30-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaynardMeek

i would say.. if the cops break down your door. and a movie is playing.. take pictures of everything, get a copy of the police report and have the state, town, city pay for a new door

Hopefully it will never happen but that is a good suggetion if it does

idunk42 · 05-30-2006, 01:28 PM

A police officers duty is to serve and protect. If there are people engaged in a fight, an officers obligated to protect whoever is involved.

Not sure about every state, but in Wisconsin, if an officer sees something that is in their plain site, and dont have to take any drastic measures to see things that are going on, then they have all the right in the world to enter a home or building if the safety of another human being is in jeopardy. In this case, they did the right thing, regardless if the knocked or yelled 'Police' or didnt.

**BigVrunga** · 05-30-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Not sure about every state, but in Wisconsin, if an officer sees something that is in their plain site, and dont have to take any drastic measures to see things that are going on, then they have all the right in the world to enter a home or building if the safety of another human being is in jeopardy. In this case, they did the right thing, regardless if the knocked or yelled 'Police' or didnt.

I definitely agree...but unless this new ruling clearly states what an 'emergency' is, I can see the potential for abuse. What if an 'emergency' is the police thinking your family is in jearpordy because they believe you have a supply of recently banned prohormones - based on phone conversations they've listened in on and mail they've tracked (which would be OK for them to do, as of course by posessing illegal chemicals you would be, in the eyes of the law, a 'narco-terrorist')

And once you are busted, you're charged for each capsule of M1T, 4AD, etc that you own, and are brought up on 'intent to distribute charges' ,and your house and kids are taken away, bank accounts frozen, and you lose your job. After finally getting out of the mess with only $10,000 in legal fees, 2 years probation and a felony on your record - you discover that its incredibly hard to get a decent job doing anything, because no one wants to hire a convicted criminal.

Sound crazy? That kind of **** happens every day. That's why even small stuff like this should raise a big red flag - but it doesnt, and it wont. Because the people that are making the rules and their families will never end up in a situation like the one described above, and the ones that do will rarely, if ever achieve the socio-economic or political status to make their voices heard.

BV

idunk42 · 05-30-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigVrunga

I definitely agree...but unless this new ruling clearly states what an 'emergency' is, I can see the potential for abuse. What if an 'emergency' is the police thinking your family is in jearpordy because they believe you have a supply of recently banned prohormones - based on phone conversations they've listened in on and mail they've tracked (which would be OK for them to do, as of course by posessing illegal chemicals you would be, in the eyes of the law, a 'narco-terrorist')

BV

I understand where your coming from on this. The big thing that they talk about is the 'discretion' of the officer. And yes depending on that officer, it could be cause for some problems.

As for them thinking or have an 'inside tip' about you having prohormones or whatever, its alot more complicated than that. Even if they do have some tip, then in order for them to come in an 'emergency' situation, they would actually have to see the item(s) in question. In most cases, officers are not going to take the time to go through the whole ordeal of trying to bust a casual user of PHs/AAS. The only tend to go after the 'big fish.' Im not saying that they havent or wont, its just highly unlikely.

**BigVrunga** · 05-30-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

As for them thinking or have an 'inside tip' about you having prohormones or whatever, its alot more complicated than that. Even if they do have some tip, then in order for them to come in an 'emergency' situation, they would actually have to see the item(s) in question. In most cases, officers are not going to take the time to go through the whole ordeal of trying to bust a casual user of PHs/anabolic steroids. The only tend to go after the 'big fish.' Im not saying that they havent or wont, its just highly unlikely.

I agree with you there...but just the fact that the potential is there is bad enough. When laws like this get made, they never seem to get ammended to allow for more freedom, because then whoever pushed it through looks like they're 'soft on crime', etc.