And...another little chip off the Constitution..
- 05-30-2006, 01:22 AM
And...another little chip off the Constitution..
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'.
- 05-30-2006, 01:29 AM
Originally Posted by BigVrunga
With that said, the 4th amendment has been getting brutalized since the 1980s and our current administration has decided to ignore it alltogether.
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
05-30-2006, 10:09 AM
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.
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
05-30-2006, 12:26 PM
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 homeOriginally Posted by MaynardMeek
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."
05-30-2006, 12:49 PM
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.Originally Posted by 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
05-30-2006, 12:55 PM
Yeah, I know. My point was that this isn't such a slippery slope.Originally Posted by rugbybum
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.
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
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
05-30-2006, 01:26 PM
Hopefully it will never happen but that is a good suggetion if it doesOriginally Posted by MaynardMeek
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.
05-30-2006, 01:37 PM
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')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.
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.
05-30-2006, 01:41 PM
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.Originally Posted by BigVrunga
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.
05-30-2006, 02:32 PM
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.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.
05-30-2006, 03:30 PM
This isn't actually a new law; it's a court ruling that interprets existing law and applies it to a certain set of circumstances.
The full text of the opinion is available here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-502.pdf
Note that this is a unanimous opinion.
Here is the holding:
Held: Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.
"An action is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind, “as longas the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the]action.” Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 138 (1978) (emphasis added)."
"We think the officers’ entry here was plainly reasonable under the circumstances. The officers were responding, at 3 o’clock in the morning, to complaints about a loud party. As they approached the house, they could hear from within “an altercation occurring, some kind of a fight.” App. 29. “It was loud and it was tumultuous.” Id., at 33. The officers heard “thumping and crashing” and people yelling “stop, stop” and “get off me.” Id., at 28, 29. As the trial court found, “it was obvious that . . . knocking on the front door” would have been futile. Id., at 92. The noise seemed to be coming from the back of the house; after looking in the front window and seeing nothing, the officers proceeded around back to investigate further. They found two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. From there, they could see that a fracas was taking place inside the kitchen. A juvenile, fists clenched, was being held back by several adults. As the officers watch, he breaks free and strikes one of the adults in the face, sending the adult to the sink spitting blood.
In these circumstances, the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing both that the injured adult might need help and that the violence in the kitchen was just beginning. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment required them to wait until another blow rendered someone “unconscious” or “semi-conscious” or worse before entering. The role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided.
The manner of the officers’ entry was also reasonable. After witnessing the punch, one of the officers opened the screen door and “yelled in police.” Id., at 40. When nobody heard him, he stepped into the kitchen and announced himself again. Only then did the tumult subside. The officer’s announcement of his presence was at least equivalent to a knock on the screen door." [Emphasis added by jrkarp]
Read the entire opinion, and then look at the headline in the article you posted. The headline is designed to get people upset and fired up, but it totally misrepresents what actually happened.
05-30-2006, 04:09 PM
Good posting Jkarp - that's usally what media headlines are designed to do.Read the entire opinion, and then look at the headline in the article you posted. The headline is designed to get people upset and fired up, but it totally misrepresents what actually happened.
05-30-2006, 04:18 PM
05-30-2006, 06:29 PM
Just set up one of those trap doors you see in the movies
Originally Posted by jrkarp
They can interpret my foot up there ass
05-30-2006, 07:43 PM
Uh, that's what appellate courts do. They interpret laws.Originally Posted by spatch
What is your problem with this ruling?
05-30-2006, 07:57 PM
"...Sound crazy? That kind of **** happens every day.... "Originally Posted by BigVrunga
So, who has experienced this "...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...." ? Has that ever happened to anyone?
05-30-2006, 09:37 PM
Not for steroids, but a close family member was pulled over for an out headlight while moving home from Wyoming. As recent ex-marine, he was an avid gun collector and had his gun collection in his vehicle - which included 2 handguns that were perfectly legal in Wyoming , but not in my home state without a license. He was sleeping at trucks stops and had over $3000 in cash in the cab with him, and he had a loaded clip in the truck as well incase he ran into any trouble.So, who has experienced this "...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...." ? Has that ever happened to anyone?
When he got pulled over, as a law abiding soldier of the Untied States he told the policeman straight away what he had in the car, after showing his military identification, etc. He was hauled out of the vehicle, arrested, his truck and everything he owned impounded after recieving over 7 citations including:
- Felony Posession of a loaded, unlicensed firearm (the trooper put the clip in the gun when he found the two together)
-Illegal posession transportation of fireworks (he found ONE soaking wet M-80 in the toolbox of the truck that the kid had in there for years and forgot about)
-Illegal posession of prescription medication. (ONE Vicodin pill that he had in a prescription pill bottle from getting his wisdom tooth pulled. The date on the bottle was expired)
-Illegal possestion of hypodermic needles (the cop found the syringe that he used on his 1st decca cycle that he'd kept in his jewlry box as a souvenier)
-Illegal possesion of an illegal switchblade (That the trooper laughed when he found it and said "hey this is better than mine", and we believe he kept, as it was never returned)
There were a few other minor charges that I cant recall at this time. The point is, the kid was moving with everything he owned on him, and got caught at the wrong place at the wrong time and got busted for EVERYTHING he had that was remotely less-than legal.
There were two troopers, and the one doing the ticket writing was so vehement about throwing the book at the kid, that his partner finally told him it was enough.
So after spending 50 days in the county lockup only 2 hours from home, his father had to cash in his 401k account to pay for a lawyer, and $7500 later the kid was let go with a Felony on his record (they refused to drop the handgun charge), and 3 years probation. He nearly went to jail for 7 years because the DA was insisitng that "As a marine, he was trained to kill and with that gun could have easily injured the officer"
I **** you not.
He walked the straight and narrow and graduated with honors - and is now having a hell of a time finding a good job because of the mark on his record. Even with an exemplary military record and a 3.9 GPA.
So he figured he'd just go back in the Marines, but they wouldnt take him because of the felony. Now he's working in a restaurant and bouncing at a local bar, trying to save up enough money to move to a bigger city where there's more opportunity. Hopefully, when he makes enough money, he can hire a lawyer to get the felony expunged from his record.
So no, Ive never seen someone busted and brought up on charges for prohormones, but Ive experienced 1st hand one of the brightest, nicest guys I know nearly have his life ruined because of bull**** laws that infringe on our constitutional rights. So when there's a potential for abuse, it can and will happen and unfortunately sometimes its to the people who absolutely do not deserve it.
And do you think if this kids father was a senator or a lawyer he would have gone down so hard? Of course not. Because its really not 'justice' in America...its 'lets make a deal', and those that can afford to make the best deals get the best justice.
To stay on topic, I do think police should definitely be able to enter a home to help someone if they're in danger of being injured, etc. But to turn a blind eye to the slow erosion of our civil liberties is something that we'll all pay for in the future.
05-30-2006, 10:08 PM
05-31-2006, 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by jrkarp
My problem is that if they can enter with out a warrant, you do not own the house, they do. If they can enter at any time legally, its government property in my mind.
05-31-2006, 03:51 PM
The ruling does not say that they can enter at any time. It says nothing like that. Please read my above posts and then read the entire opinion.Originally Posted by spatch
05-31-2006, 03:55 PM
yeah.. warrants are thrown out the window if there is a good darn reason.. warrants are used if you feel something is there that shouldn't be but.. aren't 100% sure
05-31-2006, 03:59 PM
Ok. That case (while tragic, and extremely disturbing) has nothing to do with erosion of civil liberties by the government. It has to do with:Originally Posted by BigVrunga
a) Overzealous police officers that were going very hard on a person from out of state
b) A DA who is an elected official, trying to look tough for newspapers and voters.
c) A judge who is an elected official, trying to look tough for newspapers and voters.
Unfortunately, these things happen all the time. It's a shame. There is not a ton you can do about it. It's plain old abuse of power, and that's nothing new - it's as old as time itself. Whenever there are people in power, power will be abused.
Your friend has some measure of responsibility. Not for bull**** like the Vicodin, but he should he was stupid to carry around a syringe, he should have checked the laws on switchblades and fireworks, and he should have checked the firearms laws (as for the licensing - see my comment above about abuse of power with regards to the magazine being put in the gun by the cop). I have traveled interstate with firearms and I have always checked the laws for every state that I plan to travel through.
I do feel for your friend - I too have seen people taken down by people abusing their positions of authority.
Similar Forum Threads
- By niners4reggie in forum Supplement AuctionReplies: 0Last Post: 10-28-2013, 04:05 PM
- By EasyEJL in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 20Last Post: 02-01-2013, 04:42 PM
- By EasyEJL in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 63Last Post: 08-10-2011, 08:47 PM
- By Craigmatthew in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 261Last Post: 09-04-2008, 11:14 PM
- By SoupBone in forum AnabolicsReplies: 19Last Post: 08-29-2003, 03:43 PM