And...another little chip off the Constitution..
- Thread starter BigVrunga
- Start date
yeahright
Well-known member
BigVrunga said:
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. :rant:
rugbybum
New member
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
***** Vampire
move to the south - buy a gun - lol.
Spartan117
Member
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
Well-known member
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
New member
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 homeMaynardMeek said:
jrkarp
Registered User
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."
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
Registered User
rugbybum said:
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
New member
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
Well-known member
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
idunk42
King Kong
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.
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
Well-known member
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'):blink:
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
King Kong
BigVrunga said:
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.
jrkarp
Registered User
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: Invalid Link Removed
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.
Highlights:
"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.
The full text of the opinion is available here: Invalid Link Removed
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.
Highlights:
"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.
BioHazzard
Banned
"...Sound crazy? That kind of **** happens every day.... "BigVrunga said:
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?
BigVrunga
Well-known member
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.
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.
BV
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
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
jrkarp
Registered User
BigVrunga said:
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:
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.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
Oh I agree totally with you jrKarp, I remember my old man talking to the kid on the phone, telling explictly to make sure all the guns were locked away and in the back of the vehicle, etc. There's other circustances surrounding his state of mind at the time that I wont go into (he was really depressed due to a recent break-up, and just wanted to come home and chill with his family basically - wasnt thinking things could get worse they they already were, etc). Only reason why he had stuff like the switchblade, syringe, etc was because everything he owned was in his truck - hell the cop even wanted to get him for 'illegal possession of government property' because he had Marine issue MRP's,blankets, etc from his time iin the corps.
And yes, it was a case of abuse of power by local officials..but when laws are passed 'for our own safety' that are generally picking away at our constitutional rights, the possibiliy that power will be abused is ever more present.
Either way, having witnessed the whole thing 1st hand, and saw what his family went through, and how elected government officials werent concerned in the least with the future of a bright young veteran who had served his country proud - anything like this raises a red flag and leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.
BV
BioHazzard
Banned
BigVrunga said:
"....I remember my old man talking to the kid on the phone, telling explictly to make sure all the guns were locked away and in the back of the vehicle, etc. ...."
:frustrate :frustrate
If you drive around with a sh1t load of guns at the back, then you are fvcked. Do you want to change the law and makes it ok for people to drive around with guns and weapons at the back?
It is armchair quarterbacking, but the lawyer his dad got him could probably have done a better job.
I know it is small consolation, but outside of corporate America, no one bothers to check if you have a felony or not. When i went to work for an investment firm, no one asked where I have been, what I have done or if I have a criminal background. They only cared if I could make money for them. So, having a felony may mean you can never work for Target. Coincidently, Target rejected me once.
A felony does not mean you are forever doomed to the underground economy.BioHazzard
Banned
"..And yes, it was a case of abuse of power by local officials..but when laws are passed 'for our own safety' that are generally picking away at our constitutional rights, the possibiliy that power will be abused is ever more present..."
hmmm... What's the alternative then?
hmmm... What's the alternative then?
BigVrunga
Well-known member
Damn it I just typed a long ass reply and it got wiped..
Anyway, yeah BioHazzard Im sure the kid will be fine in time. A lot of the jobs he dreamed of doing (marine, police officer, etc) are now off limits, and he's bitter as hell. Its tough to see a kid that was so proud to be a Marine, and proud to serve his country, assraped and give the ol' **** you by piece of **** local officials who just wanted to look like big shots prosecuting a 'gun runner'. Serously, that's what they made it out to be even though they knew full well he was just a kid down on his luck. Clean record, exemplary military career...I dont need to go on, it just pisses me off.
Honestly, I dont know. But its not putting more and more limits on basic civil liberties outlined by the bill of rights and united states consititution. It might seem trivial and easy to live with, but just once case like what happend to my bro is too much.
It was obvious the guy was moving, its over now though so no point going on about it. Criminals dont give a **** about gun laws, and it doesnt seem that all the laws surrounding them are doing much help when someone wants to mug someone or rob a bank.
Theres just too much bull**** and red tape and political correctness surrounding everything we do. I understand that America is a huge country and law is a very complex science, but it just seems to be getting way to big for its own good.
BV
Anyway, yeah BioHazzard Im sure the kid will be fine in time. A lot of the jobs he dreamed of doing (marine, police officer, etc) are now off limits, and he's bitter as hell. Its tough to see a kid that was so proud to be a Marine, and proud to serve his country, assraped and give the ol' **** you by piece of **** local officials who just wanted to look like big shots prosecuting a 'gun runner'. Serously, that's what they made it out to be even though they knew full well he was just a kid down on his luck. Clean record, exemplary military career...I dont need to go on, it just pisses me off.
Honestly, I dont know. But its not putting more and more limits on basic civil liberties outlined by the bill of rights and united states consititution. It might seem trivial and easy to live with, but just once case like what happend to my bro is too much.
It was obvious the guy was moving, its over now though so no point going on about it. Criminals dont give a **** about gun laws, and it doesnt seem that all the laws surrounding them are doing much help when someone wants to mug someone or rob a bank.
Theres just too much bull**** and red tape and political correctness surrounding everything we do. I understand that America is a huge country and law is a very complex science, but it just seems to be getting way to big for its own good.
BV
BioHazzard
Banned
Obviously his case has mitigating circumstances. With a good lawyer, he could have gotten a slap on the wrist instead of a felony. There is no doubt that he got a raw deal. Sure he violated the statutes and ignorance is no excuse. But there are mitigating circumstances in his case. The case should have been disposed off much more leniently. From the facts you mentioned, it seems to be a no brainer case that any dumb fvck lawyer could have explained to a reasonable judge. The DA and the officers may abuse the power, and charge you for pissing at an anthill. But you still have a judge. (Of course, you have fvcked up judges too.) No offence to our members who are lawyers, but there are plenty of incompetent and lazy lawyers who fvck with their clients' lives. And there are fvcked up judges on the other side of the bench.
I realize that good lawyers cost money.......:frustrate
I realize that good lawyers cost money.......:frustrate
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
BigVrunga said:
Good lawyers cost money, but they also need a point of procedure to deconstruct for the court.
Whenever you are in a situation of search or seizure you should never give consent to have your person or property searched. You have the right to decline permission even if the officers have a warrant. A warrant must be very specific as to what the police are searching and why the are searching your property or person. You simply state that any search is against your will and without your permission. Do not physically resist, as that is a crime. They will still search you, but anything that is found can be contested as an unreasonable search, which would prevent it from being used as evidence against you. If you grant permission to be searched anything found on your person or property can and will be used as evidence against you..goodluck!
jrkarp
Registered User
BioHazzard said:
Law is rarely that cut and dry. You might or might not be right, but it is impossible to make pronouncements like that without knowing all the facts of the case. Multiple felony charges are hardly ever a no-brainer.
Weapons possession offenses often are what are called "strict liability" offenses - if you are in possession, you are guilty, regardless of intent. Mitigation might be considered in sentencing, but not as to whether or not you are guilty.
In many states, judges are elected, not appointed, so they need to play politics. Also, the judge sees the case after the charges are filed. This judge saw multiple felonies stretching from weapons to drug charges. He saw the file before he saw the defendant. What would you think if you were in his position? Also, the guy was from out of state, which often works against a defendant, especially in small towns.
None taken. There are good and bad in every profession.
jrkarp
Registered User
BigVrunga said:
They do indeed. Hell, I'm only a year out of law school and I'm not cheap.
But most people, when confronted with serious charges, find a way to get the money. They take out another mortgage on the house, sell a car, cash in retirement funds or life insurance, anything. I don't know if your friend did this or if he needed to, or how good his lawyer was. But take it as free advice from this lawyer - if you ever need criminal defense for major or multiple felony charges, find the best lawyer you can, someone who specializes in that kind of defense work, and find a way to pay for it.
jrkarp
Registered User
anabolicrhino said:
This was my next point. Unfortunately, people are just too willing to be honest with the police. The person in question here, being military and therefore accustomed to submitting to authority, probably did exactly what he felt was right - he was up front and honest. However, this really is usually the wrong approach.
I will say that you should warn the police if you have a firearm in certain situations. For example, after I get my pistol permit, if I get pulled over when I am carrying, I will tell the officer because a) when he runs my plate the radio operator will tell him that I have a permit and b) I don't want him to freak out if I lean over to get my registration out of the glove compartment and he sees the weapon in my holster. But that is when I will be carrying legally, which is an entirely different situation.
BioHazzard
Banned
Not to be a smarta$$, but I am well awared of the fine points you high-lighted. In anycase, I appreciate the clarification. :head: :drunk:jrkarp said:
An interesting thought. If a Kennedy, or a Bush, or SpikeLee or IceT or Michael Jordan or TigerWood, was in his position, do you think he/she would get slammed with multiple felony convictions?
BioHazzard
Banned
Nah.. I'll call my Sears lawyer! :drunk:jrkarp said:
BioHazzard
Banned
Good point. Good ol Republic of Texas!!!jrkarp said: