Repeal the 4th. It doesnt mean anything anymore.

 

 

 

The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.

Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.  

 

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," Alito wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant.

 

Never flush when the popo is near or you could be arrested for destroying evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ruling in the Kentucky case is just another in a long line of ridiculous rulings from the (UN)Supreme Court that makes a mockery of what is "constitutional".

200 hundred years of rulings from a branch of government that was never intended to be the final authority (the SCOTUS unconstitutionally assumed that power for themselves), has turned a document that had the sole purpose of limiting and chaining down the power of the federal government, to a dcoument that "rubber stamps" anything the feds want to do to expand their power.

 

The SCOTUS (or any judge for that matter) are not "wise and all knowing"...They do not possess some sort of "unknowable, mystical" knowledge of the Constitution (It's not written in Chinese, it doesn't need "interpreting")...they are nothing more than politically well connected lawyers.

 

I'm waiting for Dopie and Jimbo to comment......

Before you go all out and blame the current administration, you might want to look at what started it all (Patriot Act) and point the finger at the Republicans that signed it into law almost 10 years ago. It clearly violates the 4th amendment, but people were too busy wanting their revenge on the 9/11 culprits to realize they were signing their 4th amendment rights away. 

The Patriot Act was not even a consideration in this decision by the court. The court is

not following the constitution and making it up as they go. Liberal Judges believe they

are the Law. And as far as the Patriot Act, both parties Democrat and Republican. The

Country was scared and decided to take extraordinary measures to protect this

Country. You socialists can't continue to blame Republicans forever for everything.

 

Skippy

 

This is just a reflection of the changing interpretation of the 4th, which more or less began with the Patriot Act.  The Patriot Act allows surveillance of Americans by several federal agencies without the requirement of a warrant from a judge, even though the FISA and its secret court provided a means to do so.  Even the ACLU filed a brief in favor of repealing the Patriot Act. 

 

The Bush administration on Friday appealed a federal court decision declaring as unconstitutional a central provision of the Patriot Act, which Congress quickly adopted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

At issue is a September ruling by an Oregon judge who said the Patriot Act gave too much power to the government when it came to snooping on suspected criminals in the United States — a violation of constitutional search-and-seizure rules.

The administration is asking the San Francisco-based, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken. The judge ruled that the Patriot Act made it too easy for the government to secure warrants against criminal suspects from a secret court designed to help the authorities monitor and gather intelligence on terror suspects.

 

The secret court, known as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, was established after the passage of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Weeks following the 2001 terror attacks, Congress amended that law from allowing warrants if "foreign intelligence information" is the "primary purpose" of the search or surveillance to foreign intelligence being a "significant purpose."

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/02/bush-administra/

 

 

 

 

I’m surprised you aren’t pleased by someone appointed by a Republican governor to his state’s highest court.

 

This opinion was written by Justice Steven David, who was appointed by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels just last September.

 

Gov. Daniels calls StevenDavid “obvious” choice.

http://www.news-sentinel.com/a.../9180337/-1/LIVING02

 

The Indiana Supreme Court, in an apparent nod to the Tenth Amendment trumpeted by conservatives as limiting the federal government to certain enumerated powers, has decided that a part of the U.S. Constitution does not apply in their state.

 

You have failed to show how the Obama administration has influenced the decision of this court in any way. I’ll consider it a reflex knee-jerk added without much thought.

 

Glad to see you acknowldege the legitimacy of the 10th Amendment...all though you certainly misunderstand who "trumpets" the 10th and limiting the federal government...Both the republican party and the democratic party hate anything that limits their power.

 

But anyway...back to your accurate point that Indiana can decide for themselves what is constitutional and the Bill Of Rights in the federal constitution applies only to the federal government...Every state has a constitution (of course) that they are bound by as well and most mirror the Bill Of Rights. 

 

From ARTICLE 1. Section 11 of  the Indiana constitution:

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no
warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to
be seized."

 

Republican appointed or Democrat appointed...just goes to show once again that most judges aren't "wise and all knowing"...they are just well connected politically.

 

 

This was a bad call by a state court, neither influenced by the Patriot Act, nor the Obama administration.

 

Hopefully, the US courts will over rule this and the police who tasered an innocent man and left him unconscious will be successfully sued for much money.

 

The ruling makes it easy for thiefs to impersonate police during a home invasion, precluding homeowner resistance.

 

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12^th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

 

http://www.mikechurch.com/Toda...earches-we-will.html

First off, I'm neither liberal, conservative, democrat, republican. I just call things like I see them. You would have to be stupid to say the Patriot act didn't violate 4th amendment rights. I neither agreenor disagree with the acts of the current administration. I am just pointing out how hypocritical you are with calling them out by disregarding the massive amount of rights lost in the Patriot Act which was passed under the previous administration. IMO the finger needs to be pointed at any and all who violates our constitutional rights regardless which side of the political fence they are on.

RIAA Legislation: No Warrant Required to Search, Seize Optical-Disc Plants

Apparently the U.S. Constitution no longer applies when it comes to battling music and movie piracy.

Consider California legislation already passed by two state Senate committees. It allows law enforcement to enter optical-disc plants and seize disc-stamping equipment, and pirated movie and music discs without a court warrant.

Cool your jets Loki.

I didn't say anything like that. I said in response to the post above mine that the

Patriot act was not anything to do with the case that this thread is about. I've done the

same thing and caught a few words and thought I knew what I was reading before it

was interpretated by my brain. Please re-read my post then reply.

 

Skippy 

You will have a long wait. I don't have time to comment on lies that originate in ignorance. It is a waste of time and I am  bored with you and Skippy, and Cage. Have a nice day

 

In case you haven't noticed, SCOTUS has a conservative majority.

Can't believe the lefties think this is OK. I would like to see their faces when the police break into their house without a warrant.

 

BTW, SCOTUS is a left wing majority. It shouldn't matter what party you're with. This is just plain wrong.

First let me say I believe in our rights to be secure in our homes, papers, etc. Here is an optimistic take on the situation. In order to enter a home the police must have two things. Probable cause and a warrant. This ruling is simply an exception to the warrant clause. The police will still require probable cause to enter a home. Just knocking and bursting the door open because a toilet flushes will (and should not) be appropriate conduct. If the totality of circumstances is sufficient then it only allows the police to enter and stop the destruction of evidence. A search of the home should not be conducted without a warrant. Just my two cents.

Let me offer a nickel.

Although most cops are honest, there are still hotshot coppers out there that the end

justifies the means. I've known of situations were the police have fabricated probable

cause. Who can say when the copper is claiming he smells marijuana or just the stink

from the flush. The laws are written in fail-safe fashion to, not perfect, but to keep those

cowboy cops in line. Anyway how hard is it to get a warrant? Simply a phone call.

 

Skippy

Hot pursuit, or observation of a crime of violence in progress should be the two main exceptions to entering a home without a warrant. 

We have a winner for most uninformed post ever.

 

It’s a shame we have idiots like you walking around without a clue about the real world. You're just another worthless liberal.

It is not hard to get a warrant when you have the necessary probable cause. It does, however, take several hours in most cases. I think rulings like these are for when you have the probable cause to obtain a warrant but time will result in all of the evidence being destroyed. These "coppers" will just have the evidence suppressed in court if they don't have probable cause. These "coppers" will develop a re****tion for making things up ya sheeee and judges will be more critical. Yes, it does happen, but not too many times before these "coppers" start losing cases.

They pretty much are the main exceptions. When weed is legal it will be a non issue. Can't smell most other drugs so easily.

Don't you think there are more serious crimes that the Police could be focusing on

than sniffing out door steps? Marijuana smokers are harmless. The worst thing that

could happen is they might beat you to the donut case. The marijuana laws are some

of the most useless laws on the books. The laws were originally made to have a way

of locking up the black man. The continuation of these laws is just a form of prohibition.

They also contribute to criminals and keep the possible tax revenue from the bankrupt

Government.

 

Skippy

 

 

I may be wrong but I believe the laws were used as leverage against migrant Latino who were "takin our jobs" that no one else would do. A large percentage used marijuana and it was seen as a way to rid the land of these undesirables. I do agree with the gist of your post though. I would guess that most LEOs do too. Still, they have a job to do and we are lucky they do it.

You are not wrong. Have you seen any of the propaganda from those days? Ridiculous.

Yes sir. The movie Reefer Madness, is a comedy, but originally it was presented as fact. Some of the posters from that era are pretty over the top also.

 

Yes, I've noticed...kind of proves what I've said about judges...they are not some mystical, diviners of the all knowing...they are politically connected lawyers...

 

So what's your point?

 

Perhaps that conservatives are more likely to rule against the constitution.  BTW, most justices are not lawyers. There seems to be a preponderance of ignorance about the court here.

I reluctantly will have to agree with you Jimi. There IS a preponderance of ignorance here, but if you were to leave, that ratio would improve dramatically.

History has shown that being consrvative or liberal doesn't deter from straying from the Constitution.

 

By the way, are you actually trying to assert that "most" justices are not lawyers?...as in law school, pass the bar, and never practiced or taught law?

 

It seems the "preponderance of ignorance" is flowing from your posts.

 

+1