Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Supreme Court affirms police action in Kentucky drug case (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/supreme-court-affirms-police-action-kentucky-drug-case-42653/)

Bigcountry02 05-18-2011 04:39 AM

Supreme Court affirms police action in Kentucky drug case
 
A little more of our freedom of the 4th Amendment just disappeared. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 with Judge Ginsburg strongly disagreed.

What is next, having an illegal candy bar? :mad:

Supreme Court affirms police action in Kentucky drug case - The Washington Post

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

Generally, the Constitution requires police to receive permission or obtain a warrant before entering someone’s home, which Ginsburg called “our most private space.” But the court has recognized exceptions in “exigent” circumstances: For instance, when a life might be endangered, a suspect might escape or evidence might be destroyed.

PanBaccha 05-19-2011 07:29 PM

Quote:

The court ruled 8 to 1 that Kentucky police who smelled marijuana at an apartment door, knocked loudly and announced themselves, and then kicked in the door when they thought the drugs were being destroyed did nothing wrong.
Oh, for Pete's sake, man! I remember when there was a time when younger we would walk down the streets of New York smoking a bit of weed while police were standing at the corners. Isn't there something BIGGER the police of today should be seeking? Rather than break down a door because they smelled pot. What nonsense! Do I smoke? No I do not. But that's beside the point. :cool: Slowly but surely our rights will be watered down or simply suspended. All authorities need is a premise and a philosophical viewpoint to legitimize their actions. Always works.

dog2000tj 05-19-2011 07:34 PM

This supposed War on Drugs justifies bloated budgets, costly equipment and military style training and tactics

They have to show some progress :rolleyes:

ta1588 05-19-2011 09:29 PM

***Facepalm***

dnthmn2004 05-19-2011 09:44 PM

Ever hear of an exigent circumstance? :rolleyes:

JonM 05-19-2011 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigcountry02 (Post 506464)
A little more of our freedom of the 4th Amendment just disappeared. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 with Judge Ginsburg strongly disagreed.

What is next, having an illegal candy bar? :mad:

.

actually yes. soon as the political scum that inhabit both parties make the connection than candy makes kids fat---candy is bad----candy illegal----more they can steal in taxes to wage a war on sugar for power

this country is almost done

pandamonium 05-20-2011 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnthmn2004 (Post 507650)
Ever hear of an exigent circumstance? :rolleyes:

I had never heard the word, looked it up...

Exigent;

1. Demanding attention

2.Requiring precise accuracy

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


IMO, if it demands attention, then a warrant must be issued. The 4th is clear, I don't see the word "exigent" in there anywhere!

dnthmn2004 05-20-2011 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandamonium (Post 508024)
I had never heard the word, looked it up...

Exigent;

1. Demanding attention

2.Requiring precise accuracy

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


IMO, if it demands attention, then a warrant must be issued. The 4th is clear, I don't see the word "exigent" in there anywhere!

Unfortunately, your opinion is wrong. Ever hear of 'case law'?
Do some Google searching on 'warrantless search and seizure'.

Davo45 05-20-2011 12:27 PM

+1
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dnthmn2004 (Post 508033)
Unfortunately, your opinion is wrong. Ever hear of 'case law'?
Do some Google searching on 'warrantless search and seizure'.

In the Kentucky case, the marijuana smell was coming from one of two closed doors in an apartment building where officers had chased a cocaine dealer into (they knew he was a cocaine dealer because a member of their squad had just bought from him) and heard a door slam around the corner.

They smelled burning marijuana coming from the door on the left and reasoned that a cocaine dealer may very well have gone into an apartment where someone was smoking weed, or that the dealer had been smoking weed there himself before coming outside to sell some coke.

As LEOs, we don't make laws, the legislature (or congress in the case of federal officers) does. We may not agree with all the laws the legislative bodies pass, but we're still expected and paid to enforce them. The SCOTUS didn't "take away" anybody's constitutional rights in this ruling, they merely reaffirmed existing case law.

I suppose those of you who've been so critical of the police on here wouldn't even want officers to force entry into your homes if a neighbor called 9-1-1 to report that they'd heard what sounded like gunfire coming from your house just after hearing glass breaking and officers found a broken window and saw two bleeding bodies on the floor (one of which might reasonably very well be yours otherwise you'd have called 9-1-1).

I can see it now, "Let's see, we have a broken window, sounds of possible gunfire heard by the next door neighbor and can see two bleeding bodies lying in the floor, but nobody's answering the door when we knock on it and ring the door bell to give us permission to come in.....we'd better go get a warrant, oops, can't unless we can find a judge or magistrate awake (because it's 2AM, etc.)....well I hope the homeowner doesn't bleed to death before we can get a warrant because we can't violate the man's 4th Amendment rights.

If you have a problem with the drug laws, don't gripe and complain about them on a forum, lobby your state legislature and congress to repeal them, or better yet, run for office and sponsor a bill yourself if you're elected.

dnthmn2004 05-20-2011 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davo45 (Post 508137)
I can see it now, "Let's see, we have a broken window, sounds of possible gunfire heard by the next door neighbor and can see two bleeding bodies lying in the floor, but nobody's answering the door when we knock on it and ring the door bell to give us permission to come in.....we'd better go get a warrant, oops, can't unless we can find a judge or magistrate awake (because it's 2AM, etc.)....well I hope the homeowner doesn't bleed to death before we can get a warrant because we can't violate the man's 4th Amendment rights.

Thanks for the laugh. :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:20 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.