Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Supreme Court affirms police action in Kentucky drug case

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-20-2011, 03:38 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pasco Cty.FL
Posts: 6,510
Liked 2442 Times on 1391 Posts
Likes Given: 1910

Default

In the case of a drug dealer, what should the interpretation of the

4th Amendment be?

IMO, "unreasonable searches" become "reasonable" when there's a high

probability you're selling poison to my children...

__________________
therewolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 04:28 PM   #12
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Doesn't the argument in this thread strike close to the issue of the legality/illegality of drugs, and isn't that the crux of the problem?

If a guy wants to smoke a joint in his living room and a cop smells pot smoke wafting out the living room window, the cop should most certainly NOT be able to bust the door down and arrest the guy. It all comes back to whether or not the government has the authority to tell you what you may or may not ingest.

On the other hand, if cops have legit reason to believe a real crime - one where someone or someone's property are at stake - is or recently has been committed and they have to bust a door down before something Really Bad[tm] happens, that's another matter.

__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 06:38 PM   #13
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5731 Times on 3358 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnthmn2004 View Post
Unfortunately, your opinion is wrong. Ever hear of 'case law'?
Do some Google searching on 'warrantless search and seizure'.
Not exactly, "wrong" is a value judgement; his opinion disagrees with current case law to the best of your knowledge. Opinions & knowledge do vary, but legality is not the same as "right", nor is illegality thesame as "wrong".



Quote:
Originally Posted by Davo45 View Post
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).
Dead bodies DO NOT EQUAL the smell of marijuana being smoked. If an officer/system can't see a distinct difference between a crime that usually ends with somebody getting a citation & a fine versus a crime that would involve the morgue, homicide investigation, and notification of the next of kin, then that is not the officer/system i would trust with my protection, nor the protection of my rights.

You can rest assured that regardless of what the courts & system say my rights are, the rights i will defend with MY life and whatever amount of force I deem necessary will be my rights as I define them (a weee bit closer to those reiterated by the U.S. Constitution (nottheboattheotherone)).
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 09:24 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dnthmn2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Do you see what happens,Larry?!
Posts: 3,317
Liked 5 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Getting back to the original story.

The dealer ran into an apartment building to flee the police. I know I'm running through that door to not only continue pursuit but to stop the suspect from destroying any evidence on him or in the apartment. The officers used a reasonable decision that a drug dealer went into the apartment that smelled like drugs. Enough probable cause all day, the guys weed becomes evidence after the fact and gets busted. End of story.

It baffles my freakin mind that Ginsburg disagreed with the actions of the officers.

__________________
AMAT VICTORIA CURAM

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Last edited by dnthmn2004; 05-20-2011 at 09:26 PM.
dnthmn2004 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 07:10 PM   #15
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5731 Times on 3358 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnthmn2004 View Post
The officers used a reasonable decision that a drug dealer went into the apartment that smelled like drugs. Enough probable cause all day...
I think this is the primary point of contention, and opinions vary. If a squad car chases a fleeing bank robber down my street, would it be "reasonable" for the officers to search every house with a garage? I don't think so. I also think it is heavy-handed tactics and such abuse of personal privacy and the 4th amendment that make many "regular citizens" less forthcoming/cooperative with LEO's.

I'm baffled that i actually agree with Ginsburg.

Of course, opinions vary as they should in a "free" society.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 07:23 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Birmingham,AL
Posts: 300
Liked 5 Times on 5 Posts
Likes Given: 40

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Doesn't the argument in this thread strike close to the issue of the legality/illegality of drugs, and isn't that the crux of the problem?

If a guy wants to smoke a joint in his living room and a cop smells pot smoke wafting out the living room window, the cop should most certainly NOT be able to bust the door down and arrest the guy. It all comes back to whether or not the government has the authority to tell you what you may or may not ingest.

On the other hand, if cops have legit reason to believe a real crime - one where someone or someone's property are at stake - is or recently has been committed and they have to bust a door down before something Really Bad[tm] happens, that's another matter.
I'm afraid that as long as it remains illegal to sell, possess or manufacture certain drugs, then anyone who is in violation of those laws is "committing a crime", we aren't exactly talking about rocket science here. As soon as you can show me a "right" to manufacture, sell, possess or use a dangerous drug in the USC then and only then will I give your argument any thought.

It isn't like the officers were just "in the area" and smelled burning/burn marijuana, they were in active pursuit of a FELONY suspect. THAT is where the distinction was made, that, and the fact that the weed smoker who was inside the apartment refused to open the door. Justice Alito opined that if he had've opened his door, told the officers there wasn't anyone else there, and exercised his 4th amendment rights by refusing them entrance until they returned with a warrant, they couldn't have entered. But, since he refused to do so, in Justice Alito's words, "He got what he deserved."
__________________
Davo45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 07:48 PM   #17
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5731 Times on 3358 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davo45 View Post
As soon as you can show me a "right" to manufacture, sell, possess or use a dangerous drug in the USC then and only then will I give your argument any thought.

...Justice Alito opined that if he had've opened his door, told the officers there wasn't anyone else there, and exercised his 4th amendment rights by refusing them entrance until they returned with a warrant, they couldn't have entered. But, since he refused to do so, in Justice Alito's words, "He got what he deserved."
Where is it in the U.S. Constitution that the government has the authority to determine what i can and cannot eat, smoke, or drink? Where is even the most general provision for the federal or any other government to limit my decision making authority in that area discussed in the U.S. Constitution?

Alito has a good point; if we were all to simply provide the local police with duplicate keys to our homes, cars, storage houses, and bedrooms, i'm sure they would be very even-handed in their application of the law, JUST LIKE IN THE FREAKIN' SOVIET UNION, CUBA, SADAAM-ERA IRAQ, OR ANY OTHER TOTALITARIAN STATE. I didn't sign up for life as a serf & have no plans to go along with such anti-American crap.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 04:58 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pasco Cty.FL
Posts: 6,510
Liked 2442 Times on 1391 Posts
Likes Given: 1910

Default

IMO, there's a major issue here, because the same laws which might

protect a casual pot smoker in his home, behind closed doors, can be abused

to harbor hardened chemical pushers and dealers.

This grey area is at the heart of the issue, and it's

aggravated by LEOs who, as another poster put it, are,

in many cases, "revenue collectors" trying to open a

new can of money for their jurisdiction.

__________________
therewolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 06:05 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dnthmn2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Do you see what happens,Larry?!
Posts: 3,317
Liked 5 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
I think this is the primary point of contention, and opinions vary. If a squad car chases a fleeing bank robber down my street, would it be "reasonable" for the officers to search every house with a garage? I don't think so. I also think it is heavy-handed tactics and such abuse of personal privacy and the 4th amendment that make many "regular citizens" less forthcoming/cooperative with LEO's.

I'm baffled that i actually agree with Ginsburg.

Of course, opinions vary as they should in a "free" society.
Thats a terrible comparison. If the cops are chasing a bank robber in a car down a street, they obviously can see which garage they went into. The physics of your comparison are not in the same category.

This dealer ran around a corner of a hallway and disappeared into one of two doors. "I'm goin with the door that smells like drugs Bob."

Lets redo the situation with a different felony, same exigent circumstance. Say the suspect murdered someone, ran down the same hallway, put a bloody hand print on his neighbors door and then went into a different apartment. Your saying the cops have no right busting down that door?
__________________
AMAT VICTORIA CURAM

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
dnthmn2004 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 08:18 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
culdee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: western,NY
Posts: 293
Liked 27 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 10

Default exigent my ass

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnthmn2004 View Post
Unfortunately, your opinion is wrong. Ever hear of 'case law'?
Do some Google searching on 'warrantless search and seizure'.
Read some history besides off Google and see what rights and liberties we have already sacrificed to the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on obesity.
__________________

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine
Vietnam Vet 1968 MCB 53 Danang

culdee is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
New 2A cases to go before Supreme Court? BigByrd47119 Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 08-26-2009 02:40 AM
Supreme Court Appointment falseharmonix Politics, Religion and Controversy 28 05-30-2009 10:44 PM
Supreme Court on RKBA bkt Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 03-19-2008 01:30 AM
2nd Amendment - Supreme Court notdku Legal and Activism 5 11-20-2007 05:40 PM
D.C. Officially Petitions Supreme Court To Hear Gun Ban Case opaww Legal and Activism 1 09-18-2007 12:59 AM