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 05-23-2011, 12:14 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: seattle,wa
Posts: 36
Default

This case isn't about your rights or the 4th amendment. A Police Officer in pursuit of a criminal is going to make split second decisions based on his interpretation of the law and the courts will back him up. Right or Wrong the police officer is goig to get his way and he will likely be prepared to use deadly force to do that. It just doesn't matter how right you are if you OR a cop is dead.

__________________
hawkman3111 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 03:13 AM   #22
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 culdee View Post
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.
I do read history and I'm very educated on our judicial system. I was simply imposing Google as an easy start for someone who wanted to know a little something about case law.

Sometimes when the players change the game, you need to change the rules. Theres no way our forefathers could have seen the world we live in today.
__________________
AMAT VICTORIA CURAM

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Last edited by dnthmn2004; 05-23-2011 at 03:28 AM.
dnthmn2004 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 10:59 AM   #23
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davo45 View Post
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 about what rights I have or don't have. It's about what power and authority the government has and doesn't have. Nowhere in either the federal or state constitutions is the power to regulate what individual citizens ingest given to the government to oversee or regulate.

A crime should be defined as a deliberate action taken by one individual which causes harm to another individual or to his property.

That said, of course we all understand the reality today of bans on all sorts of items, the possession of which constitutes a "crime" when no one has been harmed in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davo45 View Post
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."
So you and Alito are saying that because someone doesn't specifically tell agents of the government to scram and come back when they have a warrant that it's OK to ignore property rights? Respectfully, I disagree.

If he was a felony suspect and the cops just wanted to have a chat, that's fine. If the guy didn't want to chat then that's fine, too; go get a warrant and keep it legal. Remember: the word "suspect" means something and we are supposed to believe in innocence until guilt is proven.

I realize the whole issue of drug control laws is tangentially related to this topic, but it is an important issue to consider. Instead of pot, would it be OK for a cop to bust my door down if they had very good reason to suspect I had a bayonet lug on my AR-15 (illegal in NYS)?
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 06:02 PM   #24
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 history

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnthmn2004 View Post
I do read history and I'm very educated on our judicial system. I was simply imposing Google as an easy start for someone who wanted to know a little something about case law.

Sometimes when the players change the game, you need to change the rules. Theres no way our forefathers could have seen the world we live in today.
Sorry my response was rude. I am tired of people in power changing the rules, changing the players and still calling it the same game. This is not the America of 50 years ago and it has not changed for the better. Police wonder why they are more and more being targeted by the bad guys and good guys, well keep changing the rules and unfortunately that sort of thing happens. Its hard to even tell some police from the drug dealers today. While that might seem lke a good way to catch the bad guys it also masks who the good guys are. AND if they no longer play by the rules are they still the good guys? Isn't that what always made this country different, that we always played by the rules. That is what separated us from the terrorists, the drug dealers, the murders. I think the founding fathers could have forseen the world we live in today and that was the reason for the constitution and the bill of rights. Advances in technology do not excuse lapses in morality or stealing our freedoms by our legislators, our courts, or the abuses of the executive.
__________________

"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
Old 05-23-2011, 06:58 PM   #25
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
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?
Why terrible, let's say that road has a blind curve, just like the hallway corner, or perhaps the bank robbery suspect had a quick car and got a bit of a lead on the patrol car.

A bloody hand print is not the same as the smell of some guy smoking pot. Again, one crime would end with a citation and fine while the other might end up with a lethal injection sentence. However, IF the cops don't get an answer at the "bloody hand print" door and have reason to believe that there is another potential murder victim inside and in danger, yes they should burst into the apartment, BUT if they don't get an answer and have no reason to believe anyone is inside other than the murder suspect, then they have little to lose by covering the door and watching the window until they get a warrant. They would still have the bloody fingerprints for evidence, so no real risk of the loss of evidence and no bystanders at risk, so why should they risk violating the 4th amendment rights of that tenant (who may or may not be the murder suspect) when they can have a warrant in 20 minutes ("yes, your honor, we chased dude and see a bloody handprint, thanks bye").

Why should the police have to commit a crime to pick up a hiding suspect when they could easily get a warrant without risk of losing the suspect or injury to a bystander or even risking evidence (got that bloody handprint for DNA & fingerprints)? If they can't do their jobs without violating the rights of the citizens, then they need to move on and make room for better officers.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 07:00 PM   #26
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 bkt View Post
Instead of pot, would it be OK for a cop to bust my door down if they had very good reason to suspect I had a bayonet lug on my AR-15 (illegal in NYS)?
Gosh! I hope they don't torch my safe to see if my SKS is 922 compliant (it is). There has to be a limit or two to prevent a police state.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 07:12 PM   #27
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
Gosh! I hope they don't torch my safe to see if my SKS is 922 compliant (it is). There has to be a limit or two to prevent a police state.
Limits don't mean squat when they're ignored by the government and the people. That's what we have today. Bummer, isn't it?
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 08:13 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mjkeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wichita,Kansas
Posts: 4,026
Liked 8 Times on 8 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davo45 View Post
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.
I agree that LEOs have a job to enforce laws rather they like/agree w/ them or not.

Though I am just an AJ student at the moment it doesn't take more than common sense to realize your "dead bodies through the window" is completely different. Id bet you know theres a difference as well. An LEO seeing dead bodies through a broken window is different than acting off of a "hunch".

I hear gunfire from time to time around my neighborhood. What if my neighbors reported gun shots coming from my house when my wife and i were out of town? Does that give the PD the right to break down my door because no one answered their knocks?

What happens when an officer after many attempts to arrest a known drug dealing concocts a bogus story in order to enter the dealers house? Although scum the dealer does still have rights under our laws.

What happens when an officer uses a bogus story to break into his recent ex-wifes new house to snoop?

I dated a lady who had just divorced a deputy sheriff who tried using his position to obtain info that was well out of his rights.

When the line begins to blur crazy **** can and will happen. What happens when the line of personal privacy gets blurred and agents can simply walk in and out of your home? It has happened and is happening in certain parts of the world.

Its a thin line but there must be a line. We can't punish people for others inability to obey our laws.
__________________
mjkeat is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 03:39 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Bighead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oklahoma City,Oklahoma
Posts: 643
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
It isn't about what rights I have or don't have. It's about what power and authority the government has and doesn't have. Nowhere in either the federal or state constitutions is the power to regulate what individual citizens ingest given to the government to oversee or regulate.
Actually the 10th Amendment gives the state the power to enact laws not reserved for the federal government. Police officers in Kentucky were most likely enforcing state drug laws. If you don't agree with state drug laws, then petition your representatives to make changes, and work to elect more libertarian candidates.

Quote:
A crime should be defined as a deliberate action taken by one individual which causes harm to another individual or to his property.
"should be" shows this is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Other feel that laws should provide security in society, and that drug use and abuse causes significant harm in society. If you want to advocate for "punish the abusers" then show me that we're able to do that with alcohol and I'll let you start legalizing more drugs. Alcohol is one of the single most destructive substances in our society, and that is partly because of the social acceptance that goes with legality.

Quote:
That said, of course we all understand the reality today of bans on all sorts of items, the possession of which constitutes a "crime" when no one has been harmed in any way.
Such as?

Quote:
So you and Alito are saying that because someone doesn't specifically tell agents of the government to scram and come back when they have a warrant that it's OK to ignore property rights? Respectfully, I disagree.
Unfortunately for you, the Constitution made what 5 out of 9 selected people believes more important than what you believe. Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but its not your opinion that becomes the law of the land.

Quote:
If he was a felony suspect and the cops just wanted to have a chat, that's fine. If the guy didn't want to chat then that's fine, too; go get a warrant and keep it legal. Remember: the word "suspect" means something and we are supposed to believe in innocence until guilt is proven.
Presumption of innocence is for the court system, not the police. If the police presumed everyone innocent, no one would be arrested. Longstanding legal decisions allow for exceptions to the search warrant.

Quote:
I realize the whole issue of drug control laws is tangentially related to this topic, but it is an important issue to consider. Instead of pot, would it be OK for a cop to bust my door down if they had very good reason to suspect I had a bayonet lug on my AR-15 (illegal in NYS)?
You ignore the legal concept of "totality of the circumstances." It's not as if the police were walking along and smelled marijuana and kicked in a door. They were in fresh pursuit of a person they were attempting to arrest for a felony crime. The person entered one of two apartments, thereby limiting the potential for error in the pursuit, and officers detected burning marijuana coming from one of the two choices and made a reasonable assumption that the apartment where they smelled the marijuana was the mostly likely to have had the door opened/closed in the preceding moments, and that a drug criminal would reasonably flee to an area where there was drug activity.

Your rifle example is disingenuous because it doesn't include hardly any of the circumstances of the scenario in question. There is no underlying crime, there is no fresh pursuit, and there is no evidence of a second crime coupled with the potential to destroy evidence.
__________________

I don't make jokes, I just watch the government and report the facts. -Will Rogers

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill

Bighead is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 10:57 PM   #30
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighead View Post
Actually the 10th Amendment gives the state the power to enact laws not reserved for the federal government. Police officers in Kentucky were most likely enforcing state drug laws. If you don't agree with state drug laws, then petition your representatives to make changes, and work to elect more libertarian candidates.
That's absolutely right. Now show me any state constitution that gives the state government power to regulate what its citizens may and may not ingest.

It doesn't matter if the drug laws were state or federal; state governments are bounded by their constitutions in the same way the federal government is. Obviously, the big caveat may be a state constitution drafted in such a way that no limits are set on its government. That may exist, and it would be interesting to read if it does. But unless it does, drug-control laws are arguably illegal at the state level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighead View Post
"should be" shows this is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Other feel that laws should provide security in society, and that drug use and abuse causes significant harm in society.
Yeah, well, "others" feel it's my responsibility to work so that a large percentage of my paycheck can go to them so they don't have to work. That's theft at best and slavery at worst and it contravenes fundamental concept of retaining the fruits of one's labor.

Certainly, others are free to believe all kinds of crimes can exist in which no one is actually harmed but the perp is eligible to hang or go to prison or pay hefty fines. I think that's b.s. No, I take that back. I know it is b.s. and morally reprehensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighead View Post
If you want to advocate for "punish the abusers" then show me that we're able to do that with alcohol and I'll let you start legalizing more drugs. Alcohol is one of the single most destructive substances in our society, and that is partly because of the social acceptance that goes with legality.
It isn't that drugs aren't often harmful but that the individual being harmed is the one who chooses to ingest them. No governing authority exists to keep us safe from ourselves.

If I'm stone-cold sober and well-rested and I drive through a crowd of people, I'm going to be in a heck of a lot of trouble. If I do that drunk or stoned, I should be in just as much trouble. No more, no less.

Chuck Schumer advocated banning a certain kind of bath salt because the chemicals used can be exploited to make meth. Just as idiot politicians have banned useful medications (eg: Actifed, my favorite allergy med) to try to thwart meth-heads, they're now going after other products. Is this right? Or does it make a lot more sense to let the meth-heads kill themselves off and let the rest of us remain free to manufacture and purchase what we want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighead View Post
Such as?
What, you couldn't think of any examples by yourself? How about a bayonet lug on my AR-15? Or a flash hider? Collapsible stock? Any of these would constitute a felony crime and land me in prison. Being in possession of a handgun without a permit - prison. But that's just my state's laws.

Having a suppressor or a full-auto or even just certain parts (eg: auto-sear) without a Class III can and usually will land you in federal prison just for being in possession of these items without having harmed anyone or even thought about committing an actual crime against others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighead View Post
Unfortunately for you, the Constitution made what 5 out of 9 selected people believes more important than what you believe. Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but its not your opinion that becomes the law of the land.
No, but I can read and I'm a reasonably intelligent guy and unlike some, I don't need the High Priests to interpret what plain English means. The SCOTUS is a terribly flawed court, having made some egregiously stupid decisions that continue to screw us to this day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighead View Post
Presumption of innocence is for the court system, not the police. If the police presumed everyone innocent, no one would be arrested. Longstanding legal decisions allow for exceptions to the search warrant.
Longstanding legal decisions made slavery fine and dandy, too. Longstanding legal decisions have screwed gun owners to the wall. Some longstanding legal decisions are flawed or outright wrong and can, should and eventually will be overturned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighead View Post
You ignore the legal concept of "totality of the circumstances." It's not as if the police were walking along and smelled marijuana and kicked in a door. They were in fresh pursuit of a person they were attempting to arrest for a felony crime. The person entered one of two apartments, thereby limiting the potential for error in the pursuit, and officers detected burning marijuana coming from one of the two choices and made a reasonable assumption that the apartment where they smelled the marijuana was the mostly likely to have had the door opened/closed in the preceding moments, and that a drug criminal would reasonably flee to an area where there was drug activity.
I'm not going to go into lurid detail, but it seems to me that once the suspect is off public land and holed up in a private residence, the cops have a legal obligation to get a warrant. They can keep cops outside watching doors and windows to make sure the suspect doesn't get away, but they should NOT be busting down doors. The obvious exception to this would be if they believe someone or some property are in imminent danger (murder, rape, arson) and they absolutely have to stop the BG right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighead View Post
Your rifle example is disingenuous because it doesn't include hardly any of the circumstances of the scenario in question. There is no underlying crime, there is no fresh pursuit, and there is no evidence of a second crime coupled with the potential to destroy evidence.
The issue is that "The Supreme Court on Monday gave law enforcement officers new authority to enter a home without a warrant when they have reason to believe that drug evidence is being destroyed." I take issue with that because possessing something is not a crime in the way that harming someone or taking or destroying their property is a crime. The "war on drugs" is a contrived bit of very expensive nonsense that serves to punish otherwise decent people, create a criminal class which wouldn't exist without the laws. Indeed, thanks to the laws, there are far more violent crimes being committed that wouldn't be if the laws didn't exist.

So yes, my gun analogy holds just fine. I am banned from having certain items on my AR-15 in the same way I'm banned from having a baggy of pot. In both cases, I do no harm to anyone by having these things, and in both cases I'd be a criminal if I did have either of these things.
__________________
bkt 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