NLBS: 03.06: The Continued Erosion of Fourth Amendment Rights in The USA

On November 15th of 2015, Sheriff Deputies violently entered a private residence and shot the home owner; because the owner was impertinent in his desire to see a search warrant first. In this episode we take a look at the erosion of Fourth Amendment rights in the United States, and the alarming rise of "no-knock" warrants. This all traces back to the "warrior cop" mentality that has developed over the past couple of decades. Watch the full episode to learn how you may win related merchandise from NLBS.





Reference links:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.law.cornell.edu...

www.phrases.org.uk...

www.wsj.com...

reason.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.vox.com...

From 'reasonable security for the people in their effects and persons' has been changed to, give us a reason to secure your effects and detain your person indefinitely without charge or trial.

And if you complain, we'll violate your right to life, too.

a reply to: theNLBS

Great episode

Watch out for those NYPD no knocks.

The term "warrior cop" is pretty catchy but sadly seems appropriate. Their are lots of war veterans that became cops I even know some of them and often wanted to ask if the training and over all instilled mentality is like what it was in the service or not. Its hard to convey what I am trying to say here but is it like they are being filled with a mentality they are at war or what?

Here is something that I think is a step in the right direction to begin to remove the unnecessary power givin to police.

fox news

Valuable vehicles and equipment are being yanked from law enforcement agencies across the country by the Obama administration in the wake of the president’s post-Ferguson order -- as sheriffs and lawmakers tell FoxNews.com the equipment is needed, and losing it could put officers and the communities they serve in danger.

Of coarse it is being reported as a blow to the law but I do not see it that way and I believe that the more military surplus you remove from the police then the less militant they will be.

a reply to: Brotherman

Since Nixon started the war on drugs, Cops have been trained that certain communities of Americans must be seen as 'a potential threat' and must react aggressively when dealing with these communities. After 9/11 new communities of individuals were seen as a threat due to religion or ideology.

America is a battlefield. There are good cops, but the system makes it hard to not react the way that deputy reacted. This shows we need to stop drilling cops to be soldiers and start training cops to be better lawyers. Had the officer known what 'a reasonable expectation of privacy' means then, perhaps, this would have been avoided.

originally posted by: intrptr
From 'reasonable security for the people in their effects and persons' has been changed to, give us a reason to secure your effects and detain your person indefinitely without charge or trial.
And if you complain, we'll violate your right to life, too.

LEO's have created their own untenable position and they are not trusted by large portions of the general public any longer. Perhaps not a majority, YET, but still having large numbers concentrated heavily among those under 40 years of age. Also, even, IF, the under 40 crowd does not believe that LEO's are dangerously lethal to civilians (which they do), this under 40 cohort, ABSOLUTELY believes that LEO's are, primarily, "revenue collectors".

LEO's MUST learn to live with the LONG TERM consequence of these actions, which they, as a group, have taken, while in the field and has been compounding all the issues surrounding their increasingly negative public image. Over the last 25 years, contemporary LEOs have proven, through their actions, that they are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land & business owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that also contribute to and participate in local politics (i.e. campaign donations for Police Chief and Sheriff elections).
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from financial consequences and tax paying citizens are picking up the tab. That's the sad reality of where we are today, in regards to contemporary Law Enforcement Culture. Civilians should view the police no differently than the way in which police typically view the general public, with suspicion.

Civilians should not trust the motivations of LEO's and must always assume that their lives are in danger, with EVERY interaction they have with LEO's.

Why? Not because ALL LEO's are bad, but because ALL LEO's are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to kill civilians, as they see fit.

Why should civilians take any risk of death, when its far easier to simply not interact with, refuse to help and actively avoid contact with LEO's, whom are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to kill civilians, as they see fit?

If these LEO's that killed civilians, really cared and were not sociopaths, they'd quit the job as soon as they killed someone on accident, even if legally cleared eventually. Note, very few, if ANY, of these officers "protecting & serving" have left their positions or the profession out of "guilt" for their crimes or mistakes. The fact that they just suck it up and keep on driving, assures me that they are NOT sane. It is nothing like being in the military, where you can be jailed and prosecuted for not following a legal command to "kill the enemy", during a period of war, ordered by the Commander-in-Chief.

LEO's CAN QUIT ANYTIME THEY WANT TO and when they don't resign after doing something unconscionable, it strongly suggests that they are dangerous to the public. So when these LEO's keep working in the same role, after killing a civilian, I can't help but assume that the individual is a sociopath, out for the "power of the position" and not to "protect & serve" civilians.

Here is an example of a sleepy county in Oregon, that is 92% white, with 56% of the population over 45 years of age, yet, these people still VOTED TO DE-FUND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT because they got sick of receiving unjust traffic tickets:

Defunding government is a sensible voter solution to reining in local government By Dave Duffy

Think about that for a minute, if LEO's can't hold the trust of small communities, with these kinds of demographics, what chance do they stand anywhere else? Not much. This should be a VERY CLEAR message that LEO's, in general, have lost the trust of the public.

I heard someone on the radio mention this, and I wonder how true it is...

In the last decade our police force has become more militarized as men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are getting out of the military and looking for work, finding it in our police forces. The man on the radio made the claim that there are now more military-trained veterans in our police ranks than in previous decades, some with PTSD and other psychological disorders. These combat troops are being taken from one theater of war and pointed at another -- the US citizenry.

Now, I can't verify those claims -- I can't seem to find any statistics showing more/less veteran recruitment among police forces nationwide -- but doing a quick Google search shows a laundry list of articles and websites saying how combat soldiers make excellent police officers -- along with guides on how to go from military to police officer.

I did see something on a site called "policeone.com". The article was titled "Warriors on the streets: Combat veterans becoming cops".

Law Enforcement agencies throughout the United States should expect to see a significant increase in job applications stemming from service members seeking stateside employment.

Link

I can say from my own personal experience (take it with a grain of salt) that the majority of police officers I've ever encountered or know of (through friends ect) are in fact recent military veterans.

So, maybe that's one angle we're not looking at -- if it turns out to be the case.

Don't answer the door. If they do gain entry illegally and want to arrest you, GO WITH THEM. Lawyer up immediately and start lawsuit proceeding as soon as you possibly can.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I heard someone on the radio mention this, and I wonder how true it is...

In the last decade our police force has become more militarized as men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are getting out of the military and looking for work, finding it in our police forces. The man on the radio made the claim that there are now more military-trained veterans in our police ranks than in previous decades, some with PTSD and other psychological disorders. These combat troops are being taken from one theater of war and pointed at another -- the US citizenry.

Now, I can't verify those claims -- I can't seem to find any statistics showing more/less veteran recruitment among police forces nationwide -- but doing a quick Google search shows a laundry list of articles and websites saying how combat soldiers make excellent police officers -- along with guides on how to go from military to police officer.

I did see something on a site called "policeone.com". The article was titled "Warriors on the streets: Combat veterans becoming cops".

Law Enforcement agencies throughout the United States should expect to see a significant increase in job applications stemming from service members seeking stateside employment.

Link

I can say from my own personal experience (take it with a grain of salt) that the majority of police officers I've ever encountered or know of (through friends ect) are in fact recent military veterans.

So, maybe that's one angle we're not looking at -- if it turns out to be the case.

I don't buy this argument for one minute because the country had a far larger population of soldiers with PTSD after WWII ended, returning to civilian life and public sector employment, mostly without recorded incident. Same goes for the period after the Vietnam War and few of these guys got psychiatric treatment of any kind, when compared to the treatment options soldiers have available today. I can't even begin to imagine what those soldiers saw while serving in WWI, WWII and Vietnam, versus what soldiers are experiencing today.

WWI: 4.7 million troops sent over the course of 1 year
WWII: 16.1 million troops sent over a 4 year period
Korean War: 5.7 million troops sent over a 3 year period
Vietnam War: 8.7 million sent over a 20 year period
Desert Storm: 2.3 million sent over the course of 1 year
Iraq & Afghanistan: 2.5 million sent over a 13 year period

Note the number of troops that actually saw combat, versus those that were combat support positions and were actually in harms way, has decrease significantly from each conflict to the next.

Although I am not old enough to have dealt with, first hand, police officers that served in WWII, I am old enough to have dealt with LEO's that served in Vietnam. In contrast, to contemporary LEO's, I NEVER ONCE felt in danger when dealing with an LEO that was old enough to have been drafted into the Vietnam War (those born on or before 1951, with the last draft lottery happening in 1969), even when I was completely in the wrong and assumed to be breaking the law.

Today, every interaction with LEO's could potentialy wind up being my last day on earth. That was UNTHINKABLE when Vietnam Vets were running the show. The worst thing that would happen to you, when they were in charge, was a good beating and a night in jail.

The current leaders among LEO departments across the country, are younger boomers that were not old enough to have gone to Vietnam and they have taught young officers to be completely unethical in their dealing with the general public.

a reply to: boohoo

After WWII though America had a TON of manufacturing jobs in factories that many returning soldiers went to.

Now? We don't have manufacturing jobs like that anymore.

The reason the economy in America was amazing in the 1950's was due to the entire world being bombed to hell, America being untouched and our factories already geared up with lots of men returning to work them.

The rest of the world needed America to supply them with the products, tools, and materials to rebuild after the war.

No, I don't quite buy your argument.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: boohoo

After WWII though America had a TON of manufacturing jobs in factories that many returning soldiers went to.

Now? We don't have manufacturing jobs like that anymore.

The reason the economy in America was amazing in the 1950's was due to the entire world being bombed to hell, America being untouched and our factories already geared up with lots of men returning to work them.

The rest of the world needed America to supply them with the products, tools, and materials to rebuild after the war.

No, I don't quite buy your argument.

What does the availability manufacturing jobs have to do with my argument?

Also note, it is IMPOSSIBLE that there are more military-trained veterans in our police ranks today, than there were after WWII. I'd bet my house that it was close to 100% WWII veterans being employed as LEO's, in the post-war period.

AGAIN, my point was that Vietnam Vets and those from prior wars, came back from those conflicts, became LEO's, yet didn't go around terrorizing the public and likely had FAR worse PTSD symptoms than the current batch of veterans becoming LEO's.

AGAIN, when I had to deal with LEO's that served in Vietnam, in contrast, to contemporary LEO's, I NEVER ONCE felt in danger when dealing with an LEO that was old enough to have been drafted into the Vietnam War (those born on or before 1951, with the last draft lottery happening in 1969), even when I was completely in the wrong and assumed to be breaking the law. Today, every interaction with LEO's could potentially wind up being my last day on earth. That was UNTHINKABLE when Vietnam Vets were running the show. The worst thing that would happen to you, back when they were in charge, was a good beating and a night in jail.

I wonder how many returning veterans take up training positions in Law Enforcement where they impart a soldiers war time training to "Peace Officers"?

Given the way these mojo cops arm themselves with machine guns, flak helmets and vests, dress all in black and storm troop around breaking things and people, is there any remaining difference between the civil and military infrastructure?

'Assaut' rifles, 'stun' grenades, Mraps… they still print "Police" or "Sheriff" on the side in big letters so you know the difference.

War in the name of peace

a reply to: intrptr

There aren't too many times I agree with you.

But police militarization is a problem.

a reply to: projectvxn

The danger of Standing Armies and the difference between that and Civil Authority are surely eroding.

A standing army is a permanent, often professional, army. It is composed of full-time soldiers (who may be either career soldiers or conscripts) and is not disbanded during times of peace.

Civil authority or civilian authority, also known as civilian government, is the apparatus of a State, other than its military units, that enforces law and order.

a reply to: intrptr

standing armies these days are a bit different because there is a need to constantly train and adapt training to keep up with the technology that others have. This day an army that is newly formed after there is a need for them will be vastly out performed by an enemy that is up to date with technology.

a reply to: intrptr

The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, it applies to the government.

Exceptions to the 4th -
* - warrant
* - consent
* - plain view
* - search incident to arrest
* - Exigent circumstances / Fresh pursuit

* - Automobiles have a lesser degree of protection than a house.
* - Field doctrine


Mistaken by many as a search when its not -
* - Frisk (person and automobile)

Knock and announce requirement

Knock-and-announce rule: an overview

Under the common law knock-and-announce rule, a police officer executing a search warrant generally must not immediately force his or her way into a residence. Instead, he or she must first knock, identify himself or herself and his or her intent, and wait a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to let him or her into the residence. The Supreme Court has held that the knock-and-announce rule forms part of a judge's inquiry into the reasonableness of a search under the Fourth Amendment. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).

The Supreme Court identified several reasons supporting the rule in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006). These include preventing accidental injuries to officers and occupants, limiting property damage, and protecting occupants' privacy and dignity. This rule, however, does not protect occupants from government seizure of their property. Accordingly, although the exclusionary rule may apply to some police violations of the rule, it does not apply to all.

A police officer is not required to knock and announce if doing so would be unreasonable, e.g. if there is a risk of injury to the police officer executing the search warrant or a risk of the occupants destroying the sought-after evidence between the police officer's knock and his or her entry. The applicability of this exception is determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, in Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 358 (1997), the Supreme Court held that there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce rule for searches in felony drug cases. Officers may, however, seek a "no-knock" warrant in advance if they suspect that a no-knock entry will be justified when they serve the warrant.

In practice, over the past decade, police officers have increasingly relied on no-knock warrants, particularly in drug cases and especially in major cities. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of innocent persons accidentally injured or killed by police officers executing no-knock warrants.

No knock warrant

A no-knock warrant is a search warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises. Such warrants are issued where an entry pursuant to the knock-and-announce rule (ie. an announcement prior to entry) would lead to the destruction of the objects for which the police are searching or would compromise the safety of the police or another individual.

According to the Department of Justice, "Although officers need not take affirmative steps to make an independent re-verification of the circumstances already recognized by a magistrate in issuing a no-knock warrant, such a warrant does not entitle officers to disregard reliable information clearly negating the existence of exigent circumstances when they actually receive such information before execution of the warrant."

What specifically has been eroded for the 4th amendment? If anything scotus has made it more difficult for law enforcement in this area (and rightfully so).

a reply to: Xcathdra
I feel that is unreasonable in most circumstances and that the 4th does apply to the citizens.

a reply to: projectvxn

Pick and choose the battleground.

Your livingroom ain't the place. You'll lose.

Lawyer up!! Courtroom!! Maximum exposure!!

Some people in positions of power, where they can legally manhandle people, are just waiting for any opportunity to do it. I think they enjoy it.