Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes

Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes

www.latimes.com

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Very important ruling by the Supreme Court today.... and once again the fourth amendment gets the boot.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

So now they'll just break in your house and say they heard something and it'll be legal.

The Supreme Court rules yet again against the American people and against the constitution.

And yet again the war on drugs is used to steal rights...

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

JEEZ!!! How big a bribe did they take?!? JUST RIDICULOUS!

JEEZ!!! How big a bribe did they take?!? JUST RIDICULOUS!

ok please define what destroying drug evidence sounds like so we can understand exactly what cops will be listening for.......

Next thing they will be doing is breaking down your bedroom door because they thought they heard "Hornyness" going on behind it....Will it ever stop??? Maybe after a few get buried because of this law that will curb it....a few of them, not us, law abiding citizens......

reply to post by Vitchilo


One step closer to a communist country

reply to post by Vitchilo

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Is it time yet?

And people think that voting will change things. Mwahahaha.

You can't vote those SOBs out of office.

And guess what, there's another Supreme Court case that will be heard soon, probably this summer, while nobody watches, that will nullify public funding for elections.

Legalize all drugs already! Which means VOTE RON PAUL... the only one sane enough to do just that.

Man it is getting almost comical how bad this country has become. The government at every friggin' level is filled with the scum of the Earth. You'd have to be brain dead to think you still live in a free republic.

Your favorite objective poster is here to give you the link to the Supreme Court opinion.....I long for the day for a newspaper to actually link these things.
Kentucky v King

Anyway...I am still analyzing this and while I abhor the "war on drugs"...the first part of the opinion states clearly that "Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealerto an apartment complex."

They did not arbitrarily barge into a place they suspected might be destroying evidence, but rather it was in pursuit. This though does not diminish the over all view I hold, but I will be back with more.

ETA: LA Times failed to even report on the actual opinion really. The Supreme Court fell back on established precedence of "exigent circumstances". Still researching though...

What if you're on the can and need to...flush...then go answer the door?

CRAZY!

And why would they be searching for illegal drugs without a search warrant in the first place? What do they hope to do, knock on your door and ask "excuse me sir, do you have any illegal drugs in there?"

reply to post by AR154


In regards to your first question - hope your homeowner's liability insurance covers damage by cop - because you know the city/county won't be paying for that. Even if they shoot your chihuahua in the process.

@ownbestenemy - thank you for keeping things in context, but be mindful that this sets national precedent and doesn't just rule on the case involved itself (seriously, the cases that SCOTUS will refuse to hear, yet they take this...and rule this way... *shakes head*). Then take into account the judgement exercised by some of our 'peace officers' over the last decade or so.

This whole thing just leaves and increasingly bad taste in my mouth.

reply to post by Praetorius


Sir I will. I am reviewing the opinion now.

At least I know that there will be ample backing in a Supreme Court case and then, as they do, we can make an informed decision based on their review of prior cases, etc. After all, this could be a case of the petitioner presenting their case badly and poorly to the Supreme Court. Time will tell.

Originally posted by JayFlores
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

One step closer to a communist country

You may want to revisit this statement because communism is not necessarily a good analogy.

Fascism... that would be a better word for it.... but let's not be rash.

As repugnant as the ruling may be to me; I have to really understand what it means.

It really means that a police officer, or officer of law enforcement, or duly appointed and authorized government agent may exercise their own judgement and issue a 'defacto' warrant (in other words a legally acceptable compelling argument) on the spot if they can relate to the record that he or she 'heard' something he is willing to rationalize as '"the sound of evidence being destroyed."

Now let's pretend that we live in a perfect world, where the sound of destroying evidence was as obvious as a sneeze; and no police officer lacked the good character not to abuse the discretionary authority, or exercise it for their own expedience. In this perfect world, the police treat every 'breach' scenario as if it were their mother's home, and their own family who was being subject to the assault.

..... welcome to what is increasingly becoming the "American dream."

To extend such discretion to society's only armed responders seems to bode ill for any continued belief in the good will of governance. Perhaps this will be difficult to pawn off as 'no big deal' but I suspect we will hear precisely that sentiment expressed ... shortly.

It's not a new law, it's not even a new thread.

The law is called the PATRIOT act, and (amongst other massive violations of Constitutional law) gives powers of entry into your home without a warrant and without you even being home, whenever the Government decide it's necessary.

So last week it was the Indiana ruling that the you cant stop an officer from entering your home even if he has no reason to, and now the Gastopo can barge in while knocking loudly, and the only dissenter says it would be ok if they didnt knock and hear something?


210 / 150 - Thats my blood pressure. America, we are toast We lost this battle years ago and we are just now finding it out. The Globalist are laughing at us right now.


Link to thread about Indiana ruling: www.abovetopsecret.com... if anyone is interested.

reply to post by babybunnies

The law is called the PATRIOT act, and (amongst other massive violations of Constitutional law) gives powers of entry into your home without a warrant and without you even being home, whenever the Government decide it's necessary.

Yeah but to use the Patriot Act, they have to say you're a terrorist otherwise the case will be thrown out in any court. The courts are corrupt, but not THAT much.

But yeah, if they really wanted to go Soviet style on people, they could just raid anybody, say he's a terrorist, and he wouldn't ever see a judge and would be thrown in jail forever, just like people at Gitmo. Doesn't matter that 75%+ of people at Gitmo are innocent by the government own admission.

US knew Guantanamo detainees were innocent: WikiLeaks

The United States held hundreds of inmates who were either totally innocent or low-risk for years and released dozens of high-risk Guantanamo inmates, according to leaked classified files.

Hell most people don't know how they caught those ``terrorists`` in Afghanistan. They offered ransom for any terrorist... so poor people sold their own friends/family as terrorist for money.

If you don't believe that, just think for a second, how many people would turn in their own family if the government offered a million $ for every ``terrorist`` they bring in, no proof required? A whole lot of people would. Most people worship money, they would sacrifice anyone for their God, the greenback.

I'm envisioning a new security device to bring into the market. Basically, a door length device that acts much like a claymore mine. When a door is breached without permission, it goes off. It would use standard shotgun shells in the shot of your choice.

Even if the design would not be 'approved' by the ATF or whatever source would need to do that, I may just put the design idea out there for those intelligent Americans to make themselves. Necessity is the mother of invention after all, and we are more in need of such a device now more than ever.

Originally posted by basilray
ok please define what destroying drug evidence sounds like so we can understand exactly what cops will be listening for.......

If you flush the toilet.