TexasCHLforum.com

That is always a concern/fear Dave. I haven't done anything to draw the attention of LE, but I do fear the incorrect address search warrant with a no knock entry.

If my wife and I are ever able, we will be out of the city with enough land and dogs and electronic surveillance that any sort of home invasion will be much less probable than the already low probability that it is now. Anyone that might scope out my house knows I have German Shepherds. I walk them and visit with neighbors all the time. That alone, I'm hoping, is enough of a deterrent for anyone watching.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure someone will, ha ha).

I think you've got a pretty good handle on it all. Hopefully, it will be corrected if it goes to appeals.

suthdj wrote:Question 1: is entry considered a search, we have the right to unlawful search and seizure.


Question 2: based off of entry not being a search, then any mary jane plants they see growing can not be acted upon or used in court, right, because it is not a lawful search?

In my unlawfully educated guess I would say the answer to both of these is "no."

#1. Isn't unlawful entry trespassing? What they would find would be a search, but just the entry would not.

#2. If they could see the MJ prior to entry and it were illegal just to possess MJ then wouldn't the entry be legal since they could see the crime?

Why couldn't they have just said these officers had a reasonable doubt for the woman's safety and the entry was lawful? Why did they have to say LE could illegally enter our homes and we had no right to resist? This makes no sense at all. These same judges would probably also say we had no right to stop someone from robbing or assaulting us.

Whoa, whoa,

whoa!

Two things. I'm not sure which way I lean on the LEO's right to enter the home in the article that started this case. I can see both sides here, but lean towards that it was illegal. If there was actually a case of domestic abuse going on and the people involved retreated into the house I would say definitely go in, but they were only called for an argument. They didn't witness anything. I know how most of us feel here about erring on the side of safety. There is risk involved in everything we do. We cannot raise our kids nor live in a bubble. That' just absurd.

Second, since I can see the other side in this case and since the police were called they might have actually had a good enough reason to enter this home, but they probably could have handled it more tactfully than they did. However, I think these three judges decision is a very dangerous one.

a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence

This just blows me away!