SCOTUS approves warrantless home entry

[hirundo82]

Dont give the police reason to believe that youre possessing illegal drugs inside your house and im pretty sure they wont pay you a visit.

Yeah, they'd never hit the wrong house then leave you to bleed to death in front of your wife and child for an hour after they shot you.

[speedsix]

...I don't see any difference between smelling the unmistakable odor of burning pot and seeing it through a window...I believe they were right in going in before it could go away...especially while in pursuit of a drug suspect...a lot of reasonable cause there...

Might the fact that they broke into the wrong apartment make any difference? Did they have "reasonable cause" to break into any apartment in the apartment house?

To possibly make it a little harder to pass the "smell test" (not a pun), after elsewhere making the arrest of the man they were after the charges against the person arrested were dropped.

Elmo

...don't think so...I think they would have cause to break into the apartment that the smell of pot was coming from under the exigency reason that the evidence would likely all be smoked before a warrant could be obtained...that is, in fact, why they broke down that door...if they hadn't smelled evidence of illegal activity, I'd say no, but I think the immediate entry was justified on its own...it would be a separate case...the suspect they were after would just explain why they were there...I haven't made any cases where this happened, but made several where the odor of marijuana burning in a car or in a person's hair who had just exited the car gave me reason to search them and the car...and what I found and charged them with was upheld in court...

[ScottDLS]

There are already exceptions to the warrant clause and one of them is if evidence could be destroyed. They has a RAS to indicate evidence was being destroyed and if they had obtained a warrant the evidence would be gone. The SCOTUS is reaffirming an earlier exception but they are extending it to the home. I have no heartburn with this ruling. Just have to be careful and hold those who abuse this, and other exceptions, accountable.

Yes. It is instructive to read the opinion, vice the LA Times article. You don't get an 8-1 in favor of the government on 4th amendment cases very often with 4 leftists on the Court.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... ky-v-king/

[hirundo82]

Just have to be careful and hold those who abuse this, and other exceptions, accountable.

It's not just the 1% of bad cops I worry about--it's also the other 99% who cover for them.

[speedsix]

Just have to be careful and hold those who abuse this, and other exceptions, accountable.

It's not just the 1% of bad cops I worry about--it's also the other 99% who cover for them.

...this is not only untrue, it's an insult to every good honest cop in America...several of which are members here...and I suspect you don't have NEARLY enough life experience to honestly hold this opinion...

[hirundo82]

Just have to be careful and hold those who abuse this, and other exceptions, accountable.

It's not just the 1% of bad cops I worry about--it's also the other 99% who cover for them.

...this is not only untrue, it's an insult to every good honest cop in America...several of which are members here...and I suspect you don't have NEARLY enough life experience to honestly hold this opinion...

We're constantly told that there are a very few bad cops out there who give the rest a bad name. I'm saying that any cop who has ever looked the other way while another officer violated someone's rights or broke the law to make an arrest is part of the problem.

[hirundo82]

You don't get an 8-1 in favor of the government on 4th amendment cases very often with 4 leftists on the Court.

All that means is that Breyer, Sotamayor, and Kagan are as big of fans of governmental power as the right wing of the court. Unsurprising from where I'm sitting.

[KC5AV]

Just have to be careful and hold those who abuse this, and other exceptions, accountable.

It's not just the 1% of bad cops I worry about--it's also the other 99% who cover for them.

...this is not only untrue, it's an insult to every good honest cop in America...several of which are members here...and I suspect you don't have NEARLY enough life experience to honestly hold this opinion...

We're constantly told that there are a very few bad cops out there who give the rest a bad name. I'm saying that any cop who has ever looked the other way while another officer violated someone's rights or broke the law to make an arrest is part of the problem.

Actually, you indicated that every cop has either violated those rights, or looked the other way.

[hirundo82]

Just have to be careful and hold those who abuse this, and other exceptions, accountable.

It's not just the 1% of bad cops I worry about--it's also the other 99% who cover for them.

...this is not only untrue, it's an insult to every good honest cop in America...several of which are members here...and I suspect you don't have NEARLY enough life experience to honestly hold this opinion...

We're constantly told that there are a very few bad cops out there who give the rest a bad name. I'm saying that any cop who has ever looked the other way while another officer violated someone's rights or broke the law to make an arrest is part of the problem.

Actually, you indicated that every cop has either violated those rights, or looked the other way.

I exaggerated, and the authority fetishism on display in this thread had me angry. I know intellectually that there are good officers out there, but from the number of police misconduct stories that get ignored or dismissed by the department it sure feels like they're a rare breed some days.

[Heartland Patriot]

As I stated in reference to the Indiana case, I am all for LEOs being able to do their jobs (I think that real criminals get WAY too much cover from certain quarters of our society). However, I have real problems with things like this, especially due to one agency in particular...BATFE. If even a small percentage of the many stories of how these folks kicked doors in on the wrong house, popped Fido for barking at them, ransacked the house and confiscated legally owned firearms are true, its still too many. And when their mistake was finally discovered, it was all but swept under the rug. Then you add in the rest of the agencies that have had mistakes like this happen...As someone pointed out, what happens to you, in YOUR HOME, when someone no-notice busts the door down and you DEFEND YOUR HOME? I think this is indeed the exact situation to apply this quote from Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". You can talk about checks and balances all you want to, but if you are in a pine box pushing up daisies due to a mistake or over-zealousness, and your family has no REAL recourse for justice, well that is simply wrong on any level. Please do not take this as some blanket indictment against Law Enforcement. I know that the majority of folks in that profession, at whatever level, do their best to catch bad guys. But, because of the potential for abuse of power and human error, the Founding Fathers saw fit to enumerate our rights against illegal search and seizure. And all this ruling does is erode that protection. This one upsets me almost as much as that lady in Connecticut being kicked out of her house so a PRIVATE developer could build on the land and give the city more tax money (which I read never happened due to the economy)...wrong is wrong.

[hirundo82]

As I stated in reference to the Indiana case, I am all for LEOs being able to do their jobs (I think that real criminals get WAY too much cover from certain quarters of our society).

Yeah, shame the Constitution doesn't only apply to people who are obeying the law.

[b322da]

There are already exceptions to the warrant clause and one of them is if evidence could be destroyed. They has a RAS to indicate evidence was being destroyed and if they had obtained a warrant the evidence would be gone. The SCOTUS is reaffirming an earlier exception but they are extending it to the home. I have no heartburn with this ruling. Just have to be careful and hold those who abuse this, and other exceptions, accountable.

In my not so humble opinion the Court has extended an "exception" to the point were the exception has become the rule. By extending its own self-created earlier exception it is engaged in bootstrapping, so easy for the ultimate decisionmaker to do when it can quote itself so as to justify a later decision. Just one step further -- and soon all that is left are the exceptions.

Elmo

[VMI77]

Can you imagine any better way to encourage home invasions by those pretending to be LEOs than this decision?

Elmo

That is right to the point and indeed a scary proposition.

[VMI77]

You don't get an 8-1 in favor of the government on 4th amendment cases very often with 4 leftists on the Court.

All that means is that Breyer, Sotamayor, and Kagan are as big of fans of governmental power as the right wing of the court. Unsurprising from where I'm sitting.

Opps, somehow managed to make a double post.

[VMI77]

You don't get an 8-1 in favor of the government on 4th amendment cases very often with 4 leftists on the Court.

All that means is that Breyer, Sotamayor, and Kagan are as big of fans of governmental power as the right wing of the court. Unsurprising from where I'm sitting.

Exactly, as are apparently a number of people on this board --until it comes time to restrict their gun rights.