Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 83
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Ok, and now that the Supreme court has redifined the 4th amendment, Why would the police shout "Police, Open the door!!!", if they were allowed to kick the door in 2 seconds later?
    If you are asking why cops will knock from now on, it will depend on SCOTUS rationale in this decision. I havent seen it so I would only be speculating. If their ruling is very narrow (i.e. based on these facts) then arguably lower courts still might allow a motion to suppress in other cases where cops do not announce before entering and serving the warrant.

    Prior to this decision, they usually had to give you a reasonable opportunity to open your door.

    Is that answering your question?

    (The reason why you don't want to make a mistake (not knocking and announcing prior to entering) is because of the exclusionary rule-stated in a previous post.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Ok, and now that the Supreme court has redifined the 4th amendment...
    I'm already on record (above) not liking this ruling, but I just love the way the mind of a liberal works. When the Supreme Court rules in new, creative, and most importantly liberally approved ways, they are "finding" rights in an ever evolving Constitution that must keep up with the times (think Roe v. Wade, Miranda, etc.) but when they are ruling in ways the left thinks are restrictive and neanderthal, they have "redefined the 4th amendment."
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    I'm already on record (above) not liking this ruling, but I just love the way the mind of a liberal works. When the Supreme Court rules in new, creative, and most importantly liberally approved ways, they are "finding" rights in an ever evolving Constitution that must keep up with the times (think Roe v. Wade, Miranda, etc.) but when they are ruling in ways the left thinks are restrictive and neanderthal, they have "redefined the 4th amendment."

    Sort of like when the Court extends police powers, butchering the 4th amendment in the process, or tramples on what used to be considered "state's rights" to limit laws restricting gun ownership, or assisted suicide its "strict constructionism," which is good. But when courts uphold laws or rights that conservatives hate (permitting gay marriage or assisted suicide, upholding abortion rights), it's "judicial activism" which is bad.

    It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hizd4Life
    All I have to say is if anyone breaks down my door, they will be shot. I wonder how long this so called "law" will be there if they start seeing more police dying. I have nothing against the police but again I do have a shotgun waiting.
    This is not an argument against this ruling. This is a threat to policeman. Even if policemen do face an increased risk of injury, the decision is for the police leadership to determine, not the courts, and that is what we saw today.

    I believe there are real threats to liberty out there today. This is not one of them, and to the extent people focus on this at the expense of others, harm will be done.
  5. #25  
    A government official should not be able to break down the door of citizens without identifying themselves first, period. Each time the Supreme Court redefines the Constitution, freedom takes a hit. I know there are times when it may be in the best interest of a victim or the community, but we shouldn't make a rule for the exception. Shame on them.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    A government official should not be able to break down the door of citizens without identifying themselves first, period. Each time the Supreme Court redefines the Constitution, freedom takes a hit. I know there are times when it may be in the best interest of a victim or the community, but we shouldn't make a rule for the exception. Shame on them.
    The Supreme Court is not redefining the Constitution. Why is it unreasonble for the police to enter without proclaiming their presence when a court has given them a warrant to do that? If you want to argue the warrant-granting court is too lenient, then by all means, but there is no constitutional right to be informed of the people bashing down your door.

    Again, there are real threats to liberty in this country: this is not one of them.
  7. #27  
    Let's go back to the source: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " It strikes me that if a court grants permission, the government can do pretty much whatever it wants. The laws surrounding the courts can be changed (as it appears you hope them to be), but the argument in this case never had a chance of applying to the constitution.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    I'm already on record (above) not liking this ruling, but I just love the way the mind of a liberal works. When the Supreme Court rules in new, creative, and most importantly liberally approved ways, they are "finding" rights in an ever evolving Constitution that must keep up with the times (think Roe v. Wade, Miranda, etc.) but when they are ruling in ways the left thinks are restrictive and neanderthal, they have "redefined the 4th amendment."
    Huh? It is the job of the Supreme Court to define, and re-define the constitution.
  9. #29  
    Their job is to interpret, not redefine.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    A government official should not be able to break down the door of citizens without identifying themselves first, period.
    In the grand scheme of things...whats more important? That they announce before coming in or that they have a warrant signed by a judge?

    I understand your point, Im not sure why the court felt they needed to ignore stare decisis just to prevent this one guy from getting off on a technicality.

    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    It strikes me that if a court grants permission, the government can do pretty much whatever it wants.
    True, but the search should still be reasonable. Giving me a chance to open the door before you crash it in would be nice. I understand the argument that we don't want people to destroy evidence if the police knock but there are some other ways to avoid it (i.e. serve the warrant as they are walking up to the house)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    Their job is to interpret, not redefine.
    I think the line between the two is very blurry.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    The Supreme Court is not redefining the Constitution. Why is it unreasonble for the police to enter without proclaiming their presence when a court has given them a warrant to do that? If you want to argue the warrant-granting court is too lenient, then by all means, but there is no constitutional right to be informed of the people bashing down your door.

    Again, there are real threats to liberty in this country: this is not one of them.
    The purpose of the warrant is informing a citizen/resident that his/her right to privacy and private property ownership is being suspended temporarily. Until the warrant is served, those rights remain entact.

    So, if the police kick in my door before I have been served, they are in violation of my rights, and as such, I maintain the right to prevent my private possessions from being used against me (i.e. no forced self-incrimination).

    Heretofore, an unanswered announcement functioned as the "serving" action. This ruling suggests that simply holding the warrant is sufficient notification.

    This shifts the primary value of the warrant from being one of notifying the citizen to that of authorizing the state.
    Last edited by shopharim; 06/16/2006 at 07:43 AM.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The purpose of the warrant is informing a citizen/resident that his/her right to privacy and private property ownership is being suspended temporarily. Until the warrant is served, those rights remain entact.

    So, if the police kick in my door before I have been served, they are in violation of my rights, and as such, I maintain the right to prevent my private possessions from being used against me (i.e. no forced self-incrimination).

    Heretofore, an unanswered announcement functioned as the "serving" action. This ruling suggests that simply holding the warrant is sufficient notification.

    This shifts the primary value of the warrant from being one of notifying the citizen to that of authorizing the state.
    As much as I want to support your perspective, a warrant actually is just authorization, or proof of authorization. I'm not a law student, but I'm pretty sure about this.

    I see risks with this, but I'm not the one taking the risk. I think this facilitates a hostile environment. Granted, you have that with many criminals. Before when I talked about 2 warrants, I meant 2 types of warrants, not that you need 2. It could just be a check-box on the warrant where a judge recognized the background of the person and the nature of the crime as needing it to be an "unannounced" execution. We should not put everyone and every situation into one category.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    You generally cant use deadly force to protect property. You would have to prove to a jury that you reasonably thought this person was breaking in the house to cause you death or serious bodily harm. That's not a slam dunk without knowing more about why the person broke in your door.
    I think that varies state to state. There's been repomen shot to death by people thinking they were stealing their car out of their driveways... Got away with it. Texas, I think.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    True, but the search should still be reasonable. Giving me a chance to open the door before you crash it in would be nice. I understand the argument that we don't want people to destroy evidence if the police knock but there are some other ways to avoid it (i.e. serve the warrant as they are walking up to the house)
    Right, and if the court starts granting unreasonable requests (listening in on everyone's phone calls for instance--oh wait), we have a problem. I don't think the mere act of knocking first rises to the level of civil liberty, certainly not a constitutional civil liberty (remember, we are free to pass laws that require police to do that).
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    This shifts the primary value of the warrant from being one of notifying the citizen to that of authorizing the state.
    I think that's what the framers had in mind. FWIW, there are many instances where a warrant does precisely that (wire taps, undercover cops, etc). Reread the amendment:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    There is nothing in there about notifying the target, only about authorizing it.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Right, and if the court starts granting unreasonable requests (listening in on everyone's phone calls for instance--oh wait), we have a problem. I don't think the mere act of knocking first rises to the level of civil liberty, certainly not a constitutional civil liberty (remember, we are free to pass laws that require police to do that).
    It always has, and it has always been illegal for the police to enter a home without knocking, that is where the re-definition / re-interperetation by this court comes in. I am not saying it is an abuse of power by the Supreme Court to do so, after all, this is their job. I am saying I don't agree with the ruling and it's implications, and I feel it's a harbinger, (is that a word?) of what is to come with our new court.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Right, and if the court starts granting unreasonable requests (listening in on everyone's phone calls for instance--oh wait), we have a problem.
    I thought the NSC was listening to possible terrorists phone calls, not everyone. Imagine the manpower that must take.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    I thought the NSC was listening to possible terrorists phone calls, not everyone. Imagine the manpower that must take.
    I have not heard anything about the National Security Council tapping phones, but the National Security Agency has been, asd we may never know if the subjects are / were possible terrorist since the White house is not bothering to get a court order.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I think that's what the framers had in mind. FWIW, there are many instances where a warrant does precisely that (wire taps, undercover cops, etc). Reread the amendment:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    There is nothing in there about notifying the target, only about authorizing it.
    The distinction I see between wiretaps and search & seizure is, the list of protected categories: persons, houses, papers and effects. This list specifically addresses my physical person and my possessions.

    If the underlying principle, i.e. statement 1, is the preservation of the security of these items, then there is an inherent right on my part to protect them, unless the person(s) wanting to search and/or seize is authorized to do so. If I have not been notified, I have the expectation that the right of security is still in effect.

    Concerning, telephone conversations, there is no presumption of privacy. By using very public facilities, I must presume that my communication can be detected by others. to that end, we have established laws concerning wire-tapping to apply a similar level of security to our conversations as we have for our possessions.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions