http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A split Supreme Court ruled Thursday that drug evidence seized in a home search can be used against a suspect even though police failed to knock on the door and wait a "reasonable" amount of time before entering.
What's happening to our civil liberties? A warrant merely authorizes a search for evidence and is hardly a conviction or even guilt. Where will the administrative paranoia stop?
The 5-4 decision continues a string of rulings since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that in general give law enforcement greater discretion to carry out search-and-seizure warrants.
Will this be the legacy of our current administration i.e. a not-so-slow erosion of our rights and freedoms? Wait until you see below how this happened!
President Bush's nominees to the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, notably sided with the government.
I wonder how many Bush supporters realise that he's doing as he damn well pleases by appointing his henchmen and ruling with an iron fist. Now that we're on this road, where is it taking us...Neo-Fascism? It's not an extreme leap if you consider fairly recent history and our ever-eroding rights and freedoms.
...Scalia added that police might put their lives in danger if they were uncertain when and if entry was legally permissible.
Then for fuck's sake, why don't we just impose Martial Law? What a great reason to violate the rights of possibly innocent people.
The appeal involves Booker Hudson, a Detroit, Michigan, man whose case has wound its way through various courts for nearly seven years.
Seven city police officers executed a search warrant in August 1998 on Hudson's home, finding crack cocaine on him and around the residence, as well as a gun.
Although a stellar example, hardly all-encompassing. How many men with a gun and some crack do you suppose there are in Detroit or any major city? I'm sure this is reason enough to take precautions...let's serve warrants on everyone in this manner, no matter what the charge. Fuck rights and freedoms. Maybe next we'll have curfews and trials by Tribunal.
The majority-conservative court has been generally supportive of police discretion since the 9/11 attacks, including disputes over home and car searches, suspect interrogations, and sobriety and border checkpoints. Several of the more liberal justices have disagreed sharply in many of those cases.
And doesn't it give us a warm, fuzzy feeling? I'm so happy Bush has been in the White House so long that he knows what's best for us without asking. They left out wire tapping.
Alito turned out to be the deciding vote in the Hudson case. He was not yet on the bench when the case was first argued in January. His predecessor, Sandra Day O'Connor, heard the case and appeared to support the defendant.
As stated above, fine work Dubya! Coincidence?
But she retired before a decision was issued and, under court rules, her vote did not count. That left a 4-4 tie, prompting the court to rehear the arguments.
Does this make anyone wonder just a little?
Court case summaries are here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1360
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A split Supreme Court ruled Thursday that drug evidence seized in a home search can be used against a suspect even though police failed to knock on the door and wait a "reasonable" amount of time before entering.
What's happening to our civil liberties? A warrant merely authorizes a search for evidence and is hardly a conviction or even guilt. Where will the administrative paranoia stop?
The 5-4 decision continues a string of rulings since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that in general give law enforcement greater discretion to carry out search-and-seizure warrants.
Will this be the legacy of our current administration i.e. a not-so-slow erosion of our rights and freedoms? Wait until you see below how this happened!
President Bush's nominees to the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, notably sided with the government.
I wonder how many Bush supporters realise that he's doing as he damn well pleases by appointing his henchmen and ruling with an iron fist. Now that we're on this road, where is it taking us...Neo-Fascism? It's not an extreme leap if you consider fairly recent history and our ever-eroding rights and freedoms.
...Scalia added that police might put their lives in danger if they were uncertain when and if entry was legally permissible.
Then for fuck's sake, why don't we just impose Martial Law? What a great reason to violate the rights of possibly innocent people.
The appeal involves Booker Hudson, a Detroit, Michigan, man whose case has wound its way through various courts for nearly seven years.
Seven city police officers executed a search warrant in August 1998 on Hudson's home, finding crack cocaine on him and around the residence, as well as a gun.
Although a stellar example, hardly all-encompassing. How many men with a gun and some crack do you suppose there are in Detroit or any major city? I'm sure this is reason enough to take precautions...let's serve warrants on everyone in this manner, no matter what the charge. Fuck rights and freedoms. Maybe next we'll have curfews and trials by Tribunal.
The majority-conservative court has been generally supportive of police discretion since the 9/11 attacks, including disputes over home and car searches, suspect interrogations, and sobriety and border checkpoints. Several of the more liberal justices have disagreed sharply in many of those cases.
And doesn't it give us a warm, fuzzy feeling? I'm so happy Bush has been in the White House so long that he knows what's best for us without asking. They left out wire tapping.
Alito turned out to be the deciding vote in the Hudson case. He was not yet on the bench when the case was first argued in January. His predecessor, Sandra Day O'Connor, heard the case and appeared to support the defendant.
As stated above, fine work Dubya! Coincidence?
But she retired before a decision was issued and, under court rules, her vote did not count. That left a 4-4 tie, prompting the court to rehear the arguments.
Does this make anyone wonder just a little?
Court case summaries are here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1360
