"No Knock" Supreme Court Ruling

[D_Elijah_MorganWood]

I lived (an will again) in a metropolitan area with one of the most corrupt police forces in the country: the LAPD. Surrounding the L.A. city limits (which are vast) are other shady police forces. Remember Mark Firmin? He was a member of the illustrious Torrance Police Department. I lived in Torrance when the whole scandal unfolded. I don't know how many of you remember the particulars but there were some interesting details that came out. We long heard rumors of the N.I.T. CODES. They stood for...you guessed it...Nigger In Torrance. There was an additional code, N.I.T.A.D., the last two letter meaning after dark. The additional 2 letters brought 2 police cars. What would the unsuspecting man or woman be doing? Probably walking down the street or waiting at the bus stop. These details were substatiated by a friend of mine who was an undercover narcotics cop (he told me this after I'd been selling him drugs for almost a year). I was arrested and taken to jail by the same police department (for something completely unrelated), they are dirty. My point is that it can go terribly wrong on a grass roots level as well as an administrative one. As for the LAPD, they mostly do as they damn well please. If anyone has ever seen the movie L.A. Confidential, LAPD hasn't changed much...if at all.

Our rights and freedoms are eroding slowly, oh so slowly. I too recognise the poor being targeted. Here in the islands, more often than not the police do nothing. Ice is rampant and they sit in little groups for hours on end, so engrossed in whatever it is they're doing that one could probably steal a tire from their Monstrosity XL and they wouldn't notice.

Another thing that irks me are the holier-than-thou Republicans who deny proven facts and wholeheartedly back everything Dubya and his henchmen are doing. I hope they're ready to answer for this. They let the devil in the front door.

 

[findfirefox]

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.

I have to say, I agree that if they did find something an illegal search, such as drugs, it can be used against you, if its there, its there, whether or not they properly entreated the premises.

Disclaimer- I am employed by local govt., and I have lots of cop friends, and I also work closely with PD, so this MAY will bias my answers.

If this goes into play, cops will just start enter houses across the country so something else would have to be done to stop the cops like suspension on the first one (With pay) suspension (without pay) second one, fired on the third illegal search.

Though I agree with Sorc. this is a move towards getting rid of our rights, and they will keep just falling off until were all in out glass houses with a camera pointing to every part of the house.

 

[b.c.]

"They say there are strangers who threaten us
In our immigrants and infidels
They say there is strangeness too dangerous
In our theaters and bookstore shelves
That those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves"

I admit feeling politially complacent for quite a while. It seems our current administration is determined to beat us into submission. The sad part is that 9/11 has been used as a catylist to further this agenda. When I reflect back to the Clinton-Era U.S.A. of the 90's, it all seems so innocent. We were far from perfect and our country was (and still is) in the dark ages in many respects.

Bush has his arm up the ass of Conservatives and is (and has been) working them like a sock puppet. Ruthless stupidity is truly frightening. Sadly, Dubya will continue to ass-rape the rest of us for the next year and a half, hoping we won't be able to feel it anymore when he's finished.

And here's the clincher: Come next election, the same people who put this administration and this party in power will run right out and will do the same thing all over again, because they'll be convinced that giving away civil liberties and personal freedom is worth it, if it's in the interest of so-called national security. You can't fool all the people all the time, and it isn't necessary...just 51% of them.


"Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand..." (Rush)

 

[dong20]

..... You can't fool all the people all the time, and it isn't necessary...just 51% of them.

The real problem is that you don't even need 51%....

 

[D_Elijah_MorganWood]

The real problem is that you don't even need 51%....

Much, much less depending on the level of apathy in the next election.

 

[shad24]

Oh come on guys! You want the police to give a warning?!
Lets see how about this? Open up Police! Search warrant!
Then count One mississippi, (suspect off the couch, Shotgun in hand, heads for bathroom with drugs in hand)
two missippi, (suspect flushes drugs down toilet, positions shotgun)
three mississippi Ready or not here we come. Suspect back on couch watching cartoons or standing there with a streetsweeper ready to rockn roll!
There's a similar case, where police mysteriously appeared at the door without a warrant, the husband refused entry, the wife said "come on in."
This one makes no sense to me either! If I have just got done butshering my mother in law and the police want entry. Theres no way in hell I want them to come in yet! Of course I am gonna say no!

 

[D_Elijah_MorganWood]

Oh come on guys! You want the police to give a warning?!
Lets see how about this? Open up Police! Search warrant!
Then count One mississippi, (suspect off the couch, Shotgun in hand, heads for bathroom with drugs in hand)
two missippi, (suspect flushes drugs down toilet, positions shotgun)
three mississippi Ready or not here we come. Suspect back on couch watching cartoons or standing there with a streetsweeper ready to rockn roll!
There's a similar case, where police mysteriously appeared at the door without a warrant, the husband refused entry, the wife said "come on in."
This one makes no sense to me either! If I have just got done butshering my mother in law and the police want entry. Theres no way in hell I want them to come in yet! Of course I am gonna say no!

This thread (had you bothered to read it) is about a Supreme Court ruling regarding police knocking and identifying themselves before entering when serving a warrant.

 

[Dr Rock]

it's way past time for another civil war.

 

[rhino_horn]

it's way past time for another civil war.

oooo, u better be careful. that kinda talk is gonna get u classified as an "enemy combatant" in the war on terror. next thing u know ull have a 1-inch wide catheter stuffed into ur urethra, and a 1-inch wide feeding tube stuffed up ur left nostril.

 

[dong20]

oooo, u better be careful. that kinda talk is gonna get u classified as an "enemy combatant" in the war on terror. next thing u know ull have a 1-inch wide catheter stuffed into ur urethra, and a 1-inch wide feeding tube stuffed up ur left nostril.

That would be in addition to the even larger, err...implement currently up his ass (comonly known as the Republican Party) then?

 

[B_Stronzo]

it's way past time for another civil war.

anarchist

 

[Freddie53]

This is why the focal point of social studies from k-12 should be about being a good ciitzen at the students' current ages and about being good citizens as adults. Sadly, most social studies curriculums are just about naming people who did certain acts of public note and important battles, treaties etc.

All of this trivia information is worthless unless it is applicable to the person learning it. A good citizen seriously studies the candidates positions and their past in terms of how they solve problems, (not their bedroom habits and personal life).

The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment and other additions concerning rights and responsbilites should be knowledge well known and understood by all students graduating from high school.

The Declaration of Independance is a masterpiece of the basic rights of people and the right of people to remove a government that has shown a pattern of abuse of its people. This Declaration says that people have the right to even overthrow such a government.

I don't doubt that many people truly believe what the Bush government is trying to do is morally right. And it is true that such procedures will accomplish goals that appear to be very moral. The problem is that in doing so, we the people then lose a large portion of basic personal and private rights that the Patriots of the Revolutionary War fought so hard to regain and protect.

An anology would be the treatment of cancer. It is true that forcing a cancer patient's head under water without air for thirty minutes will kill all cancer cells in the body. It is a procedure that will work one hundred percent of the time. There is never a failure to eradicate the cancer from the body. The problem is that we also lose the patient.

That is where we are. We do have "cancer" in our society. We always have and we always will. And the "cancer" must be treated or society will crumble. But we have to make sure that our "treatment of the cancer" doesn't destroy the very democratic ideals and rights that our forefathers fought and died for.

To the specifics at hand. If the police have a valid search warrent and discover during the search dozens of dead bodies, I have no doubt that this evidence is admissable in court.

This discussion of what the police might find on a valid search in a home really has nothing to do with the question at hand. Bush in his desire to be able to move immediately against terroriests wants to be able to search without warrents. This is unconsitutional.

Back to my first statements. If all Americans truly understood the Constitution and HOW those RIGHTS came to be enshrined in our Consitution then there would be outrage. No one misses the water until the well runs dry. Americans have no concept of what happens when the government can go in freely to anyone's house for any reason unannounced. The broken door has to be fixed by the owner, not the police. And police are humans. With unrestricted power any large group of people will have some in the group that will abuse the power. This is human nature. In time, there would be police who would break in unannounced for the purpose of hoping to catch some beatiful lady in the nude or break in on people that they personnaly don't like just to harras them.

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest. That is almost true. The best form of government is the benevolent dictator who is so smart, wise and impartial that the dictator never makes any mistakes. Trouble is there is no person that has qualified or will qualify to be that perfect benevolent dictator.

This is the form of government that Bush is working toward and many Americans are falling for. Trouble is that at first it just might work, but in time it will fail and gving any one human or group of humans complete power always results in the worst type of corruption that can be possible.

Back to my point at the beginning. Math scores, reading scores, and physical fitness scores are important. But in the public schools learning to be good citiazens that have a real grasp of what their righrts are and why we guarantee these rights and the consequences of not having these rights is paramount to everything else in learning. There is nothing that is more important than learning rights, responsibilites and consequences for any actions we as individuals or we as a society do.

We are losing this battle in the public schools in America. And this battle is the one that may cost us our rights. Check the percentages of people voting and the 18 to 35 age group are totally uninterested in self rule. They want a benevolent dictator government. They want someone else to "handle it." This is the most tragic event to happen in our society. It is ultimately worse than this latest decision to now "have a key to every home in America with a welcome anytime writtten across the side of the key.

Tragic. Once there was the Roman Republic. Then a benovolent dictator Julius Caeser came along. Then the Roman Republic ended and the Roman Empire began. The American Republic is over 200 years old. We are rapidly coming to the end of the American Republic and entering a new phase "The American Empire"; Democracy and rights gone and a government in Washington that invades any and every country that doesn't do what Washington wants. That makes the entire world puppets states. And it makes America an Empire: Not in name, but in action. And it makes America the largest empire the world has ever known even larger the the now defunct British Empire.

THIS IS OVER TIME MUCH MORE TRAGIC THAN MOST PEOPLE CAN EVEN BEGIN TO COMPREHEND.

My father who is no longer living would be absolutely heart broken to see what has happened to our nation. In some ways, I'm glad he didn't live to see what has happened to his nation and to his church. He so completely loved both and would be devasted to see what has happened to both.

But the war is not lost. Zora and others agreeing with her have stated the obvious: Rights have to be assumed by us. True, the rights are given in the Constitution, but we have to accept those rights as responsible citizens.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I just cannot believe the level of complacence, compliance, and naivete. Did you know that in the state of texas, it is illegal to sell dildoes, and that there is a legal limit on the number that an individual may own? (I don't recall exactly, I think the number is 5) If you get caught exceeding that number by just one, you WILL be charged with "intent to deliver" and (again, I'm trying to remember) I believe that is a felony. So your asshole friend is pissed off, knows you have 6 dildoes, anonymously calls the cops and says you have drugs in the house... they "politely knock" on your door, serve your warrant, find no drugs, but they do find your dickie collection, you are handcuffed and hauled on the spot.

As for the drugs thing... I don't smoke pot, but even at that, I do NOT recognize the governments' right to tell me I can't smoke it or grow it... distill liquor, too, for that matter.

The whole reason for the Fourth Amendment was to prevent a scenario such as the above. For those of you who don't remember it, I'll remind you - word for word directly from the Constitution:

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 Warrant 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 siezed.

I do not understand what is the difficult part of this, someone please explain it to me.

 

[JustAsking]

Drugs are illegal Who broke the law first?

Well there ya go. Any wonder why we are in this predicament?

 

[dong20]

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 Warrant 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 siezed.

I do not understand what is the difficult part of this, someone please explain it to me.

Define "Unreasonable" in this context in a way that we can all agree with.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Define "Unreasonable" in this context in a way that we can all agree with.

Super-simple: as defined in the portion in bold print in my quote. If the search does not adhere to those criteria, it is unreasonable.

 

[DC_DEEP]

anarchist

You say that like it's a bad thing!

 

[dong20]

Super-simple: as defined in the portion in bold print in my quote. If the search does not adhere to those criteria, it is unreasonable.

Yes, but the word "and" could be taken to mean that the former does not depend absolutely on the latter. So so long as there is a warrant it doesn't matter how outlandish the reason for its issuance or tenuous the 'probable' in the probable cause?

For example the Dildo quota...is that a reasonable search and seizure?

 

[Freddie53]

:

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 Warrant 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 siezed.

I do not understand what is the difficult part of this, someone please explain it to me.

There is absolutely nothing difficult to understand. Some people who are in authority don't believe in these rights for ordinary people. It is that simple. Unfortunately.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Yes, but the word "and" could be taken to mean that the former does not depend absolutely on the latter. So so long as there is a warrant it doesn't matter how outlandish the reason for its issuance or tenuous the 'probable' in the probable cause?

For example the Dildo quota...is that a reasonable search and seizure?

My mind is boggled that there is any confusion at all here. "And" means exactly that - and. This item plus that item. It does not mean "either/or". The 4th Amendment, without equivocation, REQUIRES exactly four criteria for a search warrant: There must be probable cause; the witness must swear to that probable cause; the warrant must exactly describe the place to be searched; the warrant must exactly describe the person or thing being sought. If the theoretical search warrant specified as the thing sought "a number of phallic sex toys in excess of legal possession limits" then yes, I suppose by 4th amendment standards, that would be legal. Technically. Of course, I do not recognize the governments' authority to have any say about my sex toys. But for the sake of argument, yes, if the warrant specifically described a collection of dildoes in excess of "legal" limits, then it would meet 4th amendment criteria. Finding them while using a warrant specifying "child porn" would not.

The gentlemen who drafted our Constitution and its first fourteen amendments were intelligent men, and they chose their words very very carefully. If they had intended the 4th amendment to mean "any of these criteria," they would have used "or" instead of "and." I don't know how there could be any doubt as to the meaning of that particular conjunction - whatever is before it, and whatever is after it, both must exist. The framers of our Constitution, after much debate, foresaw such abuse... and worded the amendment accordingly, to prevent activist judges and legislators from reading exceptions where there are none, or using "or" instead of "and."