"No Knock" Supreme Court Ruling

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
DC_DEEP said:
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...

DC I'm not trying to be awkward honestly, I understand exactly what is meant by the spirit of the paragraph.

The use of "and" is problematic for me in the paragraph you quoted because to me it does not say a warrant is needed for a search it only says that a warrant must be specific and that citizens must be protected against unreasonable searches. It does not say (to me) that a warrant is mandatory to search, that would be :

"No search, which shall not be unreasonable, shall be conducted without a warrant which shall...."

For example:

"It is not allowed without reasonable cause for me to pee in your swimming pool and a warrant that allows me to pee in your pool must be signed by some folks I probably never met and based on the 'probable cause' that I deserve it.

Vs.

"It is not allowed for me to pee in your swimming pool without a warrant that allows me to pee in your pool and this warrant must be signed by some folks I probably never met and based on the 'probable cause' that I deserve it.

So, what is reasonable?.....I couldn't find a toilet, I had one too many beers, because I was passing and whats an extra 500ml or, I don't like you because (for example), you are gay/black/Jewish/Arab/I don't have a pool so why should you? etc etc"

So I can pee in your pool, so long as I have permission from some like minded folks, no matter how ridiculous the grounds may be and if a legal search uncovers evidence of other 'crimes'...it's probably going to be admissable.

The bold is the danger we are all in because no one can define the word "unreasonable grounds". Translate that into whatever behaviour you choose and voila civil rights...what happend to them? The problem as I see it is that yours and my defintition of what is reasonable grounds is becoming ever further away from our Governments definition.

DC_DEEP said:
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

I don't think our Governments really care about whether you agree, technically or not, do you? So, to you and me that is an example of an unreasonable, yet legal search, and that's what I meant.

I know I am 'stretching' a point but our governments are doing the same, and, to me, that is as much what this thread is about as much as did the cops knock loud enough.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
dong20 said:
DC I'm not trying to be awkward honestly, I understand exactly what is meant by the spirit of the paragraph.
I do sort of vaguely understand your point, now... but that is the purpose of the introductory clause of the amendment. Your right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects shall not be violated. The first part of the amendment, which guarantees the rights to security against frivolous/unwarranted searches and seizures, cannot be seperated from the explanatory clause which explains when a search and seizure MAY be warranted... and it requires all four criteria. I could not follow, at all, your pee-in-the-pool analogy. This 4th amendment, when taken in its entirety and in its context, simply outlines due process. (Although politicians and supreme court justices ignore this when they find it convenient,) it allows no margin of error, no margin of interpretation, it allows no exceptions. It may be repugnant to think of it as such, but finding dead bodies in the closet when the warrant mentions only a search for drugs, well, ugly but still unconstitutional to allow the dead bodies as evidence in a trial, or even for "probable cause" for arrest. Sorry, folks, but it is just that clear. Don't get me wrong, it pisses me off no end when the cops fuck up and a disgusting criminal walks free on a technicality. But don't fault the Bill of Rights, fault the cops who did the shoddy work. Once you let that jinn out of the bottle, he'll never go back in.
 

jeremyA

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
97
Media
6
Likes
11
Points
153
Location
England
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Well as was amply demonstrated last week when 250 police officers were involved in a raid on suspect torrorists in London last week,only to release the 'suspects' after finding no evidence its not a case of the police kicking your door in to find evidence of wrongdoing its the police now kicking your door down because someone ringing them and saying that you were acting suspiciously.I wonder how long it will be before they start rounding up gays,gypsies,mentally ill people ,intellectuals and other 'undesirables' and putting them into concentration camps.Its all starting to look a lot like 1930's germany to me.
And to add insult to injury they not only shot one of the suspects they then claimed that he had been shot by his alleged accomplice.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
DC_DEEP said:
I do sort of vaguely understand your point, now... but that is the purpose of the introductory clause of the amendment. Your right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects shall not be violated.

In theory....:rolleyes:

DC_DEEP said:
I could not follow, at all, your pee-in-the-pool analogy. This 4th amendment, when taken in its entirety and in its context, simply outlines due process. (Although politicians and supreme court justices ignore this when they find it convenient,) it allows no margin of error, no margin of interpretation, it allows no exceptions. It may be repugnant to think of it as such, but finding dead bodies in the closet when the warrant mentions only a search for drugs, well, ugly but still unconstitutional to allow the dead bodies as evidence in a trial.

Not the best example...I was in need and rushed it sorry. To make another example, assume I agree (which in effect I do) that a the 4th has been followed (to the letter), how would you feel if the cops busted down your because :
  • You had eaten takeaway 3 nights in a row
  • You were in possesion of Gay Porn
  • You were in possession of a leaflet which your local Islamic fundementalists had pushed through your door.
  • You didn't go to church last Sunday
Before you say that could never happen....take a deep breath and look back over the events since 2001, the current predilication of Governments to limit or remove our rights and consider:

I don't recall asking Bush and Blair to invade Iraq on spurious grounds, indeed along with perhaps millions of others I was opposed to it. I don't recall asking them to listen to my calls, or read my emails (for my own protection of course), I don't recall asking for them to outlaw as a criminal anyone who espouses Islam a tad enthusistically...etc etc etc.

A proposed constitutional amendment banning the legal union of two people simply because they are the same sex (read un Christian)?, people held without trial because they were in the wong place at the wrong time, or have the wrong religious belief or a 'terrorist' sounding name.

If I had asked you 10 years ago could you foresee this....what would your answer have been?

DC_DEEP said:
or even for "probable cause" for arrest. Sorry, folks, but it is just that clear. Don't get me wrong, it pisses me off no end when the cops fuck up and a disgusting criminal walks free on a technicality. But don't fault the Bill of Rights, fault the cops who did the shoddy work. Once you let that jinn out of the bottle, he'll never go back in.

Well, in terms of the exclusionary rule...yes and no, Vehicular stops:
  • New York v. Belton 1981
  • State v. Fry 1986
  • Arizona v. Gant 2003
The 'Plain view'/'Knock and announce' rules, apply:
  • Nix V Williams 1984
  • People V Arnau
  • And of Course Hudson V Michigan 2006.
The Exclusionary rule established after Weeks V United States 1914 to correct 'Common Law' and only at Federal level applied further at state level after Mapp V Ohio in 1961 and is intended to exclused evidence gathered during an unlawful search, not in corollorary to a legal one....at least that's how I understand it but I am no expert.

NB Sorry for extended edit, I posted before finished by accident.:rolleyes:
 

D_Elijah_MorganWood

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Posts
5,220
Media
0
Likes
127
Points
193
Perhaps the most disturbing part of this situation isn't what was passed but how it happened. Appeals notwithstanding, a requote from the subject CNN item:

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.

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.

This is not the government our forefathers envisioned. 6 or so generations later, we have no knowledge of opression and tyranny. As many other civilized (and even 3rd world) governments seem to advance, we seem to be headed for a Monarchy, Neo-Fascism or a Dictatorship. Heck, even Socialism is starting to look good compared to the place we're headed. Don't laugh, it's not much of a stretch if you consider the changes we've experienced in our government in the last 40 years. The name won't even change and all our sacred Rights and Freedoms will appear to remain intact. I'm frustrated because it seems inevitable and most people are now too apathetic, uninformed, self-absorbed and uneducated to do anything about it.

 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Sorcerer said:
This is not the government our forefathers envisioned. 6 or so generations later, we have no knowledge of opression and tyranny. As many other civilized (and even 3rd world) governments seem to advance, we seem to be headed for a Monarchy, Neo-Fascism or a Dictatorship. Heck, even Socialism is starting to look good compared to the place we're headed.

That says it exactly, one can design a system proof against foolish errors and casual abuse, but not against, continuous, systematic erosion and distortion from within. All done under the guise of protecting us from those nasty <insert appropriate hate group of the day here>.

I hate whats happening to your country and I don't live there but I am also concerned because, like flu, tyranny is contagious.:rolleyes:
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
I hate whats happening to your country and I don't live there but I am also concerned because, like flu, tyranny is contagious.:rolleyes:

I'm certainly concerned about some of the current trends here, abuses really. I'm particularly unnerved by the warrantless spying, indefinite imprisonments without trial and the pre-emptive war doctrine both our governments are advocating. But I feel its much too early to too write the U.S. off as a tyranny, or even a nascent tyranny.

When I reflect on some of the civil rights abuses the U.S. government has perpetuated in our history (particularly during wartime) such as legislated racism, concentration camps, sedition laws, or McCarthyism, the civil rights issues at stake today are really no more profound than those confronted in the past. Mind you, I'm not trivializing the ominous impact of this administration's policies, but our system has endured worse in the past and I do have confidence we'll emerge from this mess intact. Like a well designed automobile, it will likely withstand most of the neglect and damage resulting from an inattentive and poorly trained driver.

I just hope we don't wreak any further damage on the rest of the world (and ourselves) while we straighten the mess out internally. Sometimes my country reminds me of a frightened, stampeding elephant that is capable of trampling friend or foe alike during periods of fear and anger.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
SpeedoGuy said:
...I feel its much too early to too write the U.S. off as a tyranny, or even a nascent tyranny..

I agree, and I said to JustAsking that I believe you will get it together again. But, right now when huge numbers of ones nations people lose trust in our Government and a growing number of the rest that do still 'trust' have neither the wit to see the erosion of their constitutionally protected rights, nor the will to stem the tide even if they do, we're on the right track...:rolleyes:

After all, hardly anyone sees the truck that runs them over.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
SpeedoGuy said:
When I reflect on some of the civil rights abuses the U.S. government has perpetuated in our history (particularly during wartime) such as legislated racism, concentration camps, sedition laws, or McCarthyism, the civil rights issues at stake today are really no more profound than those confronted in the past..

Very true, the danger here is that we all risk sliding backwards and while what's happening today echos those days, the current threat of Islamic terrorism is, tragically, to some degree self inflicted and it's US and UK Foreign policy that has fed it's growth and made the world a more dangerous place for us all.

Bit off topic sorry but to me, related....

But taking a wider view, it is ultimately futile to search for a root cause for the many forms of 'terrorism' (a term first coined in Russians in the 19th century) which are many and varied. I do believe it is the divisivness and blatant self interest underlying American (primarily) foreign policy, its lamentable attitude to Treaty signing since the 1950s, increasing scorn for the UN, combined with a growing perception of American 'weakness' that has been a catalyst for the growth of global terrorism of, for example the Al-Queda variety. Of course it's not merely Islamic Fundementalism that spawns terrorists and the resultant knee-jerk domestic reactions we are now suffering; they are merely the cause c&#233;l&#232;bre of the day.

Terrorism:

"A strategy of using violence, social threats, or coordinated attacks, in order to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, bring about compliance with specified political, religious, or ideological demands. "

If an one looks at the history of the US global (and even domestic interventions) since the end of the 1940's in the context of the defintion of terrorism, it would not be a stretch to conclude that America is the single worst sponsor and, often, direct instigator of global terrorism in recent human history. Call it 'uncoventional warfare' if you like, but that's largely semantics.

Caveat:

This is not a tirade against the US, I hope you know that and heaven knows none of our nations has clean hands but perhaps your (our) chickens have come home to roost.

The one thing that history teaches us repeatedly....is that we don't learn from history.
 

JackbytheSea

1st Like
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
101
Media
1
Likes
1
Points
161
Location
Baltimore, MD
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
There is present in this administration a disdain and contempt for the autonomy of the common man that, even with my limited study of history, appears to be palpatable and unprecedented.​

I wish I could say this ruling surprised me, but, it didn't.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
JackbytheSea said:
There is present in this administration a disdain and contempt for the autonomy of the common man that, even with my limited study of history, appears to be palpatable and unprecedented.​
hardly unprecedented, sadly - anyone who's been reading the news this week will know what i mean when i say the bush is to french fries as reagan was to ketchup :rolleyes:
 

D_Pat_Sayjackoff

1st Like
Joined
May 19, 2006
Posts
42
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
151
:rolleyes:
I guess a gun totin guy needs to chime in. The first cop that comes through my door with-out making enough noise to alert my dog or have me hear him....WILL BE SHOT DEAD. I do not screw around with my rights I have faught so hard to keep. I am known by many as an extreemist in california because I own more than 20 rifles and 15 handguns. I actually hope a cop does die as I described, it may make washington take a second to realize that the rights of a free state protected by a WELL armed individual may very well not be something they are willing to attack.

And yes I have answered my door many times with the police looking freaked out because I do answer the door with a gun....normally a small handgun (.45 or .357) , but one time I did it with my double barrel.....was hillarious to see the cop backpedal.

You really dont want to come to my home unexpected.:biggrin1:



 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
derfman said:
I guess a gun totin guy needs to chime in. The first cop that comes through my door with-out making enough noise to alert my dog or have me hear him....WILL BE SHOT DEAD....You really dont want to come to my home unexpected.
In my current situation, that would not be the best route for me, but trust me, anyone who decides it's in his best interest to bust down my door would soon decide otherwise.

Once I can retire and buy a nice plot of land, I will concur with the the sentiment that anyone who decides to invade my home will likely be blown to smithereens.

So long as my actions involve no others, I assert that as my right. The government may pass all the laws they want making it illegal to part your hair on the right; that does not mean that I will acknowledge that law, and I will assert my right to part my hair in any way I want. The same goes for any laws that would attempt to restrict my right to do as I please on my own property with any consenting adults whom I choose. No one enters my house without my express permission. Period.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
derfman said:
I guess a gun totin guy needs to chime in. The first cop that comes through my door with-out making enough noise to alert my dog or have me hear him....WILL BE SHOT DEAD.

And the second through the door will probably kill you and your dog..sounds fair..:rolleyes:

derfman said:
I do not screw around with my rights I have faught so hard to keep.

You must be really old to have fought in the Civil war and the War of Independence which granted them to you...:eek:

derfman said:
I am known by many as an extreemist in california because I own more than 20 rifles and 15 handguns.

I'd say that makes you an extremist in most places...:tongue:

derfman said:
I actually hope a cop does die as I described, it may make washington take a second to realize that the rights of a free state protected by a WELL armed individual may very well not be something they are willing to attack.
Though his family may not see it that way...:rolleyes:

derfman said:
And yes I have answered my door many times with the police looking freaked out because I do answer the door with a gun....normally a small handgun (.45 or .357) , but one time I did it with my double barrel.....was hillarious to see the cop backpedal.

Why....were you expecting Jehovah Witnesses?

derfman said:
You really dont want to come to my home unexpected.:biggrin1:

Or, indeed, at all..:biggrin1:
 

D_Pat_Sayjackoff

1st Like
Joined
May 19, 2006
Posts
42
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
151
1......I currently have a ccw(concealed weapon permit)in nv az and ut...which means I can carry 20...not only the fifteen handguns I own. So I need to get 5 more in my eyes. Not extreeme yet :tongue:
2....Yes I do own those right because I am a registered voter and I vote! If you dont your opinon means nothing in regards to this issue. My family has been here since day one...one side was already here as well so yeah :mad:
3....No cop in his right mind is going to come through a door he just saw parts of his partner come out of. And just in case he did...thats why I have more than one bullet in any given gun:cool:

I will not allow people into MY home that I dont want there....period