While you weren't looking - the Supreme Court eliminated the 4th Amendment today

[notesdev]

Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sc-dc-0517-court-search-20110516,0,5858981.story

No more warrants needed to search a home! And citizens "have only themselves to blame" for it!

[leftstreet]

1. WTF? And just what are 'sounds of evidence being destroyed?'

:grr: :banghead:

[kedrys]

26. Flushing, probably, if you're unlucky enough to be

sitting on the can when the law shows up. :nuke: :banghead:

[NashVegas]

46. So Don't Live In a Home Where the Toilet Is Next to the Front Door?

[customerserviceguy]

57. Uh, oh

We have a bathroom right next to the front door of our townhouse condo. I guess I just have to hope like hell that nobody thinks we're pot smokers.

[Art_from_Ark]

192. Are you serious, or are you being sarcastic?

[Yavapai]

39. Does it sound anything like a 12 guage pump shotgun slide?

[guruoo]

278. Or switching the clacker

to armed?



:rofl:

[hay rick]

149. I know it when I hear it.

And if I say I heard it, who is going to prove me wrong?

Goodbye Bill of Rights. Hello police state.

[Kablooie]

151. Footsteps could mean you were carrying the evidence to the toilet.

TV audio could mean you were trying to cover up the sounds of evidence being destroyed.

[DirkGently]

249. Just about anything anyone ever cares to claim, of course. Or, nothing. Jesus.

[cyberpj]

303. THIS DU POST includes an article re PERMITTED ENTRY WHEN YOU'RE NOT EVEN HOME called 'Sneak & Peek':

These search warrants don’t involve knocking on doors or any type of warning at all. Delayed-notice search warrants, or "sneak-and-peek" warrants, allow federal agents to enter your home without telling you they’ve been there until months later.

SEE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4854357

[thanks_imjustlurking]

304. Whatever they say it is, silly.

After all, this is Murka.

[RoccoR5955]

316. That was my first question.

It could be anything they want. The cops could lie. Nah, cops never lie. (yeah right, perhaps in some other universe maybe.)

[blondeatlast]

2. Ginsburg was the sole dissent? Dear Lord. nt

[villager]

5. More evidence how worthless the "two" party distinction is

n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

189. So much for those new USSC appointees

This ruling is so wrong on so many counts.

[Cronus Protagonist]

231. Precisely why we need to primary Obama

If he appoints another two of these right wingers, the country is toast.

[G_j]

286. yea, really, we just can't win.

game over?

[readmoreoften]

212. But I thought "we got Kagan"! I heard she was so great! Oh, wait, she sucks like the rest of them.

She's actually really bad on civil liberties. Really bad.

[Uncle Joe]

268. That's what I was thinking, most disappointing that the new Justices don't have greater respect

for the people's right to privacy.

The insane so called "War on Drugs" is flushing the people's liberty down the toilet with any perceived evidence.

[russspeakeasy]

306. Your right to privacy comes only after you can show a net worth

of at least $5 million.

[Octafish]

318. One has to draw the line somewhere.

As a result, the 99-percent of us -- the We the People -- are in deep doo doo.

[LiberalLoner]

3. I don't care if you are completely lawful, as I am - this is still worrisome. n/t K&R

[villager]

7. Don't worry -- you won't remain completely lawful. The corporate state will make an outlaw of you

...yet. Even if you change absolutely nothing about your behavior.

[LiberalLoner]

16. Well I keep saying if they outlaw motrin they better just give me a

hysterectomy then because no way can I make it through life without that motrin unless I get the surgery.

You know, we do have a really high rate of imprisonment in this country. Higher than any other place. I read about that case in Pennsylvania where a judge was getting kickbacks for sending kids to a detention center even if they didn't need to be there. It makes me wonder if there aren't financial reasons why the imprisonment rate is so high. And if there aren't financial incentives to make it even higher.

Meh. I've had too much stuff happen to me in life. It's way too easy for me to imagine the worst. To be honest when I try to imagine the future nothing but a dystopian hell comes up in my mind. I've heard that's a common thing among those of us diagnosed with PTSD. I don't know. I know I'm probably overly pessimistic at times.

[villager]

28. Well, these aren't precisely optimism-laded times. As for profit motives in "crime" and imprisonment

...there was a post on DU in the last day or two that the reason ridiculous "anti-drug" laws affecting things like marijuana are kept on the books (by "both" parties) is that high numbers of low-risk "offenders" (i.e., those who were just smoking a doob, or selling a couple) help keep the for-profit prison industry going...

[bob4460]

43. Here is why they want the Drug Laws.

They can lockup 100 inmates and have 2 guards watch them.
Now take a hardcore criminal you have to have 3 guards just to
get him out of a cell.

[krispos42]

71. Hmmmm... hadn't thought about it that way.

Shit.

[RKP5637]

35. I think the same and I don't have PTSD. A lot of people see the future in the

US as pretty bleak anymore. I find it very concerning because I see the future as a dystopia hell too. I'm hopeful people are waking up to what is going on, but just the propaganda in this country keeps peoples minds imprisoned even if free.

[RKP5637]

34. Exactly! Prisons are a very profitable business and the payoffs are great. And then

add to that the private military industry. Give the US a few more years and most will be serving time just for being alive.

[bob4460]

40. The way laws are now written

WE ARE ALL FELONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CAUGHT!

[villager]

127. We are guilty in advance, each of us having already committed "thoughtcrimes."

Inexorably, the corporate state tightens the noose in order to catch up with us...

[cutlassmama]

223. 1984 here we come

[Solomon]

237. We passed 1984 more than 25 years ago.

[RaleighNCDUer]

279. Yep. Just as over the years I moved from being a moderate Dem to a radical leftie

without changing my positions, now I can look forward to moving from radical leftie to outlaw terrorist without changing my positions.

Believe in the Bill of Rights? Off to Gitmo!

(edit for typo)

[niyad]

9. so the police can say "we heard sounds", whether they did or not.

just like that case last week, where the ruling was that police can enter any time, for no reason at all, and nobody has the right to protest or protect themselves.

and, of course, the usual suspects will be along shortly to defend this latest crapping on the constitution.

[RKP5637]

36. Germany, WWII! n/t

[ecstatic]

75. Extremely worrisome. Armed "police" bursting in to homes

Perfect! Just ask the late Kathryn Johnston how it worked out for her!

[SDuderstadt]

83. You might want to...

read the decision.

[Eddie Haskell]

289. If you're not on the floor you'll be tazed

With my heart, they might as well shoot me.

[csziggy]

121. Yes, the mayor who had the police break in, shoot his dog and terrorize

His family was completely law abiding. But that did not stop the cops from violating his rights even before this SCOTUS decision took them away.

I guess the answer will be to be able to afford a personal fortress to lock out police. Of course, if you can afford that, you will likely be on the police's "Do not disturb" list.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

18. I'm right here to ask the same question...

Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are solid liberal votes. So, why DID they vote with the majority?

You can find out by actually reading the decision. Not saying it's right, but there is more there than meets the eye.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

29. I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to be fine with this decision

Are police going to wear recording devices sensitive enough to hear inside your home from outside? No?

So what's to stop police from just making shit up about what they heard?

Seriously. No liberal or progressive of any stripe can possibly be okay with this. This is just too heinous a decision.

IMO, this one's impeachable. Alito knows goddamn good and well that police have been known in the past to lie about what they saw/heard.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Did you read the decision or not?

Did you also catch the part where I said "not saying it's right"?

[girl gone mad]

147. "READ THE BILL! READ THE BILL!"

:eyes:

[LooseWilly]

178. You may not be saying it's right, but you're certainly not saying it's wrong.

In fact, dude, you're really not saying much at all. But, what else is new?

Since you refuse to post a link to the decision that you exhort everyone to read, I won't bother to either. I'll just quote from it and leave you to do your thing.

A quick summary of police-facts (facts as presented to the DA from the police, which then become part of the trial record, presumably):

Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside an apartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others.

Those facts, however, are elaborated upon by Alito's majority opinion:

Police officers set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex. Undercover Officer Gibbons watched the deal take place from an un­marked car in a nearby parking lot. After the deal oc­curred, Gibbons radioed uniformed officers to move in on the suspect. He told the officers that the suspect was moving quickly toward the breezeway of an apartment building, and he urged them to “hurry up and get there ”before the suspect entered an apartment." In response to the radio alert, the uniformed officers drove into the nearby parking lot, left their vehicles, and ran to the breezeway. Just as they entered the breezeway,they heard a door shut and detected a very strong odor of burnt marijuana. At the end of the breezeway, the officers saw two apartments, one on the left and one on the right,and they did not know which apartment the suspect had entered. Gibbons had radioed that the suspect was run­ning into the apartment on the right, but the officers did not hear this statement because they had already left their vehicles. Because they smelled marijuana smoke emanating from the apartment on the left, they ap­proached the door of that apartment.

In other words the police were following someone, lost him/her... smelled pot, and pounded on a door. The wrong door. They heard sounds from inside, so they kicked the door down. The wrong door. And now the Supreme Court has decided that the evidence seized from behind the wrong door is admissible from now on.

Now... it's possible the smell of marijuana could've been "emanating" from the apartment on the left... but it's also possible that someone smoked a blunt there in the hallway... or tossed a roach near the left apartment... or any number of other more creative/wacky/possible scenarios could have occurred. Maybe the police heard evidence being destroyed, or maybe they heard a cop-wife and her lover having a nooner and trying to get dressed and figure out what was going on with police at the door.

The point is... at this point the police don't know what the hell is going on... and the Fourth Amendment was intended to protect citizens from overzealous officers of the law ... busting down doors in the name of the King, and answering questions later only if they'd busted down the door of someone important.

In terms of the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, how is that not an undermining decision? What if there hadn't been any drugs behind the wrong door?... well, this decision makes the mistake ok, if there was noise behind the door, or even if the police just say they thought they heard noises consistent with disposal of evidence... and if the door-kicking-down is judged to be legal, then little old ladies making strange noises with their walkers to check the peep-hole to see if it's really the police will have no legal recourse if it happens to them. Nor will you or I. And as for the users of medical marijuana in states where it's legal... well it's open season on them now.

The only hope is that the point of exigency be judged in such a way as to push back against what seems to me to be a "deflowering" of the Fourth Amendment in the interests of expanding police power.

Again, from Alito's majority opinion:

Although the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained, this Court has inferred that a warrant must generally be secured. “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law,’” we have often said, “‘that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively un­reasonable.’” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 403(2006) (quoting Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 559(2004)).

...

One well-recognized exception applies when “‘the exi­gencies of the situation’ make the needs of law en­forcement so compelling that warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. ”Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 394 (1978); see also Payton, supra, at 590 (“he Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant”).

Which leaves the argument to be made, is the pursuit of drug offenders so 'exigent' as to justify doing away with Search Warrant requirements based upon police hunches, "what they smell"... "what they feel in their bones"?...

I'd be curious to hear you make an argument as to what the "extenuating" circumstances of this case are that, in your mind, make it anything other than an offensive stripping away of Fourth Amendment protections for citizens that the police are willing to testify in court that they "heard sounds of..." coming from inside their homes.

Please, dude... enlighten us.

[SDuderstadt]

186. Would you show me where I...

"refused to post a link"? And, why should I have to, when another poster already had?

As far as the rest of your "argument", ask yourself a question. Why did 3 reliably liberal justices (Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor) join with majority? Hint: Because the facts of the case warranted it. Do you see police misconduct? I don't. 8-1 is pretty convincing. You may not like the decision, but that really doesn't mean much.

[LooseWilly]

208. Sure... here's where you

"refused to post a link": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1115782&mesg_id=1116444

(technically, you chose not to post a link to something you were exhorting someone to read... repeatedly, if you follow the thread).

If another poster already posted a link... then why not at least indicate that? Maybe a link to the post in which the link is posted? But no, you exhort others to read something that you will not provide them... in effect exhorting them to go to the effort to search the internet for the thing you would have them read, and then have them read it... doubling the work they must go through in order to satisfy your unsupported arguments.

Speaking of "unsupported arguments"... the rest of your post is a wonderful example.

"Do you see police misconduct? " — YES... I was very explicit in laying out the misconduct I saw. Your response?— "I don't." So why don't you explain why it is not police misconduct to kick down the wrong door in pursuit of a suspect, and then scoop up evidence that they had no search warrant for, in order to arrest the occupants?

"Because the facts of the case warranted it."?? —What Facts Warranted It?? I have made a case that Alito's majority opinion is bad legal precedent... but all you have done is try to say that 3 "reliably liberal justices" (a point that I do not concede, as Kagan and Sotomayor have not been on the court long enough to be anything more than tentative liberal justices... and in fact have been more reliably centrist and only occasionally liberal... and Breyer is "known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer) not for being liberal) joined the majority.

Have you read the decision? "8-1 is pretty convincing." is not an argument that convinces me that you have read the decision... it sounds like the argument of someone who actually believes that judges are "liberal" because someone said so and can't be bothered to actually look at the facts and judge for him/her self.

How about you follow your own advice and read the decision and explain why you think "the facts of the case warranted it", with some actual factual support for your argument? Dude...

[SDuderstadt]

215. Dude...

read it again. No one even replied to that post. If you can find one place where someone demanded that I post a link to the decision, please post it, otherwise, you are just grasping at straws.

Do you understand the word "misconduct"? Did the officers deliberately target the wrong apartment? No, they made an honest mistake. Once inside, could they ignore the powder cocaine? No. This guy, despite being someone other than the guy they were looking for, was a cocaine dealer. The issue was whether the evidence should have been excluded from his trial, but the Supremes had little choice but to apply the "exigent circumstances" principle in the manner they did. You can moan and wail about that all you want, but the Supremes are the final authority on the Constitution.

And, I don't know how many times I have to say that I HAVE read the decision and you could confirm that by reading numerous posts in which I cited details of the case/decision I could have only known by reading it. In the meantime, it is obvious that poster after poster bashed the decision without ever having read the decision, but, oddly, you say nothing to them. Of course, that's because they hold the same hastily considered conclusion that you did. Now, do you seriously deny that Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan are commonly regarded as the liberal wing of the court? Do you regard pragmatism as somehow being anti-liberal?

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

232. Ummm, LW....

What is your take on all the posters who rushed to pile-on the Court (because of the inflammatory and false subject line of the OP) without bothering to find out for themselves what the decision was all about? Beyond that, it was really cute how you turned to a regular dictionary to define half of the term "exigent circumstances", when the law turns upon highly specific definitions and stipulations.

Destruction of evidence turns out to be one of those "exigent circumstances". You can be as outraged as you want, but you might want to ask yourself what it was about the circumstances that compelled Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan to join the majority opinion. Since you weren't there for the oral arguments and, I suspect, you haven't read the briefs in the case, you can't know the state of mind of the justices.

Now, talk about badgering....

[LooseWilly]

320. Dude...

I simply don't agree with your assertion that there was a "pile-on the Court". I also disagree that the subject line of the OP was false. Likewise, I am not willing to even go so far as to call it inflammatory.

Try another set of connotatively loaded adjectives, or make an argument to support your use of "inflammatory and false", given the context, as adjectives to describe the reaction of the posters.

The meaning of 'exigent circumstances' obviously is exactly that which a judge decides that it means. In this case what the Supreme Court decides that it means. To simply make a vague assertion that it "turns upon highly specific definitions and stipulations" without providing any support for that argument is not convincing. The reality is that the "regular dictionary" definition of 'exigent' can't help but inform the meaning of a legal term which incorporates that word as the heart of its terminology. The implication that you are so "cutely" trying to make me swallow, that the dictionary meaning is irrelevant, is simply untrue—the meaning of 'exigent' is the heart of any argument that one might try to make to these "reliably liberal" (in your mind) judges.

Destruction of evidence unto which law enforcement has no legal right of access is, I am here arguing, not supported by the 'exigent' heart of the legal term of 'exigent circumstances' ... because it is an argument and a precedent that would have ramifications that would clearly violate the spirit of the Fourth Amendment: to wit... by the argument that all evidence gathering, even that to which law enforcement has no right of access, is an 'exigent circumstance' is tantamount to allowing all doors to be kicked in, always due to the 'exigent circumstances' of the possibility that there might be evidence behind that door that might otherwise be destroyed.

The whole point of the Fourth Amendment was that the government not have the right to kick down your door and justify it later... but rather that the justification come in advance. If vague and incorrect suspicions are going to be allowed to trump that point, then the Fourth Amendment is hardly any protection at all.

The precedent of Miranda was to deny police evidence that they obtained in violation of a suspect's rights. The violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment protections, even a suspect who is guilty, sets a precedent eroding Fourth Amendment protections.

You can argue yourself blue about how I should have faith in the judges that you call "reliably liberal", based upon the assertion that I "wasn't there for the oral arguments"... but I'm pretty sure, based upon what I have read of the majority opinion, that it was all about the weed. I can see how judges who lean toward "law & order" would be inclined to decide that an alleged "smell of marijuana" was tantamount to 'exigent circumstances'... I just think they are wrong to allow law enforcement the power, once those 'exigent circumstances' turn out to have produced wrong results, to skip Fourth Amendment protections and scoop up the evidence anyway and prosecute.

I simply don't have enough faith in the well-meaning of law enforcement to feel comfortable extending them this sort of power.

(In my experience, the only people that do have this kind of faith are comfortably raised upper middle class people, usually white or white-leaning, who work in offices and have chats around a water cooler... all the rest of us have had too many experiences in which the police have judged us as 'not-seeming-right' and proceeded to turn the powers of the badge in our direction. Henry Louis Gates, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/21gates.html, comes to mind as a glaring example.)

And, this isn't badgering... it's called presenting an argument.

[appal_jack]

239. 'reliably liberal?'

You're attempting to legitimize a horrendous Supreme Court decision by saying that three of the horrible 'Justices' supporting it are 'reliably liberal?'

FAIL.

The War on (some) Drugs is a reactionary and unconstitutional wedge issue, pushed by statist power-grabbers wishing to expand their control over Americans' daily lives in ever-expanded venues and manners. A 'reliable liberal' would not be supporting any aspect of police kicking down doors without a warrant or imminent danger, just because they state that noises were heard and the odor of a burnt flower hung in the air.

Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are not reliably liberal, nor even reliably Constitutional. And neither are you, dude.

-app

(edited for grammar)

[SDuderstadt]

242. "statist power-grabbers"

LOL!

[Eddie Haskell]

291. The rich still have big fences, gates, and the 4th.

You can't smell the smoke from the street.

[RainDog]

293. great post

the dude is also on another thread talking about "burden of proof" rather than simply getting the proof for himself.


Posted by LooseWilly:

You may not be saying it's right, but you're certainly not saying it's wrong.

In fact, dude, you're really not saying much at all. But, what else is new?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Horse with no Name]

138. No...they really aren't...n/t

[rpannier]

218. And Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are wrong IMO

I've never found Breyer to be a solid liberal vote

The worst part of their voting with the majority is found in Ginsburg's dissent:
The police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches.
The heavy burden has not been carried here.
(break)
Nothing in the record shows that, prior to the knock at the apartment door, the occupants were apprehensive about police proximity.


It's a crappy decision by the majority and Kagan and Sotomayor should be pilloried (verbally) for their agreeing with the majority. Not because of who is in the majority, but because of the ramifications and consrquences of this decision.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. And Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor signed off on this crap?

I can see Kagan and Sotomayor, but Breyer?

This is not America.

[zipplewrath]

15. Good thing we elected a democrat

Ya know, to move the court back to the right...

Oh, wait....

8-1....

[MadMaddie]

22. You can't say that all of Sotomoyer and Kagens decisions have

been bad.

This one I see as problematic. My biggest fear is the police having the wrong house and kicking in the wrong door and killing innocent people.

[niyad]

23. see the link in post 14 for that answer

[Bluebear]

209. .

[zipplewrath]

265. I can say this

I've yet to see either one of them influence the court to the left. For all of their supposed skills an influencing the court, we've seen nothing of a leftward movement, and somewhat of a rightward "drift".

[truedelphi]

269. One independent researcher found over 400 cases of the wrong house being targeted.

In a ten year period.

This doesn't mean those are the only cases - those were just the one s that the researcher discovered.

Often this is not reported in the newspaper, unless the household involved or the surviving family goes to court.

but you would think that if the local police are planning on using a SWAT team in the neighborhood, that maybe they would check to see that they have the right address?

In many cases, the family dog was shot. Shooting and killing the dogs is SOP. After the door is battered in, an incendiary device is thrown into the home, and sometimes that causes a fire that burns the place to the ground! The kids were thrown to the floor, with guns pointed at them.

In several cases, where the residence was occupied by an older adult, that person died of a stroke or heart attack.

But I guess someone at the local police station chipped in to see that flowers were sent to the innocent victim's funeral!

[slay]

227. +1

yeah more and more it seems like it doesn't matter who you elect - both parties are so fucking alike in sooo many ways it's disgusting. :puke:

NOBODY has the balls to stand up to this bullshit "war on drugs" which is really a war on people. ugh. wtf is it going to take to end this stupidity and end the god damn drug war?!?!

[dionysus]

234. i was waiting for it to be obama's fault somehow...

[cascadiance]

282. Damn, I was just about ready to blame this all on the ROBERTS BARONS FIVE!!!

Looks like we have more of the SCOTUS working against citizen's rights than them...

[Drale]

8. There needs to be more checks and balances on the SCOTUS

Its almost impossible to pass a amendment to the constitution and as far as I know thats the only was to overturn a SCOTUS decision.

[Samantha]

311. I am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court, the third branch

of government, can issue a ruling to amend the Constitution. I know it is the highest court in the land, but the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. I guess they are going to cling to the technicality of what they, as opposed to people with common sense, define as "reasonable."

[Gregorian]

11. I wonder what sounds suggest evidence is being destroyed.

A dog barking.
A phone ringing.
A toilet flushing.
What a joke. I want to see how this holds up.

[leeroysphitz]

41. Holds up where?

[Gregorian]

66. The lawsuits that will follow.

Because there will be many innocent people whose doors get knocked down.

[SDuderstadt]

68. The defendant was not...

"innocent".

[DRex]

284. yes he is, until proven guilty.... nt.

[SDuderstadt]

295. He WAS proven guilty...

Duh.

[Confusious]

298. The Supreme Court is the final decision

It will go nowhere else. It's done. No other court can change it, and the Supreme Court can just refuse to hear any lawsuits about it.

[Gregorian]

319. That's just depressing.

Fascism grows and grows, until something...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. If they don't have a warrant, what fucking business is it of theirs what is or isn't being destroyed

A simple knock on the door now gives the cops the right to control your possessions?

[originalpckelly]

13. And what should the people do if we hear the government shredding the constitution?

:shrug:

[LiberalLoner]

17. Yup. n/t

[niyad]

14. goes right along with this ruling last week in IN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1098489

[truedelphi]

275. Yes it does. Somehow over the last fifteen years, the police

Have become an authority above that of the average citizen.

Citizens are being tasered in record numbers, sometimes for such minor offenses as not responding fast enough (the deaf, the blind, mentally disabled etc suffer the most at that) they are having their doors battered open in record numbers, often even though the cops are at the wrong address.

And then there is that weird TV commercial, which starts off as a SWAT team kicking in a door and setting off an incendiary device - and then breaks into basketball.

[Broderick]

20. 8-1

[happyslug]

21. Here is the Actual Opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

[ZombieHorde]

25. Fucking scary. nt

[lonestarnot]

155. Ugh yeah. I'd say so! fucking scary!

[truebrit71]

246. Holy fuck....they went into the apartment next door and busted them, NOT the one the "drug-dealer"..

...went into? Am I reading that right? So the fuzz set up a buy (also known as entrapment), when their target left the scene and went back to his place, they "smelled maryjane" eminating from the apartment next door, entered there without a warrant, busted everyone inside and THEN went to the "drug-dealers" place and busted him too...???

So in thie new SCOTUS world, if my neighbour is a law-breaking fuckhead and the fuxx are coming to pick him up, but they "smell something" coming from MY place or hear "the sounds of evidence being destroyed" - God forbid if the missus just finished in the loo) they can kick down MY door as well?

I don't fucking think so....

When did this become Soviet Russia?

And where are the alleged "liberals" on the court? Ginsburg was the sole dissent??? Man we are so screwed...

[SDuderstadt]

248. "so the fuzz set up a buy (also known as entrapment)"

No, it's only entrapment if you induce someone to do something they otherwise would not have done.

The legal illiteracy on DU is simply stunning.

[Odin2005]

24. Our government has lost all legitimacy. If the PTB are no longer bound by the Constitution...

...then by rights neither are we.

From now on I will have no issue with using "unconstitutional" measures to brutally crush the Right by any means possible.

[skepticscott]

27. What exactly is all that new about this?

All sorts of search warrant exceptions for exigent circumstances had been carved out long before now.

[sammytko]

101. Yep I've watched enough law and order episodes to know that

exigent circustances will get you ever time.

And they did smell marijuana....

[zipplewrath]

266. This is the capper

This is about as low as you can go without just tearing up the 4th altogether. Previously, you had to be in pursuit, trying to prevent further harm, or be seeing visibly illegal behavior. At this point, all they need to claim is that there is the possibility that you might be destroying evidence of a crime that no one even knows has been committed. And it just has to SOUND like you are destroying evidence. Exactly what does "burning paper" sound like?

[originalpckelly]

30. And it was all about weed too.

If you read the opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

44. No, it wasn't....

"all about weed".

Read the decision again.

[dionysus]

47. i aint afraid of you SDuderstadt , because without that keyboard you're nothing but a skinny, lunger

[SDuderstadt]

49. Go ahead...

Skin that smokewagon and see what happens!

[dionysus]

51. why SDuderstadt, you're stuck on the same quote over and over. ain't that a daisy?

:P

[SDuderstadt]

55. Yes, but there's just something about him...

Something around the eyes, I don't know, reminds me of... me. No. I'm sure of it, I hate him.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

140. sorry to interrupt...

but this is the best sub-thread ever...

sP

[SDuderstadt]

142. In vino veritas...

feel free to jump in.

[LooseWilly]

219. I'm your Huckleberry...

"Because they smelled marijuana smoke emanating from the apartment on the left, they ap­proached the door of that apartment." -From Alito's majority opinion.

It WAS all about the weed. And the weed was wrong... because they were chasing a dude who'd sold crack to a cop in a set-up... and they lost sight of the suspect, and they had to pick the right door or the left door. Or rather, they had to pick the right door or the wrong door... and they followed the weed to the wrong door.

What does the smell of weed have to do with sales of crack? Crack does not smell like weed— I can attest to that from personal experience. So how is this justifiable??

Poor cops, I believe they were just too high strung... but they have the Supreme Court to change the law for them and make it ok to kick down the wrong door and make arrests. And if it's a little old lady making strange noises with her walker after smoking some medicinal marijuana the next time... well off to jail she goes too... and if there's no weed on the table?... "Well, sorry ma'am, hope you don't mind spending all of your reduced Social Security check on fixing the front door we just kicked in... but it was legal so it's your problem..."

[SDuderstadt]

220. "It was all about the weed"

Dude, they had a choice between two doors. They could not hear the officer who actually saw the other cocaine dealer enter the apartment on the right, because they had already left their squad cars. Since they were looking for a drug dealer, would you choose the apartment that smelled like marijuana or the one that didn't? A reasonable person would posit a correlation between the two drugs.

[LooseWilly]

224. The police don't get to just go on hunches when breaking down doors.

That is not "reasonable"... that's cowboy shit.

The police need facts and evidence. The courts also need facts and evidence. Just thinking you smell some shit coming from one door or the other isn't admissible evidence. It just isn't. Well, it just wasn't... until the Supreme Court decided to strike down the Kentucky Supreme Court and make it admissible.

And anyone with any real experience with pot smokers and crack smokers knows very well that there's no more correlation between the two than there is between high incomes and cocaine use, or drinking and domestic violence... it happens anecdotally but it's not at all consistently dependable.

In other words... you're allowing your presumptions to justify a conclusion as being legally sound when it is really just that, a conclusion based upon your presumptions. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

233. Take it up with...

Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, dude.

[readmoreoften]

214. +11111!!!

[SDuderstadt]

217. Dude...

that's an inside joke.

Dionysus and I are trading lines from the movie, "Tombstone".

[originalpckelly]

50. Um, which decision did you read?

In the one I read, they followed a "drug dealer" to an apartment, where they smelled "marijuana".

I wonder if marijuana and weed are one in the same.

If marijuana was legal, they wouldn't have any grounds to enter, because they'd be no more suspicious of that than tobacco smoke.

The dealer sold crack, but they would not have suspected anything if they hadn't smelled the weed.

[SDuderstadt]

53. You missed the words...

"crack cocaine" and "powder cocaine".

Read the decision again.

[originalpckelly]

54. They wouldn't have had a suspicion as to where he was...

were it not for the smell of the weed.

The crack may have been the original issue, but did they smell crack, and did they use that as their reason for entrance?

No, what was it?

FUCKING MARIJUANA!

[SDuderstadt]

56. They were pursuing a suspected cocaine dealer...n/t

[originalpckelly]

65. So it of course makes sense that they smelled weed and suspected him.

Right?

[SDuderstadt]

67. They had a choice between two doors...

The smell of marijuana smoke emanated from one. Which one would you go for?

Read the decision again.

[Matariki]

89. Why do you think it's somehow justified because it's a cocaine dealer?

Cocaine somehow overrides The Constitution?

[SDuderstadt]

91. Read the decision...

do you honestly think if the police witness a crime, then the suspect flees behind closed doors, that the police need a warrant?

[Matariki]

97. YOU READ IT - BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY MISSED THIS IMPORTANT BIT:

"They did not see which apartment he entered"

In other words, they had NO justification to bust in someone's door other than the smell of pot.

[SDuderstadt]

102. They didn't hear another officer tell them which door it was...

because they were already out of their squad cars. The law allows police officers to exercise judgment.

[Matariki]

111. And their "judgement" was wrong. Wrong apartment. Wrong person.

They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one.

That's why we have Constitutional Protections - so we don't become a country where the police can do whatever the hell they want based on their "judgement".

[Hannah Bell]

113. +100.

[SDuderstadt]

114. You should have submitted an amicus curiae....

I'm sure it would have carried the day.

By the way, the word is spelled "judgment", just like I spelled it.

[Matariki]

115. That the best you got?

that and repeating yourself?

I'm done with you. Good day.

[girl gone mad]

148. You got your ass handed to you, and this is your comeback?

Pathetic.

[SDuderstadt]

150. I didn't...

get "my ass handed to me".

Only people who know nothing of the law believe that.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

165. Perhaps you could tell me...

how I was "defeated". Let's hear your analysis. Here's your chance to show off your crack legal skills.

[dionysus]

238. we don't take too kindly to law around here lawdog...

[SDuderstadt]

244. You're not as stupid as you look...

Ike.

[dionysus]

251. don't you think you've been hitting this thread too hard SDuderstadt? you've been at it for 28 hours

[SDuderstadt]

254. I have not yet begun to...

defile myself (falls out of chair onto floor)!

[leftstreet]

120. +1

[RKP5637]

31. Not much more evidence needed that American is turning into a police state. n/t

[Kablooie]

152. Thank god the police are the good guys.

:sarcasm:

(of course)

[Richard D]

33. Fuck

Yer honor . . . I knew that evidence was being destroyed and they were hiding that fact because it was quiet in the house . . .

[Initech]

37. SCOTUS is turning into a bigger threat to our freedoms than al Qaeda could ever dream of.

First they say money is free speech, allowing companies to buy and sell politicians, and now this, where does it end?

[FreakinDJ]

42. Them Liberal Activist Judges

[CrispyQ]

58. It ends when they have everything.

THEY WANT IT ALL.

[spanone]

38. so if you are flushing your toilet after your business, there is no need to knock

the bu$h* legacy lives on...but what the fuck? eight to one?

[Better Believe It]

45. So Obama's "liberal" appointments voted with the right-wing and against the Consitutition

[NashVegas]

48. I Would Love to Agree With Those In Despair, Here

But in this particular case ...

It began when police in Lexington, Ky., were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer and then walked into an apartment building. They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one. They pounded on the door and called "Police. Police. Police," and heard the sounds of people moving.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in, and they broke down the door. They found Hollis King smoking marijuana, and put him under arrest. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

But the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned his conviction and ruled the apartment break-in violated his 4th Amendment right against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Police had created an emergency by pounding on the door, the state justices said.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal from state prosecutors and reversed the ruling in Kentucky vs. King. Alito said the police conduct in this case "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking down the door to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

Reeking hallway is a pretty reasonable ground for search/entry in a state where MJ usage is illegal.

[LooseWilly]

228. Reeking hallway is grounds to try to go to a judge for a search warrant.

In this case, the argument was of "exigent circumstances", which would be (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exigent) "requiring immediate action or aid; urgent; pressing" ... except that (from Alito's majority opinion): "Police officers set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex. Undercover Officer Gibbons watched the deal take place from an un­marked car in a nearby parking lot. After the deal oc­curred, Gibbons radioed uniformed officers to move in on the suspect." isn't a situation "requiring immediate action or aid"... it was a controlled buy that was observed, the suspect can be arrested later as easily as sooner with no threat to the public which chooses not to buy crack.

This is not an "exigent" circumstance unless one buys into the hype about the threat of drugs to the whole time-space continuum.

Absent the exigency, the Fourth Amendment protections apply... bullshit loophole for "destruction of drug evidence" or not.

If the cops weren't such cowboys they could've just "sat on the apartment" and gone to get a warrant. Of course, the warrant would've been for the arrest of the crack dealer they were following... and they wouldn't've found him... because it was the Wrong Door.

The question I would pose is this: What if the crack dealer had simply tossed a roach/blunt to the ground... which happened to land in front of the left door... as he/she went in the right?... and what if the cops then kick down the door (because of this nifty new Supreme Court Decision) only to find that it's a little old lady inside...? "Sorry ma'am, if you need a contractor to install a new door here's my cousin's number?", "Are you having a panic attack? Or a full-blown heart attack? Well, it's a good thing doing this is legal now... sorry for the inconvenience...", etc.

What if it was a Native American burning an assload of sage because of a recent family death... so much that a cop thinks it smells like marijuana?

What if a cop just decides to say he/she smelled weed? Hell, at that point even if he/she has a wrong door it's all good on paper, right?

This just feels like bad precedent.

[usregimechange]

52. Just read this ruling in full, The 4th amendment now hinges on the assumptions of a police officer.

Judges are supposed to make those decisions...

[randr]

62. And his assumption that you may be guilty supersedes

the, now outdated, idea that one would be innocent until proven guilty.

[SDuderstadt]

64. Read the decision....

it's far more complicated than the OP presents.

[Matariki]

59. Yes, and the case this revolved around was because the cops thought they smelled *pot*.

That's all they have to say to bust into your house. They think they may have smelled marijuana. Terrible.

Just last night my partner told me about a woman he used to work with whose mother was killed by the police when the burst down her door in a mistaken address raid. She was terrified and hid in her bedroom, thinking that thugs were breaking into her home (which is accurate). They shot her dead.

[SDuderstadt]

61. Read the decision...

it was nowhere near that black and white.

[Matariki]

74. And READ MY F*#KING POST

And just TRY to justify the police breaking into the wrong person's home and murdering them.

BECAUSE THAT'S what happens when the police are allowed to do that without a warrant.

Jesus.

[SDuderstadt]

76. No, this decision did not revolve solely around...

the police smalling marijuana. It primarily revolved around pursuit of a cocaine dealer.

You left that part out.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bob4460]

139. RIGHT ON!!

[fredamae]

60. Holy Shit!

[arcane1]

63. To poorly paraphrase Gore Vidal:

If you have a flushable toilet in your home, then the 4th Amendment does not apply there.

[BOHICA12]

79. If its yellow, let it mellow ..... if its brown,

might want let it sit as well!

[BzaDem]

69. Your headline is completely absurd. We are talking here about an exception to an exception here.

It is a technical and narrow issue. It is not in any way the "end of the 4th amendment."

There has always been an "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment (like the fire in a crowded theater exception to the 1st, etc).

But there also has in the past been a "police-created-exigent-circumstances" exception to the EXCEPTION. In other words, if police create the exigent circumstances, they cannot then claim the exigent circumstances exception (and the search will be invalid).

The question here is, what constitutes "police-created-exigent-circumstances?"

The court answered that lawful conduct that does not violate the fourth amendment (or threaten to violate the fourth amendment) does not constitute "police-created-exigent-circumstances."

I don't know whether the decision is correct or not. But WHATEVER you think about the result here, it is not at all true or serious to state that this is the end of the Fourth amendment. This is a very narrow issue, and the opinion was written in a narrow way to decide the narrow issue (which is likely why 8 members of the court joined it).

To put it another way, the court has recently issued FAR more far-reaching fourth amendment cases (by 5-4 margins), that have done much more damage to the 4th amendment. So if this opinion is the "end of the fourth amendment," then those earlier MORE far-reaching cases must have also been the "end of the fourth amendment." But if that were true, than the fourth amendment would have already been ended, so the current case could not have ended anything.

[merh]

70. It would be frightening if that is what the case was about and

what the court held.

Damn shame folks don't get the facts before posting alarmist crap.

The writer of the article left out the facts, left out the PROBABLE CAUSE that existed.

Try reading the opinion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

72. Bingo!

Many here just pile on without taking the time to learn the actual facts.

[merh]

73. It is too hard to think for themselves.

It would appear that trying to get folks to understand the concept of "exigent circumstances" would be next to impossible. That would require that they actually read the opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

78. I've noticed that the...

"the Supreme Court eliminated the 4th amendment" brigade has grown very quiet very fast.

[Fuddnik]

143. Read the exact wording of the fourth amendment.

Try to square that with all the "exceptions" and "exigent circumstances".

Fuck the "decision". It undermines the fourth amendment. For all intents and purposes, the fourth amendment no longer exists.

[SDuderstadt]

146. Are you arguing that the fourth amendment is absolute? n/t

[appal_jack]

240. It should be.

The Bill of Rights was written to provide a solid baseline of protections against state intrusions into citizens' lives. Unfortunately, hair-splitting lawyers and state-power rationalizers have been carving away at those protections ever since.

And you are just the latest, dude. A keyboard commando applauding the jack-booted thugs. Makes you feel all warm and tingly inside, eh?

Pathetic.

Let's review:

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.

Aside from the emphasis I provided for the reading-comprehension-impaired, I would also add that I have never seen any compelling evidence that any of the Founding Fathers would have supported warrantless searches of any kind, much less such searches based on the purported combustion of flowers.

-app

[SDuderstadt]

241. Okay...

so, in a domestic violence case in which a man has threatened to kill his wife and the police, outside the residence, can hear her screaming as he does just that, are you claiming the police would be required to obtain a warrant before busting down the door?

With respect to the 1st amendment, do you have a free speech right to commit perjury? All rights have exceptions. Reasonable people see and accept that. It's easy to have great clarity in your black-and-white world, dude.

[appal_jack]

274. flower-combustion /= imminent harm. n/t

[Matariki]

77. Then present an article that has more information.

Instead of bashing people for reacting to the article presented.

[SDuderstadt]

80. The article mentions precisely what...

I just told you.

Ready, fire, aim is not a very good strategy.

[Matariki]

84. I don't give a flying fuck if they were in hot pursuit of a damned coke dealer.

The Fourth Amendment exists for a reason. A coke dealer isn't a mass murderer with a running chain saw. They need a warrant. Or at least they used to - before creeping fascism came to America.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Maybe the Supreme Court should...

consult with you.

You seem to think the 4th amedment is absolute. I guess they're teaching it wrong in law schools.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

96. You might want to read DU's....

rules, in addition to reading the decision.

[DefenseLawyer]

85. Probable Cause is not a basis to enter someone's home without a warrant.

Probable cause is what is required to obtain a warrant. A warrant is required unless there is what the law calls an "exigent circumstance" which allows officers to act without a warrant. One such exigent circumstance is the "imminent destruction of evidence". In other words, if police have probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in a place and they have reason to believe the evidence is about to be destroyed, they may enter without a warrant. So if the people inside realize the police are about and start to flush drugs the police would be justified in going in. However, before today, police couldn't "create their own exigency". Before this case, if police had probable cause that drugs were in a residence and the people inside had no idea that the police where outside, the police would be required to get a warrant. This case says they can instead just make themselves known to the people inside and if they can then claim that they believed evidence was about to be destroyed they can just go in. No warrant required. This is a major change in fourth amendment jurisprudence whether you know it or not.

[Matariki]

86. Thank you. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

90. Maybe you should read the...

decision, MrDefenseLawyer.

[DefenseLawyer]

99. I read it.

I know what it says. I also know how it will be used in the future to permit tons of "knock and talk" based searches where there was no prior probable cause. Maybe you should live in the real world.

[SDuderstadt]

104. Dude...

the "exigent circumstances" were there and the ruling is quite narrow.

[DefenseLawyer]

108. And there's free ice cream and cake for everyone!

Thanks for your reassurance. I must tell you that it means nothing to anyone but you, but really, thanks again.

[SDuderstadt]

110. And 8 justices of the....

Supreme Court.

[merh]

119. No warrant is required now if cops chase folks into an apartment &

“exigent circumstances,” which require they enter the apartment without a warrant.

Tell me, the smell of marijuana and the noise and commotion on the other side of the door appears to be inadequate for you. Would the sound of a scream and gun fire satisfy your needs?

This court has said that under the facts of this case, the police did not create the exigent circumstances, they did not create the exigent circumstance rule. You know that, don't you?

[DefenseLawyer]

124. Apples and oranges

No one said that there aren't legitimate exigence circumstances which alleviate the warrant requirement. Hot pursuit is one, your "scream and gunfire" is certainly one. Imminent destruction of evidence is one. "The smell of marijuana and noise" is not one, sorry officer. I know what the court held, that the police making themselves known did not create the exigency. They are wrong. Ginsburg had it right "The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant. I dissent from the Court’s reduction of the Fourth Amendment’s force."

[SDuderstadt]

128. "police officers may now knock, listen...

then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant".

With all due respect to Justice Ginsburg, how would the police do that relying on the holding in Kentucky v King?

[merh]

137. Yes, it is one when the cops saw the suspect, the one that

was participating in the drug deal they were chasing, run into one of two apartments.

You did read the case, didn't you?

I don't agree with Ginsburg, the court did nothing new today. They merely reviewed the facts of the case at hand and applied existing law while explaining constitutional safeguards. Heck, they even cited to existing Supreme Court cases which have discussed and/or explained the exigent circumstances rule. (Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398; Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385)

All the court did today is say the cops did not manufacture the exigent circumstances under the facts of this case.

[BzaDem]

126. "if they can then claim that they believed evidence was about to be destroyed"

Is it really just based on what they claim? I could be wrong, but I thought there had to be some actual facts to back up the decision. In this case, they did it based off what they heard. It is not illegal for the police to knock and ask that the door be opened. If someone then walks to the door and opens it (without flushing/running around/moving everything or other indications that evidence was being destroyed), I don't think the police would be able to then sustain the search.

[DefenseLawyer]

129. Here's the point.

Exigent circumstances are suppose to be exception to the warrant requirement. They are to be "carefully delineated" and truly be the exception to the rule. In a situation where the police have probable cause they should get a warrant. That has always been the "default position". They should get a warrant, not just go knock on the door and see what happens. That's why the argument is that they are "creating their own exigency", because there was nothing keeping them from obtaining a warrant at that point, other than what followed from their further extra-judiciary action for approaching the residence. The easier you make it for the police to decide for themselves when they can go in someone's home is bad; to some of us anyway.

[BzaDem]

131. Well, wasn't this case about how "creating their own exigency" is defined?

I don't think this case reverses previous precedent. From what I understood, the past law on what was a "police-created-exigent-circumstance" was ambiguous, and this decision sort of filled in the holes. It may be a poor way of filling in the holes, but I didn't think it actually changed pre-existing precedent that said anything to the contrary.

It seems to be kind of a difficult line-drawing problem. I don't think it would work to say "anything that has a causual relationship to what the police did is a police-created-exigent-circumstance." For example, what if the police started humming, and that for some completely irrational reason caused the target to create an exigent circumstance? Should the exigent circumstance exception then not apply, because there was some causual relationship between irrelevant action of the police and the resulting exigent circumstance?

It seems that the line needs to have something to do with whether the police should have known that what they were doing would have created such a circumstance, and/or whether what the police were doing is legal. Here, they chose the line that legal police conduct that

a) doesn't violate the 4th amendment, and
b) doesn't threaten to violate the 4th amendment

is not conduct that could be considered to be creating the exigent circumstance. In other words, if the exigent circumstance occurs regardless of such otherwise-legal (non-extra-judicial) conduct, that is not the police's problem.

Maybe that's too broad. But where would you draw the line (consistent with precedent)? It seems like the police shouldn't be faulted for ALL legal conduct that nevertheless creates an exigent circumstance (such as the imminent destruction of evidence, that would make any warrant useless).

[SDuderstadt]

132. Dude...

the police had already witnessed a crime being committed. Are you saying that when the suspect enters a building, the police have to stop and get a warrant?

[DefenseLawyer]

135. Unless it is hot pursuit, absolutely. Sorry officer.

I realize you are obviously a police officer and you find the fourth amendment to be a pain in the ass. Thinking that a crime has been committed isn't an exigent circumstance. It gives you probable cause to get a warrant.

[SDuderstadt]

136. I am no more a police officer than you are a...

defense lawyer, dude.

Please tell us how the circumstances in KY v King are not hot pursuit.

[DefenseLawyer]

258. You're in over your head, son

Kentucky v. King has nothing, zero, to do with "hot pursuit". Hot pursuit is a recognized exigent circumstance which can justify entry without a warrant. However, hot pursuit is limited to what it says: a hot pursuit. If an officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop someone and the suspect refuses to stop, the officer can of course chase him. If the suspect, knowing he is being chased, runs into a building, the officer chasing him can follow him in without a warrant. That is hot pursuit. If on the other hand, as in this case, police are watching and surreptitiously following a suspect and as they are following him he goes into a building, there is no hot pursuit and it would in no way justify entry into the apartment. There was no hot pursuit here, it wasn't argued by the state that there was. But you keep trying.

[SDuderstadt]

259. Read the decision again...

dude.

[Name removed]

261. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

263. Dude...

read the post where YOU raised the issue of hot pursuit and you accused me of being a police officer. Were the other poster and I talking specifically about Kentucky v King at that point?

Hint: No.

[ohheckyeah]

153. That's what I say...

"were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer". That really isn't a fucking emergency. Gunshots are an emergency. Seeing Jack the ripper go into an apartment is a fucking emergency. I'm not willing to give up rights so the cops can get a fucking crack dealer.

The decision blows.

[OnyxCollie]

262. Ticking time bomb scenario.

If it's good enough to excuse torture, it's good enough to kick down your door.

The slippery slope now has a chair lift for easier access.

[readmoreoften]

213. OOoooo "probable cause". If probable cause allowed cops to kick in your door every gay person in

the US would've been in prison before 2003. Oooo they were in a gay bar--probable cause to kick their door in.

You've got to be kidding me.

[Blasphemer]

247. Thank you. It seemed clearly to be a probable cause issue

I'm surprised there was even a single SCOTUS dissent. I don't agree with the marijuana laws but given current laws, the decision seems sound to me.

[DefenseLawyer]

260. It has zero to do with probable cause.

Even though that's where we are heading, and apparently happily to some of you, probable cause doesn't empower police to simply do anything they want. The issue is whether there was an exigent circumstance which justified a warrantless entry and whether or not the police created an exigency at a point when the could have otherwise obtained a warrant.

[kentuck]

82. Why don't they have a seach warrant in their hand?

When they knock on the door? Are they that difficult to get?

[SDuderstadt]

93. Read the decision, then you...

might not ask such silly questions.

[kentuck]

95. You are a smart...

ass, aren't you??

[SDuderstadt]

98. No, I took time to actually read the decision before...

simply spouting off.

[Matariki]

100. Clearly you did not.

"They did not see which apartment he entered"

Argument FAIL.

[SDuderstadt]

105. Which is why they emtered the apartment that reeked of...

marijuana smoke.

Maybe you could try to Get Barack Obama to nominate you to the Supreme Court.

[ohheckyeah]

154. It reeked? Really?

".......but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments".

Overstate much? Did you actually read the article or did you just decide to hype things up a bit?

[SDuderstadt]

158. I read the decision, dude...

did you?

[ohheckyeah]

163. First of all DUDE

I'm not a DUDE and I didn't find the word reeked anywhere in the decision, DUDE. Did you read the article?

Smelling a bit of marijuana smoke doesn't mean the apartment REEKED of it.

Do you have anything worthwhile to say or just "Read the decision" as a standard reply?

[SDuderstadt]

168. Dude is...

a unisex term, dude.

And, when all the occupants are smoking marijuana to the point where it can be strongly smelled in the hallway, I'd say that qualifies as "reeked".

[ohheckyeah]

182. Bullshit....

someone could be close to the door and smoke escape without it 'REEKING'.

Dude is not a unisex term, dude.

Definition of DUDE
1
: a man extremely fastidious in dress and manner : dandy
2
: a city dweller unfamiliar with life on the range; especially : an Easterner in the West
3
: fellow, guy —sometimes used informally as a term of address <hey, dude, what's up>


I'm not an Easterner in the west, a man or a fellow. Guess your term was incorrect.

[SDuderstadt]

188. Check out the urban dictionary...

It's unisex, dude.

[ohheckyeah]

193. I don't check out the urban dictionary

where anybody can post any meaning to any word they want, girly.

I just decided girly is a unisex term. I'll be sure to post that to the Urban Dictionary.

[SDuderstadt]

198. Cool, dude...

I hope you win an award for it.

[unapatriciated]

294. It may be unisex, but your constant use of it is meant to annoy.

I don't think you would want to call this guy a dude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc

You seem to use it only on those that disagree with you. It gets old after awhile and pretty juvenile.

[SDuderstadt]

296. Well, then...

put me on ignore, dude.

[Name removed]

301. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

210. It is unisex.

Trust me. I'm in Cali. "Dude" is unisex.

The phony-baloney drug wars have been shredding the bill Of rights for years. That's part of the purpose of the stupid prohibition of "drugs".

[OnyxCollie]

264. It is unisex.

Like Pat, Chris, or Shelly.

[Bluebear]

321. 'Do you have anything worthwhile to say'

Rhetorical.

[kentuck]

103. If someone read the decision?

Does that mean they would interpret it the same way as you? From what I have read on comments and the dissenting decision, I don't think it is necessarily a wise decision. Or is someone simply stupid because they don't agree with you??

[SDuderstadt]

106. You might want to think about why three...

reliably liberal justices joined the majority.

[ohheckyeah]

166. Well, Dude,

of course his opinion reigns supreme and the rest of us are just idiots. Gheesh....don't you know anything and didn't you read the decision?

(Yes, sarcasm)

[SDuderstadt]

169. What's really funny is that nearly everyone believes...

their view reigns supreme.

Maybe spirited debate just isn't for you.

[ohheckyeah]

184. I have no problem with debate...

you don't debate you state the same thing over and over and over and over again. That's not debate, that's a recording.

You don't debate, you condescend.

[SDuderstadt]

190. Well, then...

No one's forcing you to engage with me, are they?

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

253. i know, how about a spelling contest!

[SDuderstadt]

255. You're a daisy...

if you do.

[ohheckyeah]

171. No, warrants arene't that difficult to get.

They obviously felt a crack dealer was a national emergency.

[SDuderstadt]

176. Warrants aren't required when...

the officer has good reason to believe evidence is in the process of being destroyed by a suspect being followed in hot pursuit.

I'd love to hear your legal theory.

[ohheckyeah]

183. The question was about warrants being hard to get.

I know a warrant wasn't required but I think it should be. I disagree with the whole exceptions/exigent circumstances bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

191. Well, good...

maybe you should lecture the Supreme Court.

[ohheckyeah]

195. Maybe I should.

They seem to care more about one crack dealer than freedom from unwarranted searches.

[SDuderstadt]

199. Judges exclude evidence on the basis of...

the 4th amendment everyday, dude.

[ohheckyeah]

203. Thanks Mr. Moto....

Not the point.

[SDuderstadt]

205. Actually, it is...

Tell me. If the Supremes are so abusive, why do they ever rule the other way?

[AndiMer]

88. More pot arrests

Yeah THAT'LL keep the country safe! :sarcasm:

[SDuderstadt]

94. You might want to read the decision...

the defendant was convicted of dealing cocaine.

[leftstreet]

107. I did. It's still bullshit

It's still 'law enforcement created' exigency and it's bullshit

[SDuderstadt]

109. 8 justices...

disagree with you.

[Matariki]

112. That proves nothing. They also ruled in favor of Citizen's United.

sheesh. Some people will apologize for any abuse of power.

[SDuderstadt]

116. Citizen's United was decided...

8-1?

[DefenseLawyer]

117. So the Fourth Amendment as a "cocaine exeption"?

You're a cop, right?

[SDuderstadt]

118. No...

did you actually read the decision?

[DefenseLawyer]

125. You're the one that corrected the comment about marijuana arrests

by pointing out that it was a cocaine case, as if that somehow mattered at all. And here's a bit of unsolicited advice, which you may of course ignore: "Did you read the opinion???" isn't really an argument. You might want to come up with another one. We've all read the opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

130. Sorry, dude...

the poster I replied to thought the case was merely about marijuana.

[DefenseLawyer]

133. What exactly does the drug involved have to do with the Fourth Amendment?

You really do think there is a cocaine exception to the Fourth Amendment don't you?

[SDuderstadt]

134. No, dude...

I merely corrected another poster about mistaken facts.

Your strawman arguments are way off-base.

[Matariki]

122. Very similar issue posted recently

Interesting, really.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1098489

[SDuderstadt]

123. "very similar"

LOL!

[glinda]

141. This plays into the conservatives also pushing for looser laws allowing people to shoot intruders

that they feel endanger them ( coming into their homes) more easily. Fun huh?
And they set into motion total chaos and lawlessness.

[girl gone mad]

144. k & r

[Warren DeMontague]

145. The bottom line is, the stupid fucking drug war is out of control.

And the 4th Amendment has been eviscerated more than enough in the name of keeping people from doing unauthorized things with their own nervous systems.

[somone]

156. Do we need more proof that the Supreme Court is worthless?

Fucking disgusting

[SDuderstadt]

160. I see you didn't read the decision...

either.

[lonestarnot]

157. And Habeas Corpus, was that ever restored?

[Rex]

159. Hey dude, that guy was smoking weed!!! The cops break into houses all the time.

Just watch CSISCINNBCABCNN to get all the details and what it is like behind bars hardcore lockup!!! They only had themselves to blame.

[SDuderstadt]

161. Read the decision...

dude.

[ohheckyeah]

164. You really don't have a point, do you? n/t

[Rex]

167. No he doesn't.

I was responding to the OP...he typically just kneejerks. :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

172. Maybe you could show me where I...

"kneejerked", dude.

Here's your big chance to show off your finely honed legal skills. How about it?

[Rex]

175. Lemme guess you were a lawyer once.

Or knew someone that was one, at one time. :rofl:

Thank you for proving my point.

[SDuderstadt]

179. C'mon, Rex...

demonstrate your legal prowess. Explain "exigent circumstances" to us.

[ohheckyeah]

185. No, he wasn't a lawyer, he just stayed

at a Holiday Inn last night.

[Rex]

229. LOL!

[SDuderstadt]

170. If you had one...

you'd make it.

[ohheckyeah]

174. I did make my point.

It wasn't an emergency situation and they could have gotten a warrant.

[SDuderstadt]

194. How would that have prevented the...

destruction of the evidence?

[ohheckyeah]

196. I don't give a fuck about the evidence.

What part of that don't you get? Freedom, one crack dealer....hmmmmmm, not a tough decision.

[SDuderstadt]

201. Of course you don't...

of course you don't. Those poor misunderstood drug dealers.

[ohheckyeah]

202. I didn't say a thing about them being misunderstood.

I just prefer some go free if the alternative is cops busting down doors because they get a whif of pot or think they do. Big difference.

[SDuderstadt]

206. The cops didn't bust down the door merely...

because they "got a whiff of pot", despite your mischaracterization of the decision. And, despite your gnashing of teeth, police aren't going to indiscriminately bust down doors relying upon this case. It's actually a rather narrowly decided case.

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

173. Yeah, they pretty much left it in the hands of police officers

Officer Bob knocks on the door, Officer Dick hears movement, and "thinking" it might be the sound of evidence being destroyed, the cops bust in with no warrant.

So much for a "Constitutional scholar" appointing somebody who would actually uphold the Constitution.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

177. while i think this is a very bad decision, it's my impression it doesn't

get rid of the 4th but rather gets rid of a warren-era precedent i can't remember from Con Law in the 70s.

Doesn't this more or less return the situation to the pre-warren status quo?

or am i misremembering?

[Kablooie]

180. Do you realize that even the Freepers are freaked out by this! We agree on something!

[DirkGently]

181. Grotesque. This ruling begs for abuse. And will receive it.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohheckyeah]

204. yep

because catching one crack dealer is worth giving up all of our 4th amendment rights for.

[SDuderstadt]

207. "giving up 'all' of our 4th amendment rights for"

LOL!

Could you please explain that?

[999998th word]

225. Are you really comfortable with this?

or are you just one of those people like to play devils advocate?

I read the decision,and as the police weren't sure which apartment the suspects entered,and the aroma of mj emanated from one of the two units,they entered that one.

Cocaine also was found as well and those occupants were arrested and brought to trial.The perpetrator that was being pursued was not the one arrested.

I find this very disturbing,and a dangerous precedent to set.Slippery slope, especially with the increase in arrests and jail time for nonviolent offenders .The lobbyists

for corporate prison industry have been very successful in efforts to gain control of our present penal system.The same influence can be brought to bear on our legal

and judicial systems to truly maximize profits and ensure a steady stream of cheap labor.

Please politely explain why this was not the disaster I think it is ,and concern for this is unwarranted.I'd appreciate it .



Pls ignore the line through. Don't know what happened,and don't want to redo.

[999998th word]

226. Pls ignore the 'line through 'IDK how it happened cant fix

[SDuderstadt]

236. I see both sides of the issue...

which is, essentially, can the police benefit from a mistake, or should the evidence be automatically suppressed because of mistake made in hot pursuit?

The Court seeks to use a balancing approach and I think many here are overheating, more often than not, on little, if any, facts.

[dorkulon]

315. You seem to be forgetting something.

Cops lie. They do it all the time. Judges believe them. We now have a situation where "the sounds of people moving" is a substitute for a search warrant. And any cop can say "I heard people moving."

[Bluebear]

211. Well done, Sotomayor and Kagan. Good thing we have your "liberal" votes.

[fasttense]

230. Just another law to keep the people in their place.

Communist China does a very similar thing. There is a law in China that prevents you from leaving your town or city. If you want to leave, even temporarily, you have to ask permission from the police. Well the police take months and months processing these requests and frequently the answer is NO. So most Chinese don't ask and go any way. Everyone does it. They work in other cities/towns or areas without permission making them illegal immigrants in their own country. But the reason for the law is merely a way to ensure that police can arrest you for anything they want. They can arrest you for not being where you are suppose to be any time they feel like it and that is how they are able to keep control of the population.

[CoffeeCat]

235. "You'll have to come back later, I'm doing the dishes!"

That's what I'll say if they knock on my door!

[jp11]

243. I think "I'm changing my adult diaper" would work better.

[EnviroBat]

245. exigent circumstance = carte blanch to do what they want to.

I'm leaving this fucking fascist country as soon as my fiancee is done with school. Had enough of the ever increasing Police State. My one solace is that I own a home and don't have to live in an apartment complex anymore. I swear apartment living feels one step above minimum security prison. Any fucking crack-head can suddenly become your neighbor now. There is no protection, no privacy, no security, and the police can just sweep the places and knock on any doors they want to. Gad Damn, we need a revolution...

[SDuderstadt]

250. "I'm leaving this fucking fascist country..."

Screen door and all that.

[cyberpj]

252. So this would apply to hearing a paper shredder in operation at any office too, right?

Remember when shredder trucks were actually parked next to the offices of someone under investigation on Capital Hill?

Was it Cheney?

I just can't remember right now.

[notesdev]

267. This would apply to leaving a TV on while you slept

In practice, it would apply whenever a thug with a badge felt like it, since there's no way to prove he heard something or not.

[Romulox]

256. The Constitution = an old rag that means whatever Sam Alito says it means.

The phoney-baloney "liberals", Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer all got Sammy's back, too. :puke:

[Chisox08]

257. Our Supreme Court is made up of

4 moderates, 4 lunatics and 1 moderate lunatic and 3 of the moderates and the 1 moderate lunatic voted with the lunatics to destroy the 4th amendment. The cop had no right to burst in without a warrant.

[truedelphi]

270. When you examine the SCOTUS record on social issues -

The Republican judges have been better about medical marijuana.

The Republicans have been better about eminent domain, at least they were in the case of the woman in New England who tried to get the SCOTUS to stop condemnation of her lower middle class home from being condemned so a golf course or TARGET or some such could move in.

[Romulox]

276. There was NOTHING moderate about the 8 'yeas'--this is a full on Rightwing court

With ZERO liberals, 4 Fascists, 4 hard Right Wingers, and 1 moderate (who shares much of the blame for the slippery slope we are on.)

[liberallunatic]

271. What a weird thread...

I had to check the top of the page to make sure it was the "Democratic" Underground I just joined.

People are defending this? Really?

People do understand how this works right? They don't take away all your rights at once. They do it a little at a time, in the name of "safety and security"... people hate drug dealers so they go along with it, after all it's only a drug dealer.

So now police can break down your door if they "hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed".. yeah like if they knocked while I was on the crapper and flushed, then they have the right to break down my door.

Or maybe I'm running the garbage disposal, or carrying out the trash...

I can't believe people are willing to give up their rights in their own homes over a bag of coke.

[bongbong]

277. "people" aren't defending it

Just a couple of posters are, who give off the Rendon reek whenever they post.

[Matariki]

309. You sent me to Wikipedia to look up Rendon

Interesting. Thanks.

[abelenkpe]

272. Maybe drugs shouldn't be illegal

If the gov regulated and taxed drugs they could keep track of who was using drugs, better protect children in homes with addicts, and use the tax revenue to set up community safe areas for drug users and rehabilitation clinics for those looking to kick the habit?

This is a troubling ruling though. Can't see how it is constitutional. But what do I know?

[blackspade]

273. WTF?

A police state is safer how?
I have no problems with the police as long as they are doing their job, that is up-holding and OBEYING the laws of the land.
Apparently, in this case, the Consitution does not appear to be among them.

A perverse ruling. Who are the liberals on this court again?

[Javaman]

280. So if I'm in the bathroom doing my business and they knock on the door

and I yell, "be out in a minute", then flush. I can be arrested? Because they hear the toilet flushing? Thinking someone is flushing drugs?

Ahhh yes, article 58 strikes again.

Read Gulag Archipelago sometime. Article 58 basically meant that the soviet authorities could make up anything they want to through your ass in the gulag.

We had a revolutionary war for what? This shit?

we are a disgrace.

[Beavker]

281. So for a joke, you call the police on your friend or neighbor

When they are cleaning the house...they can't hear the knock because of the vacuum or the radio that is playing while they are moving their things around in a 'scuffling' manor. The cops bust in on them. Surprise!

Or when you think they are doing the nasty...surely a police knock at the front door would precipitate some scuffling about noises, and a 'hold on a minute' as well. Surely that could be interpreted as hiding their crack...in one way or another. ; )

[999998th word]

283. Prison industrial complex

needs a steady supply of non violent 'offenders'.Higher margin of profit low wage workforce.

Extra benefit: loss of voting rights.

Insidious.

[treestar]

285. Unrec for exaggeration in heading

There has always been some body of law to the effect that evidence being destroyed was an exception to the warrant requirement.

[liberation]

312. Care to provide a link to back up your assertion?

Thanks.

[Plucketeer]

287. Holy CRAP!

How long before ESP gives them an excuse??? "Those who give up freedom for security, lose both and deserve neither!" Yet one more reason to turn the War On Drugs into a drug distribution program. Hand the stuff out for FREE! Lower the cost of law enforcement and free them to go after the REAL baddies.

[Eddie Haskell]

288. Loss of rights only applies to the peons

If you can afford a gated home, your rights are still protected.

[frylock]

290. remember kids, if you don't vote for obama in 2012, the courts will be stacked..

with RW authoritarians that back this shit up.

[sulphurdunn]

292. What happens after they

smell pot, hear noises that convince them you're headed for the flush, and they bust down the door, kill your kid or wife or you with a bullet or a taser or a choke hold and then don't find any pot? That will happen. Then what?

[Taverner]

297. Jesus Christ...where did all these Nancy Reagans come from?

I knew there were a few of them here, but wow...

Consider me your enemy :)

[DFW]

299. There could be trouble if they crash the home of an NRA member

If some guy is armed to the teeth and thinks it's a bunch of bikers or something, there will be
a few dead bodies that can be laid at the feet of Sam Alito.

[roamer65]

305. That's what I thought as well.

[countryjake]

300. Interpreting that Amendment has never been a Right that we had...

just ask the families of Fred Hampton (more than forty yrs. ago) or John T. Williams of Seattle or maybe those who sued Atlanta for murdering their feisty little Grandma back in 2006.

Our government lackeys will do what they want...raid us, bust us, shoot us down if we object, or even murder us in our sleep, if they perceive any threat to the system. And Justice will inevitably be on their side, maybe losing a few million here and there when attacks are so outrageous that the injustice is blatant, but no apologies necessary.

Don't even kid yourselves that your door has ever been any kind of protection or barrier, Fourth Amendment or not!

[JoeyTrib]

302. This is a trend.

They don't even have to hide it anymore.

[Taverner]

307. Yes it is nt

[GETPLANING]

308. I can hear the testimony now...

"The TV was on, so clearly the homeowners were trying to mask the sounds of illegal activity."
"We heard a vacuum cleaner running, so clearly the homeowners were trying to vacuum up drug evidence."
"We heard a washing machine running, so clearly the homeowners were trying to wash drug evidence out of their bedsheets."
"We heard footsteps inside the house, so clearly the homeowners were walking around trying to decide where to hide their drug evidence."

Trust me. Cops make shit up. It has happened to me. I just got lucky and was faced with an honest prosecutor who knew the cops were lying and decided his personal integrity was more important than winning every case, truth be damned.

[Dj13Francis]

310. Yeah.

It has been de-facto toast since Bush but now it is literally completely gone. And the righties will continue to say that Obama and the lefties are infringing on their rights, without the slightest acknowledgment that the court is packed with rightie assclowns.

[OwnedByFerrets]

313. Feeling more and more like the Third Reich

[Wolf Frankula]

314. Now Real Cops Get to act just like TV Cops

And it's legal. Isn't that wonderful?

Wolf

[upi402]

317. ripe for abuse

this is soooo bad, and NPR just gave it a pass