water Posted June 15, 2006 CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 Police don't have to knock, justices say Alito's vote breaks 4-4 tie in police search case http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search.ap/index.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices. The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor. *more in the article* anyone have a problem with this? No lawyer has to be present to insure that the warrant is legal, or that they are only allowed to search for cetain things or in certain areas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richcornucopia Posted June 15, 2006 CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 Police don't have to knock, justices say Alito's vote breaks 4-4 tie in police search case http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search.ap/index.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices. The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor. *more in the article* anyone have a problem with this? No lawyer has to be present to insure that the warrant is legal, or that they are only allowed to search for cetain things or in certain areas? So they don't even have to knock, they can just bust down the door and start searching? Even if they have a warrant you at least deserve a knock, and nobodys there or they choose not to answer then you bust down the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted June 15, 2006 CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 I feel that is too loosely written. Don't they have to pay for the damages, if the search comes up with nothing? I would think they should! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted June 15, 2006 CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 Dont bother me... I would be willing to bet a warrant will never be served on me. If it was and I wasnt hiding anything I suspect I wouldnt care if they knocked. I would want them fix my damn door though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
water Posted June 15, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 The debate comes up when there is anonymous tips. What if someone hated you and told the policw you were a pot dealer... then they come to your house with a warrant, break in the door, wreck the place looking for drugs and tramatize your kids, wife, husband... whatever.... Can you GET OVER that kind of Gestapo tactic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted June 15, 2006 CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 If they have a warrant, there's no reason to knock... especially since there's probably a reason they have the warrant in the first place. @water: the jackasses like that ruin everything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
water Posted June 15, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 You can get a warrent based on a lot of bad information. THat's why it's a warrant and not an arrest. But your family is still subjected to all that. It makes me........ nervous, I don't want cops busting in here ... I have nothing to hide, but it would still be traumatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc11890 Posted June 15, 2006 CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 I think that they should knock just to be considerent, they still deserve some type of privacy. I do think if the person doesnt respond after a certain amount of knocks they deserve to bang the door down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyswhirl Posted June 15, 2006 CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 If they have a warrant, there's no reason to knock... especially since there's probably a reason they have the warrant in the first place. you sure dont know anything about how police operate if that is your viewpoint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
water Posted June 15, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 15, 2006 In the past, you had a right to make the police wait until you had a lawyer look at the warrant, and have them decipher everything. This was to insure the police only did what the judge authorized them to do. Now you can't make them wait, and you have to submit to them. We're losing our basic rights. I can't be comfortable with that. AND I can't do anything about it because it was voted in by 7 justices that i didn't have ANY say in electing. It's proof that government is taking over the United States when we were founded on freedom and democracy. NONE of the founding fathers intended for government to rule us, they intended for our country to be "A nation for the people by the people"... WHEN did that change? SO if my ex-husband walks out to hunt, and he's carrying a rifle, and some wacked out 90 year old bat who has nothing better to do than peer out her window, sees him and calls the cops about "a suspicious man walking across the street into a feild with a weapon" .. does that give the cops a right to come over and BUST in the HOUSE in front of our children and search the place for a weapon? It's wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 The debate comes up when there is anonymous tips. What if someone hated you and told the policw you were a pot dealer... then they come to your house with a warrant, break in the door, wreck the place looking for drugs and tramatize your kids, wife, husband... whatever.... Can you GET OVER that kind of Gestapo tactic? Warrents arent issued on a single solitary tip. Cmon now. Cops dont want to come to your house and break down your door anymore than you want them too. Plus obtaining a warrent is alot of work and then the follow up paper work is aweful. I wouldnt worry too much about it... unless you are doing something major wrong. I have smoked pot for about 11 years now but I dont grow or deal. I have never come close to trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
water Posted June 16, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 really? I'll have to do some research for you shuger cube Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 really? I'll have to do some research for you shuger cube Ill be waiting here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyswhirl Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 Warrents arent issued on a single solitary tip. Cmon now. Cops dont want to come to your house and break down your door anymore than you want them too. Plus obtaining a warrent is alot of work and then the follow up paper work is aweful. I wouldnt worry too much about it... unless you are doing something major wrong. I have smoked pot for about 11 years now but I dont grow or deal. I have never come close to trouble. tell that to the 22 year that the cops killed on a tip he sold an ounce of pot. oh by the way the city paid 7.2 million out for that one the cops just escaped being tried for murder - but oh I forgot - warrants are hard to get Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 tell that to the 22 year that the cops killed on a tip he sold an ounce of pot. oh by the way the city paid 7.2 million out for that one the cops just escaped being tried for murder - but oh I forgot - warrants are hard to get You got a link to that story? I have a hard time believing that is the whole story. Still yet, there is an exception to every rule and always bad cops. Oh and I never said they were hard to get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyswhirl Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 You got a link to that story? I have a hard time believing that is the whole story. Still yet, there is an exception to every rule and always bad cops. Oh and I never said they were hard to get. http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-48675.html there is a lot of info - http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-48675.html this is just a start they killed him - burned his house to the ground and would not let the firemen put it out judge for yourself -- look for links off this story and at mcall.com (newspaper it was a big federal trial in allentown pa with high power attornys - the city gave in so as not to go bankrupt for what could have been a billion dollars (thats right b billion) a local cop warned the city admin that the swat team were crazy and were out to kill someone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 All I see is the warrent was "questionable" it doesnt appear that they just made one up. Unless I am missing it. Doesnt mean there arent bad cops like I said, and there is always a extreme situation for any point of argument. He also had a gun and drugs so he probably wasnt a saint and doesnt get much sympathy from me. As a matter of fact it seems to me the only thing the cops for sure did wrong was let the house burn. Either way Im not worried about that happening to me... if it does... well it would suck to be me. But Im not losing any sleep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
water Posted June 16, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 http://www.landmarkcases.org/mapp/when.html <-fun Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act : http://www.aclu.org/natsec/spying/14454res20030510.html In State v. Garcia, 77 Hawai`i 461, 887 P.2d 671 (App. 1995), the ICA held that police officers executing a search warrant must expressly demand entrance, in addition to stating their authority and purpose, and that the officers must give the occupant a reasonable time to respond. http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/21761.htm THE STATE IS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO ALLOW FOR IMPROPERLY EXECUTED WARRANTS http://www.lawyers.com/ask_a_lawyer/q_and_a_archive/view_archive/index.php?QID=24-NOV-03&site=537 There are many other challenges that can be made to a search warrant. Not all of them, even if you prevail, will invalidate the search because of the good-faith doctrine that says that if police have a good faith belief but erroneous belief the warrant is valid, suppression of evidence is not required. However, improperly executed warrants, warrants issued upon bare bones affidavits and warrants issued upon affidavits containing intentional falsehoods and omissions by police usually fall outside the good faith exception. You should seek out an experienced criminal defense lawyer in your area and carefully review the search warrant, the affidavit, and the return that lists the items seized. He or she will be in the best position to advise you on the validity of the warrant and search. So NOW they have free reign???? http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-4243.htm Unbeknownst to the officers, on April 4, 1999, the Petersons leased the apartment. The Petersons began moving into the apartment on the following day. During this process, the officers "charged into the residence with guns drawn and with aggressive abrasiveness and demanded all persons get down on the floor." "At the time of the search, four occupants were identified of whom none were to be David Brown and Tarek Shejheur." Moreover, a moving van sat in front of the apartment, and the Petersons had unloaded only a few boxes into the otherwise empty apartment. The officers were then instructed that, as of April 4, the Petersons had signed a lease and moved into the residence. Despite this identification and instruction, the officers continued to search the residence and detain the Petersons. http://www.click2houston.com/news/9244926/detail.html?subid=10100242 "They're looking to document any Texas Southern University property. They had the intent to seize her computer, which is a Texas Southern University computer," Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said. "One of our investigators got a call from some people at the university that said some documents in the president's office were being shredded. I can't confirm that." Slade called her attorney before letting the officers inside her house. http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/trial/magistrate/benchbook/displayBenchBKcontent.cfm?division=CRIM&sec=C&subsection1=4&subsection2=d (3) Burden of Proof The burden of proving that the evidence was or was not legally seized will rest on the prosecution or defendant depending upon whether or not there was a warrant. If there was no warrant, the prosecution must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the search and seizure falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. If there was a warrant, the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the search and seizure were conducted under an invalid search warrant or that the valid warrant was improperly executed by the police office how do you do that if you aren't home? deemed unlawful: http://www.flsc.ca/en/whatsnew/court_maranda_Sum.asp The search and seizure were unreasonable and abusive within the meaning of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of the breach of the duty to minimize and the failure to contact the lawyer. Firstly, the duty to minimize requires that a search not be authorized unless there is no other reasonable solution. Secondly, the authorization must be given in terms that, to the extent possible, limit the impairment of solicitor-client privilege. The search must be executed in the same way. In this case the application for authorization did not comply with the duty to minimize. It was neither alleged nor established that there was no other reasonable alternative and that the information sought could not be obtained using other sources. oh, but it's ok now???? A "tip" http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/opinions/661.htm Deputy Sheriff David Weigel testified at the suppression hearing that Barry Weigel had told him that the girls were under the influence of alcohol or drugs; that the girls had admitted to Barry Weigel that they had been drinking and had been using drugs at Schmeets' apartment; that the girls stated to Barry Weigel that they had witnessed a sale of cocaine at the apartment that afternoon; and that additional drugs were still in the apartment. Deputy Sheriff David Weigel then relayed this information by telephone to Wells County State's Attorney Clifford C. Grosz, who was in Harvey. State's Attorney Grosz prepared an affidavit for a search warrant and drove thirty miles to Fessenden to obtain the search warrant from Judge Samuel D. Krause. Deputy Sheriff David Weigel and State's Attorney Grosz met with Judge Krause at his home after twelve o'clock midnight on December 16, 1977. Deputy Sheriff Weigel signed the affidavit for a search warrant and Judge Krause issued a warrant to search the apartment of Ronnie Schmeets. The search warrant-was issued based upon Deputy Sheriff David Weigel's affidavit which states, in pertinent part: "That the Harvey Police had picked up to [sic] juveniles near the Harvey Grade school and that the said girls are under the influence of drugs and that they had -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [278 N.W.2d 405] obtained the drugs from a Terry Hager and a Ronnie Schmeets and that they were at the place of the above two individuals and they had stated that concaine [sic], hashish oil and Marijuana were at the place of 309 Adams, Ave., Harvey, N.Dak." Judge Krause testified at the suppression hearing that he had also relied upon certain unrecorded statements of Grosz and David Weigel that were not made under oath. http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/arrested_rights/wijesinha.html Appellant, a lawyer, offered to pay a police officer a referral fee for every client retained after failing a breathalyzer test. The constable reported the appellant's proposition to his superiors. A police investigation confirmed, by conversations intercepted through the use of a body pack, that three persons referred had been retained and that another officer was involved in the scheme. The police were given legal advice that this type of interception was constitutionally valid and that no criminal offence was being committed as long as witnesses were not being subverted. The police investigators called the Law Society Discipline Committee for advice, and although the police did not pursue their investigation of the appellant, they continued to communicate with and supply information to the Law Society. CORRUPTION? By judges and lawyers and cops? never! pfft! again THROWN OUT, but if my kids were there, they have to deal with it The point isn't whether these people were guilty, the point is that I AM NOT. And I don't want myself, my family, my neighbors.... to be SUBJECTED TO IT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyswhirl Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 All I see is the warrent was "questionable" it doesnt appear that they just made one up. Unless I am missing it. Doesnt mean there arent bad cops like I said, and there is always a extreme situation for any point of argument. He also had a gun and drugs so he probably wasnt a saint and doesnt get much sympathy from me. As a matter of fact it seems to me the only thing the cops for sure did wrong was let the house burn. Either way Im not worried about that happening to me... if it does... well it would suck to be me. But Im not losing any sleep. whatever - I personally know of cops terrorizing people - and about hirko - why did they go after an easy target when there are drug dealers downtown - I will tell you why - the ones downtown are much more dangerous - you simply will not understand until it happens to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 whatever - I personally know of cops terrorizing people - and about hirko - why did they go after an easy target when there are drug dealers downtown - I will tell you why - the ones downtown are much more dangerous - you simply will not understand until it happens to you The Heroin found in the house weighed gram and was worth about $80, Karoly said. On May 8, 1997, Fodi was charged with possession of Heroin, possession with intent to deliver Heroin, criminal conspiracy, possession of a small amount of Marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. The charges were dismissed by 2001 after Fodi completed a six-month probation program for first-time offenders. I just found this at this link. http://www.drug-rehabs.org/content.php?cid=971&state=Pennsylvania The guy wasnt a peace loving hippie. And trust me I know much more about it than you know. But I have no sympathy for assholes.. and this heroin dealer was a gun toting asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyswhirl Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 The Heroin found in the house weighed gram and was worth about $80, Karoly said. On May 8, 1997, Fodi was charged with possession of Heroin, possession with intent to deliver Heroin, criminal conspiracy, possession of a small amount of Marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. The charges were dismissed by 2001 after Fodi completed a six-month probation program for first-time offenders. I just found this at this link. http://www.drug-rehabs.org/content.php?cid=971&state=Pennsylvania The guy wasnt a peace loving hippie. relly 80 dollars worth - wow - that certainly is worth 13 wacko cowards turning machine guns on you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 NM.. wrong dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
water Posted June 16, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 The guy wasnt a peace loving hippie. And trust me I know much more about it than you know. But I have no sympathy for assholes.. and this heroin dealer was a gun toting asshole. But you aren't getting it sweetie pie shuger cube, warm cuddly bear, I MAY be a peace loving hippie, but I'm a hundred percent legal (no drugs, guns or contraband of any sort), and I shouldn't have myself or my family subjected to bullshit because other kids can't play nice in the sandbox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 But you aren't getting it sweetie pie shuger cube, warm cuddly bear, I MAY be a peace loving hippie, but I'm a hundred percent legal (no drugs, guns or contraband of any sort), and I shouldn't have myself or my family subjected to bullS#!t because other kids can't play nice in the sandbox. Have you ever been served an eronious search warrent. Cause I know alot of people and I dont think any of them have... I dont think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted June 16, 2006 CID Share Posted June 16, 2006 @tonyswirl: you rather despise cops don't you? Maybe my opinion is just based on the cops I know personally (quite a few btw) Just this morning I was riding along with one and he got a call to pick up a moron who tried pumping his pregnant girfriend full of morphine. Sick ba***** Do I claim to know all the ins and outs of how the police force operates? No. Not to mention it's not the same in every county. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.