PDA

View Full Version : Warrants? We Don't Need No Stinkin Warrants.



boatbuddha
05-17-2011, 07:20 AM
In an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court struck on of the biggest blows to the Constitutions warrant requirements. In the case of Kentucky v. King the court found that if officers said they smelled pot and then heard sounds that made them think that evidence was being destroyed, in this case furniture moving, they could legally breakdown the door and conduct a search.

When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do. And whether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497–498 (1983). (“[H]e may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way”). When the police knock on a door but the occupants choose not to respond or to speak, “the investigation will have reached a conspicuously low point,” and the occupants “will have the kind of warning that even the most elabo* rate security system cannot provide.” Chambers, 395 F. 3d, at 577 (Sutton, J., dissenting). And even if an occu*pant chooses to open the door and speak with the officers, the occupant need not allow the officers to enter the prem* ises and may refuse to answer any questions at any time.

Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitu*tional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evi*dence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue.

Ginsburg was the lone dissenter.

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. The Fourth Amendment guarantees to the people “[t]he right . . . to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Warrants to search, the Amendment further instructs, shall issue only upon a showing of “probable cause” to believe criminal activity is afoot. These complementary provisions are designed to ensure that police will seek the authorization of a neutral magistrate before undertaking a search or seizure. Exceptions to the warrant requirement, this Court has explained, must be “few in number and carefully delineated,” if the main rule is to remain hardy.




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20110517,0,6746878.story

wardd
05-17-2011, 07:55 AM
wonder where the small gov conservative judges stand

pefjr
05-17-2011, 09:02 AM
Why did the justices take this case? What new? The officers had probable cause.

boatbuddha
05-17-2011, 09:06 AM
Why did the justices take this case? What new? The officers had probable cause.


Probable cause does not negate the need for a search warrant.

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.

pefjr
05-17-2011, 09:25 AM
Probable cause does not negate the need for a search warrant.

There has always been exceptions to this, like in this case where a crime was being committed. So what is new?

wardd
05-17-2011, 09:40 AM
There has always been exceptions to this, like in this case where a crime was being committed. So what is new?

shouldn't they know a crime is being committed oh say a gun in sight that may soon be smoking?

htom
05-17-2011, 09:55 AM
Insane.

Ian McColgin
05-17-2011, 10:01 AM
Meanwhile, a couple weeks ago our state SJC ruled that since small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in this state, simply smelling dope smoke coming from a car is not probably cause for a search of the car. In the case at hand, to the horror of the DA, all the evidence of his case was tossed.

pefjr
05-17-2011, 10:08 AM
Meanwhile, a couple weeks ago our state SJC ruled that since small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in this state, simply smelling dope smoke coming from a car is not probably cause for a search of the car. In the case at hand, to the horror of the DA, all the evidence of his case was tossed.I doubt the DA had any horror over a MJ case.

genglandoh
05-17-2011, 10:09 AM
I totally disagree with allowing any Government Employee being allowed to enter your home without a warrant.
They can enter because they smell something?
Well do not come to my house when I am cooking.

The only exception is in a case of life and death.

Ian McColgin
05-17-2011, 10:13 AM
Bud, doubt all you want. The DA who is also grandstanding all over a judge who is not a prosecutor's tool has made this a major cause.

Phillip Allen
05-17-2011, 10:16 AM
some cop is gonna get hurt following that recipe for tyranny

Bruce Hooke
05-17-2011, 10:21 AM
Why did the justices take this case? What new? The officers had probable cause.

At least part of why they took this case is because I understand there were conflicting decisions on this issue from the lower courts, which is one of the standard times at which the Supreme Court steps in.

As I understand it, the argument the loosing side made was that the only reason the police had to act quickly to prevent destruction of evidence in this case was because they knocked and announced themselves without first getting a warrant. They could have noted the smell of marijuana, gotten a warrant, and only then made their presence known to the suspect. What I find troubling about this ruling is that it gives the police virtual carte blanche to bust down the door whenever they suspect a drug crime. They can claim after the fact that they heard sounds suggestive of evidence being destroyed and it would be damn hard to counter that claim.

However, if I understand the OP correctly the counter argument is that the suspect could have answered the door and refused to let the officers come into his house and refused to answer any questions since they did not have a warrant. This does carry some weight as an argument (apparently a good bit of weight since it was an 8 to 1 decision!) but I still have to wonder why the police in a case like this could not get a warrant before knocking.

pefjr
05-17-2011, 10:23 AM
Bud, doubt all you want. The DA who is also grandstanding all over a judge who is not a prosecutor's tool has made this a major cause.Well, he is spittin in the wind if there is no law to go on anymore. I would think they would be busy with something like a law they could prosecute on. Maybe you tax payers need to thin the ranks in the DA's office.

Ian McColgin
05-17-2011, 10:27 AM
Ah, he was putting up the good fight. Dope is not legal here, just not criminal in small amounts. In the case he lost, the guys in the car probably were dealers - either that or the trunk of the car was supplied for a terrific party of rock concert dimensions. In fighting the law when it was before the legislature, the DA's and police chiefs and DARE dingles who support drug repression predicted that stuff like this would happen making it harder to catch dealers. Our SJC just told them, in effect, you're right. It's harder now. Get used to it.

hokiefan
05-17-2011, 10:29 AM
I doubt the DA had any horror over a MJ case.

I doubt it is the MJ case he's upset about. Its losing the easy excuse to search the cars of young urban men that he's upset about.

My bet anyway.

Cheers,

Bobby

pefjr
05-17-2011, 10:59 AM
I doubt it is the MJ case he's upset about. Its losing the easy excuse to search the cars of young urban men that he's upset about.

My bet anyway.

Cheers,

BobbyThe DA does not search cars. And the law(not sure about the amount Ian is talking about)would not apply to any DUI laws, it's would still be unlawful to drive while under the influence. Thank goodness for that.

hokiefan
05-17-2011, 11:06 AM
The DA does not search cars. And the law(not sure about the amount Ian is talking about)would not apply to any DUI laws, it's would still be unlawful to drive while under the influence. Thank goodness for that.

True enough. But the police, who supply the DA with the information he needs and wants do. And they've lost an easy excuse to search many young kids' cars. I bet these searches have been yielding a steady supply of info useful in the "War on Drugs."

Agree with you about DUI 100%.

Cheers,

Bobby

Ian McColgin
05-17-2011, 11:12 AM
The DA brings cases based on what the police have done. It smarts to feel, rightly as it happens, that the rules were changed to one's disadvantage. Of course this case has nothing even remotely to do with DUI, which by the way is not in itself a cause for a car search either.

I'll leave the google option to those interested in details, but last year Massachusetts voters by referendum decriminalized small amounts of marijuana. It's a finable offence but so petty no one is likely to bother. The "war on drugs" industry opposed the measure with beaucoupbucks, since so many corrupt agents, prosecutors, defenders and high profit dealers have so much to lose if we evolve step by step to total legalization of more recreational drugs.

Phillip Allen
05-17-2011, 12:12 PM
"I thought I could smell pot" is likely a huge percentage lie...the cop needs to prove he smells pot BEFORE any search as far as I'm concerned

Waddie
05-17-2011, 12:17 PM
Legalize and decriminalize all you want, except for the open road. I just don't want to share the road with alcohol, potheads, or any other type of drug user. I watched a TV program that showed smoking pot impaired drivers just like drinking does. So smelling pot inside a car should be grounds for an arrest, just like DUI, or even open container.

Searching a house should require a warrant or the 4th Amendment means nothing. Simple as that.
Of course, our personal freedoms have been eroding for generations now, just accelerating since 9/11. A little at a time....Just look at the erosion of property rights under the expansion of eminent domain.

regards,
Waddie

Phillip Allen
05-17-2011, 12:29 PM
Legalize and decriminalize all you want, except for the open road. I just don't want to share the road with alcohol, potheads, or any other type of drug user. I watched a TV program that showed smoking pot impaired drivers just like drinking does. So smelling pot inside a car should be grounds for an arrest, just like DUI, or even open container.

Searching a house should require a warrant or the 4th Amendment means nothing. Simple as that.
Of course, our personal freedoms have been eroding for generations now, just accelerating since 9/11. A little at a time....Just look at the erosion of property rights under the expansion of eminent domain.

regards,
Waddie
what would you do about lying about smelling pot as a pretext for an otherwise illegal search/seizure?

aprophet
05-17-2011, 12:40 PM
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chesapeake-va/T7NKMQ7UFEHKJ0A5T/p2

this is how it plays out here

ron ll
05-17-2011, 12:41 PM
What bothers me most about this kind of stuff is that most young people these days don't seem to give a rip about this continual erosion of constitutional rights. Not sure that is a good thing for the future of this country.

Phillip Allen
05-17-2011, 12:49 PM
What bothers me most about this kind of stuff is that most young people these days don't seem to give a rip about this continual erosion of constitutional rights. Not sure that is a good thing for the future of this country.
every half-generation, politicians may depend on a new batch of voters exclaiming "It's always been this way". I personally believe that was the biggest (unstated) reason for lowering the voting age

LeeG
05-17-2011, 12:56 PM
it could have been a terrorist marijuana plot

pefjr
05-17-2011, 12:59 PM
Well, if Obama doesn't need one , then by allah,........................

LeeG
05-17-2011, 01:08 PM
What bothers me most about this kind of stuff is that most young people these days don't seem to give a rip about this continual erosion of constitutional rights. Not sure that is a good thing for the future of this country.

it's the old folks who pushed for "war on..."

PhaseLockedLoop
05-17-2011, 02:23 PM
...it gives the police virtual carte blanch to bust down the door whenever they suspect a drug crime...

Nahh. It gives the police actual carte blanch to bust down the door when they say they suspect a drug crime. "I listened at the door, yer honer, an' I heard this big snorrrt! sound and I figgered they was snorten' coke. We bus' down the door an' this little fu**er was pointin' a gun at me, so we fired twenty-five warning shots into his stupid head. The snorrrt sound? Guess the litte ol' bugger snorted it all up. Hard to tell, he bein' with no head no more. Then too, coulda been the dog. It had the coughin' mumps, the K9 guy tells me."

AussieBarney
05-17-2011, 02:46 PM
Based on that decision, you boys got some serious problems developing. Shades of the jackboot. Freedom just became a myth in America

Phillip Allen
05-17-2011, 03:03 PM
Based on that decision, you boys got some serious problems developing. Shades of the jackboot. Freedom just became a myth in America

freedom has been gone longer than our "smart" people think it has

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-17-2011, 03:08 PM
I don't think it got posted here, but in related news; Indiana's supreme court ruled last week that citizens may not resist an officers unlawful entry into their homes. I'm hoping SCOTUS will eventually overturn that one, but I have my doubts.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

Phillip Allen
05-17-2011, 03:12 PM
I don't think it got posted here, but in related news; Indiana's supreme court ruled last week that citizens may not resist an officers unlawful entry into their homes. I'm hoping SCOTUS will eventually overturn that one, but I have my doubts.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

looks like they're protecting their "soldiers"/enforcers

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-17-2011, 03:17 PM
looks like they're protecting their "soldiers"/enforcers

That's exactly how the debate has been framed, but I'm seeing the flip side. A cop shows up, knocks on the door, you step outside, he asks if he can come in, you say no, he says too bad sucka. Save your complaint for court if you end up there. Attempting to deny him entry will get you a charge of obstructing an officer.

Phillip Allen
05-17-2011, 03:24 PM
That's exactly how the debate has been framed, but I'm seeing the flip side. A cop shows up, knocks on the door, you step outside, he asks if he can come in, you say no, he says too bad sucka. Save your complaint for court if you end up there. Attempting to deny him entry will get you a charge of obstructing an officer.

in my case, probably... in other cases it might be a charge of killing a thug

pefjr
05-17-2011, 03:51 PM
You boys could exaggerate yourselves slap out of freedoms.:D

skuthorp
05-17-2011, 04:09 PM
Quote Ian McCoglin "The "war on drugs" industry opposed the measure with beaucoupbucks, since so many corrupt agents, prosecutors, defenders and high profit dealers have so much to lose if we evolve step by step to total legalization of more recreational drugs."
Regardless of the health or other implications of drug use this is a major issue in itself. Rather like prohibition, it has actually created an industry that's corruption has reached high into our institutions and will be impossible to rooot out given the vast amounts of money involved.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-17-2011, 04:09 PM
You're right, Bud. The right to be free from unwarranted intrusion in one's own home is such an outdated concept. Abolishing a basic right that dates back 800 years isn't really noteworthy, is it.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-17-2011, 04:12 PM
Regardless of the health or other implications of drug use this is a major issue in itself. Rather like prohibition, it has actually created an industry that's corruption has reached high into our institutions and will be impossible to rooot out given the vast amounts of money involved.


In what will likely be seen as something of a Freudian slip by the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said recently in a Mexican news interview that the United States cannot legalize drugs as a means of fighting the black market because "there is just too much money in it."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/07/clinton-legalize-drugs-too-much-money/

skuthorp
05-17-2011, 04:20 PM
"there is just too much money in it." being shorthand for "The industry has too much power to do anything about it" maybe?

pefjr
05-17-2011, 04:21 PM
You're right, Bud. The right to be free from unwarranted intrusion in one's own home is such an outdated concept. Abolishing a basic right that dates back 800 years isn't really noteworthy, is it.Proof

Ian McColgin
05-17-2011, 04:22 PM
Well, having read the decision I am more puzzeled than ever. Seems to me that the police created the exigent circumstance and that the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled correctly. Turns out those who predicted that the two Obama appointees would actually be more conservative on criminal matters were right.

I really don't think it at all sporting of the police to nab a random consolation prize when they can't even follow the guys - badder bad guys in this case - they were chasing. Just another example of whiney prosecutorial sore losers being backed by the court.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-17-2011, 04:36 PM
Proof

Word

amiplayinthegamerite?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-17-2011, 05:36 PM
"there is just too much money in it." being shorthand for "The industry has too much power to do anything about it" maybe?

If by "The industry" you're referring to privately owned prisons, courts, law enforcement, probation and parole officers, and lawyers, then yes, that's my understanding.

The US has the largest prison population in the world. Around 1/2 of those inmates are locked up for drug offenses. According to government statistics, around 1/4 of the remaining inmates were on drugs when they committed their crime. The war on drugs employs many people in the perpetuation of this system. There are vested interests on both sides making a killing on prohibition, but the lobbyists working to maintain the status quo aren't being hired by the cartels.

pefjr
05-17-2011, 05:41 PM
If by "The industry" you're referring to privately owned prisons, courts, law enforcement, probation and parole officers, and lawyers, then yes, that's my understanding.

The US has the largest prison population in the world. Around 1/2 of those inmates are locked up for drug offenses. According to government statistics, around 1/4 of the remaining inmates were on drugs when they committed their crime. The war on drugs employs many people in the perpetuation of this system. There are vested interests on both sides making a killing on prohibition, but the lobbyists working to maintain the status quo aren't being hired by the cartels.Then there's the legal drugs and connected economy/culture. The Mariana Trench is not that deep.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-17-2011, 05:46 PM
Then there's the legal drugs and connected economy/culture. The Mariana Trench is not that deep.

Yup, if we legalize MJ and opiates, the demand for hydrocodone, oxycodone, and methadone prescriptions will drop at least 50%.

Lew Barrett
05-17-2011, 08:39 PM
Insane.

If I recall, this is an attorney's response. I'm good with it.
Insane. And very disappointing.

Canoeyawl
05-17-2011, 09:09 PM
. I watched a TV program that showed smoking pot impaired drivers just like drinking does. regards,
Waddie

Must have been this one...

http://www.druglibrary.org/mags/aapicture/flim/Devil%27s_Harvest.jpg

pefjr
05-17-2011, 09:14 PM
If I recall, this is an attorney's response. I'm good with it.
Insane. And very disappointing.hmmm,..... I'm gonna go with 8 justices being the sane ones.

Lew Barrett
05-17-2011, 09:20 PM
hmmm,..... I'm gonna go with 8 justices being the sane ones.

I've said it before, Bud. There is frequently no predicting your position. I'd have thought you'd have aligned differently on this, and not allowed the potential for authorities to break into people's homes on the flimsiest of excuses.
You have more confidence in the good intentions, and even more importantly, unfailing instincts and ethics of all police in the nation than I do, I guess.

I'm reading the comments of the lawyers on board, and I take them at their word. What might they know that we don't?

pefjr
05-17-2011, 10:41 PM
I've said it before, Bud. There is frequently no predicting your position. I'd have thought you'd have aligned differently on this, and not allowed the potential for authorities to break into people's homes on the flimsiest of excuses.
You have more confidence in the good intentions, and even more importantly, unfailing instincts and ethics of all police in the nation than I do, I guess.

I'm reading the comments of the lawyers on board, and I take them at their word. What might they know that we don't?I don't see any difference, I don't see any potential for authorities to break into people's homes on the flimsiest of excuses. I have a lot more confidence in the good intentions and ethics of the police than I do of the criminal element, of course. Yes, I do, and what would be surprising about that. Most people feel the same. Question: 8 to1 is strong, if you think our gov't is that far out of whack that 8 justices would be wrong and only one right, then how far away is the revolution? Anyone that disagrees with an 8 to 1 decision needs to go back and read the decision over again and find out why.

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 07:40 AM
I don't see any difference, I don't see any potential for authorities to break into people's homes on the flimsiest of excuses. I have a lot more confidence in the good intentions and ethics of the police than I do of the criminal element, of course. Yes, I do, and what would be surprising about that. Most people feel the same. Question: 8 to1 is strong, if you think our gov't is that far out of whack that 8 justices would be wrong and only one right, then how far away is the revolution? Anyone that disagrees with an 8 to 1 decision needs to go back and read the decision over again and find out why.

now here is someone who has bought into the fear... he has placed all his and his family's future on the notion that cops are honest and that prosecutors are not lawyers

pefjr
05-18-2011, 07:48 AM
now here is someone who has bought into the fear... he has placed all his and his family's future on the notion that cops are honest and that prosecutors are not lawyersLock,stock, and barrel. 8 to1 is good odds in Las Vegas.

LeeG
05-18-2011, 07:49 AM
not sure if this has been posted before, they had a warrant but the wrong house, the homeowner was armed but there's not much defense against a SWAT team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFhZ-G1Pb1Q

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 07:57 AM
not sure if this has been posted before, they had a warrant but the wrong house, the homeowner was armed but there's not much defense against a SWAT team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFhZ-G1Pb1Q

this is EXACTLY what makes pefjr feel safer...he doesn't care about the murdered man and is stupid enough to think it will never happen to him and to he** with other citizens...where have we seen this before... 1930's Germany perhaps... and he will still refuse to acknowledge his errors

pefjr
05-18-2011, 08:13 AM
this is EXACTLY what makes pefjr feel safer...he doesn't care about the murdered man and is stupid enough to think it will never happen to him and to he** with other citizens...where have we seen this before... 1930's Germany perhaps... and he will still refuse to acknowledge his errorsWow, what an extension cord you have Phillip.... LeeG, I don't see anything in the video that the swat team got the wrong house.

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 08:26 AM
Wow, what an extension cord you have Phillip.... LeeG, I don't see anything in the video that the swat team got the wrong house.

you and your 8 to 1 are a threat to others... you are willing to gamble your neighbor's lives on odds like an habitual gambler without regard to the morality of such an act

boatbuddha
05-18-2011, 08:31 AM
I don't see any difference, I don't see any potential for authorities to break into people's homes on the flimsiest of excuses. I have a lot more confidence in the good intentions and ethics of the police than I do of the criminal element, of course. Yes, I do, and what would be surprising about that. Most people feel the same. Question: 8 to1 is strong, if you think our gov't is that far out of whack that 8 justices would be wrong and only one right, then how far away is the revolution? Anyone that disagrees with an 8 to 1 decision needs to go back and read the decision over again and find out why.


Ever hear of Kathryn Johnston? A 92 year old woman shot dead by cops and guess what the cops tried to cover it up by planting drugs at the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

pefjr
05-18-2011, 08:45 AM
you and your 8 to 1 are a threat to others... you are willing to gamble your neighbor's lives on odds like an habitual gambler without regard to the morality of such an actAre you gonna carry this Extension Cord comedy routine on the road? Might be some entertainment dollar value there.

pefjr
05-18-2011, 08:49 AM
Ever hear of Kathryn Johnston? A 92 year old woman shot dead by cops and guess what the cops tried to cover it up by planting drugs at the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shootingNo. I haven't, and this has to do with what? Oh......, Convict all Criminal Justice for this? I see, you have bought Phillp's Extension cord theory.

boatbuddha
05-18-2011, 09:03 AM
No. I haven't, and this has to do with what? Oh......, Convict all Criminal Justice for this? I see, you have bought Phillp's Extension cord theory.

No but I believe police are no better or worse than the society they come from. They'll lie, cheat, steal, and kill just like any other person. And because they have the power of the state behind them their actions should be carefully regulated. Too often people sacrifice their freedom for the illusion of security, I think that's wrong.

pefjr
05-18-2011, 09:46 AM
Too often people sacrifice their freedom for the illusion of security, I think that's wrong.No one is sacrificing anything today, that they were not sacrificing before this ruling. This ruling as I see it, is just a confirmation of being able to act on probable cause when a crime is being committed. Nothing new here. You do realize that the news article was written in a way to excite the reader, and sell the "so called " news. Phillip is busy calling others stupid for being able to read between the lines and having a little knowledge on the subject. He probably bought a couple more guns to protect himself. Maybe he wants to go out in a blaze of glory? I could plug in my extension cord theories also, I have plenty of that ammunition. This is a non news thread. Relax, no buggerman is here.

PhaseLockedLoop
05-18-2011, 09:59 AM
hmmm,..... I'm gonna go with 8 justices being the sane ones.

There have been lots of police states in which the authorities were not clinically insane.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(law)) 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.

boatbuddha
05-18-2011, 10:27 AM
No one is sacrificing anything today, that they were not sacrificing before this ruling. This ruling as I see it, is just a confirmation of being able to act on probable cause when a crime is being committed. Nothing new here. You do realize that the news article was written in a way to excite the reader, and sell the "so called " news. Phillip is busy calling others stupid for being able to read between the lines and having a little knowledge on the subject. He probably bought a couple more guns to protect himself. Maybe he wants to go out in a blaze of glory? I could plug in my extension cord theories also, I have plenty of that ammunition. This is a non news thread. Relax, no buggerman is here.

Poppycock. 1) probable cause does not negate the need for a warrant. 2) people no longer have the right to be secure in their homes 3) I don't care how the news article was written, I've read the opinion and it basically throws open the doors to cops.

Answer me this: Do you have the right to sit in your home and not open the door when the police come knocking?

Waddie
05-18-2011, 10:27 AM
There have been lots of police states in which the authorities were not clinically insane.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_%28law%29) 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.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been ruling against individual freedoms for many years now. For every one time they affirm a personal freedom there are three rulings that limit them. All governments have a tendency to slowly aquire power unto themselves. You don't think government is more intrusive now than it was, say, 60 years ago? Sure, some of the intrusions have been for the good, but many more just serve to enhance control and centralize authority.

Imminent Domain was originally intended to give government the power to push through public projects like highways, schools, hospitals. Now it can be used to seize your property for a private beach condo developer or a strip mall. You no longer really own your property any longer---you have the use of it until someone more powerful than you wants it.

The main reason we will never really reform the tax code is that, as it stands now, it provides a huge pool of data on every facet of our personal lives. And we can then be manipulated to do what the government wants us to do--unless we're a big enough corporation to do some manipulating back--in that case we can make government do what we want.

PS. Enjoy it while you can, the freedom of the internet will not last.

regards,
Waddie

pefjr
05-18-2011, 11:10 AM
Poppycock. 1) probable cause does not negate the need for a warrant. 2) people no longer have the right to be secure in their homes 3) I don't care how the news article was written, I've read the opinion and it basically throws open the doors to cops.

Answer me this: Do you have the right to sit in your home and not open the door when the police come knocking?1) do you understand that probable cause that a crime is in progress obligates a law enforcement officer?, 2) BS, 3)care or not care, makes no difference to me, everyone has an opinion, you don't like mine, and I know yours is wrong, so anything else?

Answer: I could tell you, but you will not believe me, and then you and Phillip will plug your extension cords in and try to fry me for every crime from Arkansas to Atlanta, so I will tell you to go look it up yourself, and if you are brave enough to believe the truth, then this conversation would be over, but I kinda doubt you want to roll over that easy, BUT you will at least have your answer and you will remember it. Hint: go back and read your very own #1 post.

boatbuddha
05-18-2011, 11:19 AM
Probable cause works in tandem with the requirement for a warrant, it's in the Constitution. If you don't like it change the constitution or join these 8 dummies on SCOTUS who don't care for the 4th amendment.

IN the King case the officers had probable cause but didn't get a warrant and therefore violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, only they didn't because 8 justices said so.

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 11:40 AM
The issue of a warrant-less search arises in "exigent circumstances" - essentially when the consequences of no search are worse but the circumstances are circumscribed enough that the risk of it all being expanded to essentially gut our constitutional protections is limited. So, "exigent circumstances" are the exception to the need for a warrant - like a fire inside or gunfire coming from the house or screams for help. Then there are exceptions to the exception, the most important being that the police cannot have caused the exigent circumstances.

Justice Ginsberg believed, with the Kentucky Supreme Court, that the police had created the exigent circumstance by pounding on the wrong door. Had it been the door into which their suspect had actually fled, everyone agrees a warrant-less intrusion and search would have been fine. The police heard sounds they took to be the sounds of covering up evidence, but which were actually just people moving about, so they broke in rather than waiting for their knock and shout to be answered. They found some dope.

I can actually see the reasoning of the majority, but I really do think sportsmanship and discretion should trump. Those jerks concentrated on the harmless drug use of some folk they were not chasing rather than pay attention to the more serious job at hand. For that reason and because I dread police excess more than a very small number of criminals who get off on a technical, I agree with Ginsberg, though the actual technicality turns on a point that can be argued both ways.

This is an interesting case in that many from both left and right agree on limiting police invasions and thus are dismayed by the decision.

pefjr
05-18-2011, 11:45 AM
Probable cause works in tandem with the requirement for a warrant, it's in the Constitution. If you don't like it change the constitution or join these 8 dummies on SCOTUS who don't care for the 4th amendment.

IN the King case the officers had probable cause but didn't get a warrant and therefore violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, only they didn't because 8 justices said so.As I have stated, I am with the eight justices, your opinions have not swayed me. If you and Phillip are charging me with any offense, I demand that the charges be read at this time. I refuse to answer any questions concerning these extension cord accusations until I have consulted with my lawyer.

boatbuddha
05-18-2011, 11:48 AM
Justice Ginsberg believed, with the Kentucky Supreme Court, that the police had created the exigent circumstance by pounding on the wrong door. Had it been the door into which their suspect had actually fled, everyone agrees a warrant-less intrusion and search would have been fine. The police heard sounds they took to be the sounds of covering up evidence, but which were actually just people moving about, so they broke in rather than waiting for their knock and shout to be answered. They found some dope.

Which is why the majority opinion makes no sense. How to do you prove the police created the exigent circumstance in bad faith?

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 12:06 PM
Any set of rules creates its own set of cheating. The Miranda ruling led to various forms of cheating - claims that a warning had been issued when it had not and all that - just as ruling about probable cause led to many police having a drop gun just in case some evidence was needed. Suspects routinely make the claim, whether true or not, and law enforcement make their claims, true or not. Part of the process. It is hardly perfect but we can at least expect the judiciary to punish law enforcement - the punishment is letting a bad guy off - often enough to keep some limit on the natural drift to totalitarian excess.

No moment of justice is won forever.

pefjr
05-18-2011, 12:20 PM
the harmless drug use an assumption that ignores the multitudes of young women and men in this country f%$ked up on meth alone and all the crimes associated with that 'harmless' drug.

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 12:28 PM
pefjr is right that recreational drug use is not always harmless, any more than drinking coffee or alcohol are always harmless. I should have specified the context of deciding to not persue a fleeing felon to opportunisticly arrest some folk who may have been committing a drug crime but who at least were not threatening anyone. They acted like a retriever who could not find the duck you shot down so brought back a stick. Or worse yet, they are like an ill-disciplined pack of fos hounds that run nuts through a chicken house.

As I say: Sportsmanship; Discretion; A Little Good Taste.

These cops and the prosecutors who made the case were just whiney losers seeking a consolation prize.

Often decisions about justice really have an emotional content. Like it's hard to rule for the rights of a dispicable creep. In this case, it's hard for me to rule for the powers of law enforcement that can't even play their main game on their home field.

Edited to add: Reread some of the facts - the police did eventually nab the dealer they were after in the first place but whatever basis they used to get into the apartment where he was finally apprehended did not become a contested legal issue since he pleaded out.

pefjr
05-18-2011, 01:01 PM
recreational drug use, alcohol, harmless, opportunisticly arrest some folks, , retriever who could not find the duck you shot down so brought back a stick. Or ill-disciplined pack of fos hounds that run nuts through a chicken house.

Sportsmanship, Discretion

whiney losers seeking a consolation prize.

dispicable creep. In this case, it's hard for me to rule for the powers of law enforcement that can't even play their main game on their home field.

More assumptions , without any first hand knowledge, hatred of authority evident. Law Enforcement is not a game. It is not a sporting event. There is a badge/ target on their chest. Their life is at risk, in their job every second. You only risk the internet shutting down temporarily, big difference. Despicable? yes, it is. To read those words that flow from a broken spigot of ignorance that refuses to be educated. Game? When it becomes a game of life and death for you, then you can post some words of a selfish nature that may ring true, until then, have some more assumptions to gnaw on. Your consolation prize is protection by those you so easily criticize. Enjoy it, and write some more words for us to read while we also enjoy it , but appreciate it too. I recommend "Discretion" as your next subject, I would kinda like to read what your opinion on what discretion is.

hokiefan
05-18-2011, 01:19 PM
My $0.02 for what its worth.

The way I live my life I don't spend much time interacting with police and law enforcement. But, I would guess that about 30% of those I have run into have been completely and totally untrustworthy. Several have been some of the best people I have ever met. But the fraction of liars and cheats ruins the total view for me. As the result, I believe we are far, far better off allowing a few crooks to stay on the street a couple more months than expanding the leeway the police have to work with.

Personally, I do think we should change the rules on what happens with evidence illegally obtained. I think it should stand and the crook get convicted if thats what the evidence says. BUT, the cop should be tried and punished for whatever he did to get the illegal evidence. Wouldn't take many cops in jail to fix that problem.

And yeah, I think I just contradicted myself all over the place. Its a complicated, emotion-laced subject.

Cheers,

Bobby

Lew Barrett
05-18-2011, 01:26 PM
This is an interesting case in that many from both left and right agree on limiting police invasions and thus are dismayed by the decision.

Indeed. That's been of interest to me here as well. Something to keep it in mind and on hand for future discussions when the question of individual freedoms gets bandied loosely about as a divisive issue.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-18-2011, 01:36 PM
Many Rights are forfeited by criminal acts . Nothing new , move along.

Yup, this guy was definitely hiding evidence of a crime. No rights for him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQAJgxMIuM

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 01:58 PM
I am becoming curious about pefjr...what's his story that he should join the SA at such a late date

pefjr
05-18-2011, 02:17 PM
I am becoming curious about pefjr...what's his story that he should join the SA at such a late dateSA? Are you Ok Phillip? You didn't hurt yourself with all those extension cords did ya?

wardd
05-18-2011, 02:24 PM
apple orang


???

pefjr
05-18-2011, 03:06 PM
Yup, this guy was definitely hiding evidence of a crime. No rights for him.
Why don't you look for the full story, all the facts. Meanwhile we can have fun speculatin. We can get Phillip, his power cords and boatbuddha, his misreadings and opinions and see if we could create an ox bow incident before you get the facts back. Deal?

Boy, that girl has moxy, the seals could use her, she just marched right in with her authority. I like her.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-18-2011, 03:24 PM
Why don't you look for the full story, all the facts. Meanwhile we can have fun speculatin. We can get Phillip, his power cords and boatbuddha, his misreadings and opinions and see if we could create an ox bow incident before you get the facts back. Deal?

Boy, that girl has moxy, the seals could use her, she just marched right in with her authority. I like her.

What facts are you referring to? I saw the same video you did. A woman claiming to be from some government agency wanted to inspect the mans private property. She was accompanied by a deputy. The homeowner asked what authority she had to enter his private property, and none was given. She was informed by the homeowner that she did not have his permission to enter, and she did anyway sans court order. The deputy refused to protect the citizens property rights, opting instead to take a public employee at her word that she had a right to trespass.

I don't know how things work in Vegas, but everywhere I've lived, code enforcement investigations are done from the property line. If a government employee needs to go on your property, or into your home, that authority has been granted by a judge, or permission has been given by the property owner. The employee knows full well how they got the authority to enter private property.

If you think the gal in the video is the type of public servant we need in this country, well, all I can say is that you've obviously forgotten you civics lessons due to senility. I'd recommend a refresher course.

pefjr
05-18-2011, 03:41 PM
What facts are you referring to? I saw the same video you did. A woman claiming to be from some government agency wanted to inspect the mans private property. She was accompanied by a deputy. The homeowner asked what authority she had to enter his private property, and none was given. She was informed by the homeowner that she did not have his permission to enter, and she did anyway sans court order. The deputy refused to protect the citizens property rights, opting instead to take a public employee at her word that she had a right to trespass.

I don't know how things work in Vegas, but everywhere I've lived, code enforcement investigations are done from the property line. If a government employee needs to go on your property, or into your home, that authority has been granted by a judge, or permission has been given by the property owner. The employee knows full well how they got the authority to enter private property.

If you think the gal in the video is the type of public servant we need in this country, well, all I can say is that you've obviously forgotten you civics lessons due to senility. I'd recommend a refresher course.You are funny. You can't make your point with ad homobaloney. You were wrong but going along pretty good until you just had to throw in that senility comment and ruin your whole post. Indiana, I think is where this occurred. that would be Indiana law. The property owner is a jack leg Constitutional Lawyer. And a jack leg camera man too. Can you sell video like this? I don't know, but that is what this looks like to me. I am gonna go out on a limb and side with the health inspector and deputy which puts me and you on different sides. Wanna bet on who is right? Loser pays for the Civics lesson remedial course. Or we could hit up the Property Owner as he say he is gonna be rich.
Now, I have a suggestion for you. Go back and find some better example than this one, there has got to be a better example than this one to make your point. You do have a point don't you?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-18-2011, 03:53 PM
So your short answer is: You believe health department employees in Indiana have a right to enter private residential property without consent or a court order. You have no evidence that is the case, but you believe it anyway.

I bet you're wrong. Even in HD cases involving child welfare court orders are obtained unless a hazard is in plain sight, then it's an imminent danger situation.

pefjr
05-18-2011, 04:02 PM
So your short answer is: You believe health department employees in Indiana have a right to enter private residential property without consent or a court order. You have no evidence that is the case, but you believe it anyway.

I bet you're wrong. Even in HD cases involving child welfare court orders are obtained unless a hazard is in plain sight, then it's an imminent danger situation.Nope, now you are trying to put words in my mouth. Did you take the morality test?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-18-2011, 04:14 PM
Indiana, I think is where this occurred. that would be Indiana law. The property owner is a jack leg Constitutional Lawyer.

So you think you know Indiana law better than the resident.



I am gonna go out on a limb and side with the health inspector and deputy which puts me and you on different sides. You think she had the authority she claimed, despite no evidence of that.

Yeah, that's way different from what I wrote. Sorry to put words in your mouth.

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 04:26 PM
So you think you know Indiana law better than the resident.

You think she had the authority she claimed, despite no evidence of that.

Yeah, that's way different from what I wrote. Sorry to put words in your mouth.it looks to me like pefjr may actually believe what he is saying...what does he do for a living or his close relatives...I smell crooked cop

wardd
05-18-2011, 04:37 PM
what was the outcome of the indiana video?

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 04:38 PM
what was the outcome of the indiana video?

yes...

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-18-2011, 04:57 PM
what was the outcome of the indiana video?

Evidently an employee of an unknown government agency trespassed on clearly posted private property to investigate an anonymous complaint without having a court order, without citing an imminent threat to public health or safety, or being able to cite an existing law that gave her that authority. Her trespass was aided by a Deputy who refused to evict her from the property when he was asked to by the homeowner. He said "If you've got nothing to hide, there shouldn't be a problem."

That's all the outcome I'm aware of. The Youtube channel doesn't have any update posted.

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 04:58 PM
The constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure in criminal matters. Health code is civil and in all states I've lived in a health inspector can enter a property regardless of the owner's consent or denial. Around here it is a common problem in tenant organizing that landlords threaten health inspectors. Smart tenant organizers call the police to keep the peace, that is to prevent the landlord from physically interfering with the inspector. The same can happen from the other side, when a landlord has concern for how a tenant is keeping the property. Again, the cop keeps the peace. The inspector can enter. Most jurisdictions have rules about reasonable times so you don't see the BoH doing a no-knock ever or an unannounced at 0230. So, I have no "evidence" for the case here since I've not looked up Indiana law. But I do know NY, MA, OR, CT and NH law on this point and I'd be most surprised if Indiana were much different. I recommend that anyone thinking a BoH person needs a warrant try reading their state's relevant law and cases before inventing legal fictions.

boatbuddha
05-18-2011, 04:58 PM
The guy had been previously convicted of abandoning or neglecting a dog, I'm betting the health inspector was looking for evidence he was doing it again. If she had probable cause, she should have gotten a warrant.

boatbuddha
05-18-2011, 05:00 PM
The constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure in criminal matters. Health code is civil and in all states I've lived in a health inspector can enter a property regardless of the owner's consent or denial. Around here it is a common problem in tenant organizing that landlords threaten health inspectors. Smart tenant organizers call the police to keep the peace, that is to prevent the landlord from physically interfering with the inspector. The same can happen from the other side, when a landlord has concern for how a tenant is keeping the property. Again, the cop keeps the peace. The inspector can enter. Most jurisdictions have rules about reasonable times so you don't see the BoH doing a no-knock ever or an unannounced at 0230. So, I have no "evidence" for the case here since I've not looked up Indiana law. But I do know NY, MA, OR, CT and NH law on this point and I'd be most surprised if Indiana were much different. I recommend that anyone thinking a BoH person needs a warrant try reading their state's relevant law and cases before inventing legal fictions.

Wouldn't it depend on what the health inspector was inspecting for? For example here in Georgia HI's often investigate the treatment of livestock, since the animal cruelty act is a criminal act if you were gathering evidence for that you should need a warrant.

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 05:13 PM
boatbuddah, I don't know. In most states the folk who do BoH residential and commercial inspections are distinct from the worker safety inspectors are different from the animal control officers and so on. I have the sense but no formal knowledge that there are different rules for different inspections. It's also the case that even where criminal penalties obtain from certain bad practices, those that are incidental to a regulated activity, like operating a kennel, are subject to various forms of inspection (not search). There's a difference.

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 05:16 PM
Wouldn't it depend on what the health inspector was inspecting for? For example here in Georgia HI's often investigate the treatment of livestock, since the animal cruelty act is a criminal act if you were gathering evidence for that you should need a warrant.

any time the health inspector is anonymous (her name was not on the card presented to the home owner) then he/she is NOT a health inspector... no name... no legitimacy

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 05:23 PM
Does the health inspector also have to show a "long form" birth certificate. Seriously, I've yet to see any sort of town or state or federal inspector who did not present ID when asked. But not all these forms of ID are all that impressive or instantly believable to the citizen, who is rarely aware of what is issued by what agency.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-18-2011, 05:23 PM
The constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure in criminal matters. Health code is civil and in all states I've lived in a health inspector can enter a property regardless of the owner's consent or denial.

If that's the case they should be able to cite the relevant section of state law that gives them that authority. Inability to do that is indicative of poor training on the part of the inspector and the officer.


Around here it is a common problem in tenant organizing that landlords threaten health inspectors. Smart tenant organizers call the police to keep the peace, that is to prevent the landlord from physically interfering with the inspector. The same can happen from the other side, when a landlord has concern for how a tenant is keeping the property. Again, the cop keeps the peace. The inspector can enter. You're talking about multi-family buildings. Having state laws addressing standard sanitation requirements, and inspections of them doesn't surprise me a bit. I'm guessing there are occupancy permits involved, the holding of which would obligate the owner to accept inspections. Same goes for licensing restaurants and day care facilities. That's a far cry from a single family residence in the sticks.


I recommend that anyone thinking a BoH person needs a warrant try reading their state's relevant law and cases before inventing legal fictions.I have a family member who works with my state's health department CPS. Residences are only entered when imminent danger is evident, the resident complies voluntarily, or a judge grants a court order. The cops don't bust down doors every time a neighbor calls in a report of dirty rugrats. No fiction here.

It was mentioned that this could be an animal welfare case. I've dealt with those guys personally, and they ask permission to enter the property. Of course compliance is viewed favorably. I've talked with Animal Control officers from other states on the internets, and they peek over fences when investigating complaints.

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 05:35 PM
Does the health inspector also have to show a "long form" birth certificate. Seriously, I've yet to see any sort of town or state or federal inspector who did not present ID when asked. But not all these forms of ID are all that impressive or instantly believable to the citizen, who is rarely aware of what is issued by what agency.

the card had a first name...I suppose like the cashier at the grocery store... she did not offer her last name but asked him his... she would already have had that information if she worked for county or city... even I can get that information and have done it (seeking the owner of a home). I found his address and phone number and called him (from
Arkansas to Hawaii)

pefjr
05-18-2011, 06:06 PM
it looks to me like pefjr may actually believe what he is saying...what does he do for a living or his close relatives...I smell crooked copWhat you smell is your own behavior, it stinks. Phillip, crooked has to be proven on a cop like it has to be proven on you. A cop does not mean crooked cop. I would venture to guess that a lot of people have a cop somewhere in their extended family, so you need to be careful with your accusations and narrow mindedness. Or get that chip off your shoulder concerning guns and cops.

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 06:14 PM
What you smell is your own behavior, it stinks. Phillip, crooked has to be proven on a cop like it has to be proven on you. A cop does not mean crooked cop. I would venture to guess that a lot of people have a cop somewhere in their extended family, so you need to be careful with your accusations and narrow mindedness. Or get that chip off your shoulder concerning guns and cops.

but a cop can come onto my property without warrant...nothing for HIM to prove is there...just an implied death threat (he has a gun in plain sight)

PhaseLockedLoop
05-18-2011, 06:20 PM
What you smell is your own behavior, it stinks. Phillip, crooked has to be proven on a cop like it has to be proven on you. A cop does not mean crooked cop. I would venture to guess that a lot of people have a cop somewhere in their extended family, so you need to be careful with your accusations and narrow mindedness. Or get that chip off your shoulder concerning guns and cops.

He didn't suggest that all cops are crooked. Let's not get defensive.

Since your position in this matter holds that crooked doesn't have to be proven for a cop to make an unwarrented break and enter, your observations on the matter seem confused, at best.

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 06:22 PM
I have thought him as aggressively defensive for a number of posts now...

pefjr
05-18-2011, 06:54 PM
He didn't suggest that all cops are crooked. Let's not get defensive.

Since your position in this matter holds that crooked doesn't have to be proven for a cop to make an unwarrented break and enter, your observations on the matter seem confused, at best.Try writing that again, I may be too confused to understand.:D Defensive? that what's one does when attacked from Post #51 on, by hound dog Phillip. But I'll survive it, bring it on.:ycool: I promise not to go offensive and point out that certain folks can not rationally debate certain subjects such as guns, or cops.

Phillip Allen
05-18-2011, 07:02 PM
I do believe his key board may short out at any minute :)

me thinks he doth protest too much

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
05-18-2011, 07:32 PM
I promise not to go offensive and point out that certain folks can not rationally debate certain subjects such as guns, or cops.

Like who? Ex-Cops?

pefjr
05-18-2011, 07:45 PM
Like who? Phillip

PhaseLockedLoop
05-19-2011, 11:10 AM
Try writing that again, I may be too confused to understand.

I said "defensive" because as far as I know (and maybe I misread something) nobody suggested that all cops were crooked, only that some (perhaps you?) are. Offensive, to be sure. But the somewhat larger point I read him as making, with unaccustomed subtlety for Phillip, is that the smell of most things, such as crooked cop or marijuana, is not a substantial proof of anything, and perhaps that the smell is (perhaps deliberately) in the smeller's mind rather than in the world. That you responded so hysterically and inappropriatly led me to what I deemed the mild reproof of "defensive". Glad to have cleared this up.

Phillip Allen
05-19-2011, 11:22 AM
I said "defensive" because as far as I know (and maybe I misread something) nobody suggested that all cops were crooked, only that some (perhaps you?) are. Offensive, to be sure. But the somewhat larger point I read him as making, with unaccustomed subtlety for Phillip, is that the smell of most things, such as crooked cop or marijuana, is not a substantial proof of anything, and perhaps that the smell is (perhaps deliberately) in the smeller's mind rather than in the world. That you responded so hysterically and inappropriatly led me to what I deemed the mild reproof of "defensive". Glad to have cleared this up.
NOW I'm laughing out loud!

pefjr
05-19-2011, 11:52 AM
That you responded so hysterically and inappropriatly led me to what I deemed the mild reproof of "defensive". Glad to have cleared this up.What's clear to you is even more confusing to me. Let me get this straight, you are saying my post #101 is hysterically inappropriate?

Ian McColgin
05-19-2011, 12:25 PM
Bud and I disagree on quite a lot but Phillip's "crooked cop" slur is way wrong and profoundly unjustified in the light of all that Bud has written on our Forum about law enforcement and his experience. I am sure that on sober reflection, Phillip will realize that one can disagree with honor and will apologize for his dishonorable slur.

The issues of civil rights and law enforcement are complex enough without gratuitous and baseless insults.

Phillip Allen
05-19-2011, 12:43 PM
Bud and I disagree on quite a lot but Phillip's "crooked cop" slur is way wrong and profoundly unjustified in the light of all that Bud has written on our Forum about law enforcement and his experience. I am sure that on sober reflection, Phillip will realize that one can disagree with honor and will apologize for his dishonorable slur.

The issues of civil rights and law enforcement are complex enough without gratuitous and baseless insults.

how about insults which are NOT baseless?

Ian McColgin
05-19-2011, 12:50 PM
Phillip, many of Bud's remarks are disagreable to you and to me, perhaps for different reasons, but there is nothing in his record here to justify the remark "crooked cop". You are responsible for that remark and any claims that others have made worse remarks, even if about you, are no excuse for inventing such a slander.

PhaseLockedLoop
05-19-2011, 12:53 PM
Bud and I disagree on quite a lot but Phillip's "crooked cop" slur is way wrong and profoundly unjustified in the light of all that Bud has written on our Forum about law enforcement and his experience. I am sure that on sober reflection, Phillip will realize that one can disagree with honor and will apologize for his dishonorable slur.

The issues of civil rights and law enforcement are complex enough without gratuitous and baseless insults.

Well, I haven't read everything in the forum, only having been here for a year or so, and having read selectively even then. So I don't know any of Bud's history. Sorry, Bud. I must say, though, that if Bud is a cop, it allows me to understand his otherwise inexplicable posts on this subject.

The topic under discussion certainly revolves around the probity of cops, does it not? And though cops may not be any more dishonest than the ordinary man in the street, I doubt they're more honest; I doubt they'd be able to do the job if they were absolutely forthright. If you don't think many cops would lie about what they "smelled" before busting down a door, I don't know what to say. The reason, historically, for getting a warrant from a judge is to put such decisions in the hands of someone with official judgment, and remove such judgments from individual cops. It was once deemed self-evident that it's stupid to give too much power to individuals, or even groups, since power corrupts. Under this notion, if cops weren't corrupt to begin with, they will be now.

Phillip Allen
05-19-2011, 01:04 PM
Well, I haven't read everything in the forum, only having been here for a year or so, and having read selectively even then. So I don't know any of Bud's history. Sorry, Bud. I must say, though, that if Bud is a cop, it allows me to understand his otherwise inexplicable posts on this subject.

The topic under discussion certainly revolves around the probity of cops, does it not? And though cops may not be any more dishonest than the ordinary man in the street, I doubt they're more honest; I doubt they'd be able to do the job if they were absolutely forthright. If you don't think many cops would lie about what they "smelled" before busting down a door, I don't know what to say. The reason, historically, for getting a warrant from a judge is to put such decisions in the hands of someone with official judgment, and remove such judgments from individual cops. It was once deemed self-evident that it's stupid to give too much power to individuals, or even groups, since power corrupts. Under this notion, if cops weren't corrupt to begin with, they will be now.

thank you for that post... I fear it falls on "some" deaf ears though

Phillip Allen
05-19-2011, 01:06 PM
Phillip, many of Bud's remarks are disagreable to you and to me, perhaps for different reasons, but there is nothing in his record here to justify the remark "crooked cop". You are responsible for that remark and any claims that others have made worse remarks, even if about you, are no excuse for inventing such a slander.

is he a cop?... because I actually don't know except by his very aggressive behavior

Phillip Allen
05-19-2011, 01:08 PM
Phillip, many of Bud's remarks are disagreable to you and to me, perhaps for different reasons, but there is nothing in his record here to justify the remark "crooked cop". You are responsible for that remark and any claims that others have made worse remarks, even if about you, are no excuse for inventing such a slander.

did you see where stevebaby indicated pretty strongly that if he didn't like someone he had stopped that he MADE SURE to find something worth writing a ticket for... "that" IS what crooked is all about... or do you see it otherwise?

Ian McColgin
05-19-2011, 01:15 PM
I think my posts #42, #70, and especially # 73 and #75 show why I agree with Justice Ginsberg, though I don’t see this fairly narrow decision as the end of western civilization. My part in the BoH issues raised at #79 and following shows that Bud and I can have some agreement and while I don’t like the farmer’s term he uses, I dislike “sea lawyers’ even more, and we have a lot of that here.

Sadly, #116 shows that not only is Phillip incapable of apologizing for anything, but when he gets defensive he really loses all ability to even see the case. But then, in another thread, he pretty much said that about himself and he’s always evaded responsibility for what he says, so no surprise.

I note the difference between PhaseLockedLoop’s remarks about the need to prevent police abuse - a value all of us here share in varying degree - and his growing understanding of Bud's perspective versus Phillip’s more personal remark about Bud. Were I Phillip, I’d ponder that.

pefjr
05-19-2011, 04:01 PM
Hmmm......... Interesting most of the cop hatred in this thread is pre-existing and is based on purposely distorted facts. The SCOTUS only confirmed law enforcement are obligated to act on crime without a warrant. LeeG posted bad info on a wrong home warrant. It was not a wrong home. Phillip goes nuts and accuses me of ...well pretty much everything from a nazi to a crooked cop, look it up #54 ,57,89. I wonder what he would call the 8 Justices. Two other unrelated u tubes were just a distraction of more bad info. Anyways, it does not pay to debate Phillip on guns or cops, he is not capable.

Thanks Ian for the words and honesty. Quite a contrast.

PhaseLL, BTW, I did not ever think that I was the one confused and since you have ignored the question #111, that to me proves it was you that was confused.

Oh, I am not a cop. But I do respect them and the job they do.