One step closer to a safer, freer America.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Now you can be safe from those neighbours of your because the police can search their home any time they want without a warrant. Of course, this also applies to you but the police wouldn't do that without a "reason". And besides, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

Now, this only applies in Louisiana, but how long before the rest of the police forces see the obvious benfits of this and want it for themselves? Sure would help with the war on drugs/terrorism/crime/etc.

[T_Bone]

From article:
"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.
[in an attempt to assure this new power wouldn't be abused]

Pththhhth! that was ONE of them! I don't like that at all, I hope this is quickly overturned.

I'll have to read up on the decision, it's possible this could be out of proportion.

[KennyR]

Now you can be safe from those neighbours of your because the police can search their home any time they want without a warrant.

That's unconstitional. What is constitutional, however, is that Americans have the right to protect their own homes. I wonder, if an American shot a police officer raiding their house without a warrant (and somehow managed to stay alive), what would happen. Actually, I'd think they'd get charged with murder. As I have said a million times, your guns are no protection against the state and never will be.

[FluffyMcDeath]

KennyR wrote:
I wonder, if an American shot a police officer raiding their house without a warrant (and somehow managed to stay alive), what would happen.

Well, it's already the case that you cannot shoot a police officer who is trying to arrest you for a capital offence even if it is apparent that you will be convicted and executed, though this seems to be a clear case of self-defense.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
Now you can be safe from those neighbours of your because the police can search their home any time they want without a warrant.

That's unconstitional. What is constitutional, however, is that Americans have the right to protect their own homes. I wonder, if an American shot a police officer raiding their house without a warrant (and somehow managed to stay alive), what would happen. Actually, I'd think they'd get charged with murder. As I have said a million times, your guns are no protection against the state and never will be.

I can't see that situation happening. Even in cases where the police have to forcibly enter a residence, the first thing they do is identify themselves... loudly. They're not going to be sneaking up on you in the dark. If they wanted to search your home, there's no reason they wouldn't just ring the doorbell anyway... unless they were trying to aprehend a suspect, in which case the whole "warrant" issue becomes moot anyway.

[KennyR]

True enough T_Bone, but let's look at this. If this goes through, the police will be able to simply turn up at your door and demand entrance. If you don't allow them in, they can force their way in or they can charge you with some other crime or misdemeanour. So, imagine some cop takes a dislike to someone and decides to keep roughing them up. What do you do in that situation? You can't fight back, you just have to shut up and take it.

[Fade]

Fourth Amendment

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

Aren't the District Attorneys going to be surprised when they take someone to court and find that all evidence gathered without a warrant is excluded.

The Supreme Court is going to get very tired throwing out these cases.

[T_Bone]

So, imagine some cop takes a dislike to someone and decides to keep roughing them up. What do you do in that situation?

File charges, as you would any time a cop takes a dislike to you and decides to keep roughing you up, warrant or no warrant. :-)

I can see an ocasional need to gain entrance without a warrant, but this is already possible in states where a warrant is required, so i don't know why this state felt it wasn't good enough. I won't be moving there any time soon.

[T_Bone]

Fade wrote:
Fourth Amendment

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

Aren't the District Attorneys going to be surprised when they take someone to court and find that all evidence gathered without a warrant is excluded.

The Supreme Court is going to get very tired throwing out these cases.



Yep, this won't last long.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:

The Supreme Court is going to get very tired throwing out these cases.



They will probably try to prevent that from happening by not throwing them out. This will save them the trouble and will undoubtedly have Ashcroft's blessing.

[Fade]

Well if Canada had a Constitution more than 30 minutes old you might realize that it would take an amendment before this would pass muster.

There have been only 27 amendments to our Constitution since 1789 so I don't see this as being the next one.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
Well if Canada had a Constitution more than 30 minutes old you might realize that it would take an amendment before this would pass muster.

There have been only 27 amendments to our Constitution since 1789 so I don't see this as being the next one.

No, of course not. The one banning gay marriages is due to be the next one.

Anyway, Ashcroft has already demonstrated that you don't need to ammend the constitution, just ignore it.

-edit-

Apparently Lincoln didn't think much of the constitution either..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo57.html

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Apparently Lincoln didn't think much of the constitution either..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo57.html


You're absolutely right about Lincoln. i think I've posted passages from that book here before. it was a good read.

[Glaucus]

From article:
"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.
[in an attempt to assure this new power wouldn't be abused]

Pththhhth! that was ONE of them! I don't like that at all, I hope this is quickly overturned.Amen! The idea of a warrant of any kind is to place checks and balances. This is an outrage!

Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.ie. "covered up"

- Mike

[Glaucus]

Aren't the District Attorneys going to be surprised when they take someone to court and find that all evidence gathered without a warrant is excluded.

The Supreme Court is going to get very tired throwing out these cases.Very true Fade. The true test of this "legislation" will be in the courts, and my guess is that it will be struck down immediately (with the added effect of a dangerous person being set free on a technicality). This is one we'll all have to keep an eye on.

- Mike

[Glaucus]

File charges, as you would any time a cop takes a dislike to you and decides to keep roughing you up, warrant or no warrant. In otherwords; nothing. It appears you never heard of Rodney King (sp?). Even with video taped evidence the police are still likely to get off scott free.

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
File charges, as you would any time a cop takes a dislike to you and decides to keep roughing you up, warrant or no warrant. In otherwords; nothing. It appears you never heard of Rodney King (sp?). Even with video taped evidence the police are still likely to get off scott free.

- Mike

Sure I've heard of him. Someday I hope to have that much money ;-)

[kokigami]

Fade wrote:
Fourth Amendment

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

Aren't the District Attorneys going to be surprised when they take someone to court and find that all evidence gathered without a warrant is excluded.

The Supreme Court is going to get very tired throwing out these cases.



I wouldn't count on it. It will be a tight vote, but the key here is the term unreasonable. A conservative court has found this to be reasonable, and the supreme court is pretty conservative also. How come I don't hear anyone decrying activist judges.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Just some follow-up.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2469360

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:
Sure I've heard of him. Someday I hope to have that much money ;-)And I hope for your sake that you attain this money without first getting the sh!t kicked out of you on national television by some white cops and then have Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton by your side pleading your case (although I'm not sure what you'd hate more, being beaten up or being surrounded by Democrats ;-) ).

- Mike

[iamaboringperson]

I suspect that's going on in .au

Many years ago my old man's house was searched by the police (while I lived there), their search warrent was simply a white piece of A4 paper, which looked as though it had been printed out on a laser printer


How were we to know that they had legal permission to search?

[Tigger]

Glaucus wrote:
File charges, as you would any time a cop takes a dislike to you and decides to keep roughing you up, warrant or no warrant. In otherwords; nothing. It appears you never heard of Rodney King (sp?). Even with video taped evidence the police are still likely to get off scott free.


Hey Mike,

It appears you have never heard of Pooh Allen and Freddy Holms.
-Tig

[Glaucus]

Tigger wrote:
Hey Mike,

It appears you have never heard of Pooh Allen and Freddy Holms.It appears you're right! I performed a search for "Pooh Allen" and turned up this article: The LAPD Officers' Trials: A Chronology (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingchronology.html) (which only goes to support my original statement to T_Bone), while a search on "Freddy Holms" didn't really turn up anything at all. I also looked up Freddy Holmes without much success. I take it you meant Freddie Helms which was also mentioned in the above article. Care to fill me in?

- Mike

[Glaucus]

In fact, here's an even better article:

The Trials of Los Angeles Police Officers' in Connection with the Beating of Rodney King (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/lapdaccount.html)
My point isn't whether King violated the law or if he deserved to be arrested. My point was simply that it's almost impossible to prove that police officers used excesive force even if you have video taped evidence. Most people, after viewing the tape, and hearing the LAPD's defense, still consider the King beating to be excessive - so much so it even prompted President George Bush to initiate a federal investigation into the matter.

- Mike