Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal LordBodak's Journal: Another blow to freedom 9

Journal by LordBodak

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search.ap/index.html

The Fourth Amendment says: 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.

Does this ruling contradict the amendment? In my opinion, arming police with bulletproof vests and automatic weapons and allowing them to kick down your door in the middle of the night for a non-violent crime is most definitely an unreasonable search. It's one thing to go into the house of a violent criminal where there is a legitimate threat. But this ruling doesn't make that distinction.

You all know I'm a gun owner. If I hear the door crashing down in the middle of the night, the first thing I'm gonna do is grab a gun. How are the police going to react when they find me pointing a gun at them? They're gonna shoot me. And hopefully my family will find a good lawyer to make them really rich.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Another blow to freedom More

Another blow to freedom

Comments Filter:
  • (Too lazy at the moment to search)

    I can't really tell from the story if A. They decided that police don't need to knock (which would be very bad - even worse than the current state of police thinking they are commandos) or that B. Even though these police didn't properly announce, that it wasn't a severe enough error to trigger the exclusionary rule (Which rule, I find absurd)?

    If the former, grrr...
    If the later, feh. Whatever. Just take administrative discipline on the cops. No donuts for a month, or whatev
    • Ruling is here [supremecourtus.gov]. I'll have to read through it later.
      • Thanks. After reading the decision, I'm gonna go with "B". The court is agreeing that the police erred in not knocking (and specifically left open avenue of civil suits [and I would presume criminal charges, though that would require the state to take its agents to court...]). It is just stating that the error/violation was not of such a material nature that the evidence collected so be thrown out. I think this comports with the ideas of both justice and common sense.

        To quote the Captain,
        "The failure to kno [captainsquartersblog.com]

        • In general, I agree with you. However, there's a really fine line here that we're getting awfully close to crossing. That ruling could be taken as precedent for the idea that illegally gathered evidence is admissible, which is a scary thought.

          On another note, maybe we all need these [target.com].

          • Unfortunately, I fully expect to see a rash of "warrants? we don't need no steenking warrants" cases work their way through the court system over the next few years. They'll get smacked down, but a lot of damage will be done, an lot of people will be hurt, and a lot of lives will be ruined. THEN they'll [the police who wanna be commandos) figure out what this ruling actually says.

            Sigh.
  • No, seriously.... I've wondered about this. If the police do not announce themselves and simply bust in the door, the first thing many *reasonable* citizens are going to do is grab a gun. How many people (citizens and police) are going to be injured/killed as a result of this ruling?

  • would you like an appointment for a showdown with the cops?

    if you ask for it in reply my people will arrange the lawyer and we'll take down this law. so you really ready to die for your beliefs?

    choice, as always, is yours :)
  • It means that that they don't have to knock, not that they don't still have to announce. So while before they had to knock, shout, and run in, now they just run in and shout. So if they run in, guns drawn, in the middle of the night without declaring they will still be subject to pretty bad mojo.

    In practice this is really only helpful against the nastier of warrants. I doubt many LE Agencies are going to stop knocking in cases in which they do not expect resistance.

  • It doesn't seem that a homeowner in that kind of situation has a lot of rights, anymore...

    http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2005/12/1 3/knock-knock-bang-bang/ [kieranhealy.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close