Supreme Court OKs warrantless searches

Feuer Frei! · 05-18-11, 09:45 PM

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence might be destroyed.
The justices said officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.
Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, Justice Samuel Alito said for an 8-1 majority.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case had handed the police an important new tool.
"The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases," Ginsburg wrote. "In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant."
She said the Fourth Amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.
"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ... forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.
An expert on criminal searches agreed, saying the decision would encourage police to undertake "knock and talk" raids.
"I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in," said John Wesley Hall, a criminal-defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark. "I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along."
The court in the past has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, the Fourth Amendment "has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." One exception to the search-warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police also may pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence.
The Kentucky case arose from a mistake. After seeing a drug deal in a parking lot, Lexington police officers rushed into an apartment complex looking for a suspect who had sold cocaine to an informant.
But the smell of burning marijuana led them to the wrong apartment. After knocking and announcing themselves, they heard sounds that they said made them fear that evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door in and found marijuana and cocaine but not the original suspect.

SOURCE

gimpy117 · 05-18-11, 09:50 PM

Isn't that probable cause?

you smell weed, hear people scurrying around inside. If it would be in my car and they smelled beer (for example) they would be able to search it...I can see how this applies to the situation. Simple fact, don't do anything illegal unless you aren't afraid of getting caught

Molon Labe · 05-18-11, 10:02 PM

Let's face it, the Founders did a great job on the Constitution, but when it came to drafting the 4th Amendment they pretty much just @#$% on the page.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II · 05-18-11, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Isn't that probable cause?

you smell weed, hear people scurrying around inside. If it would be in my car and they smelled beer (for example) they would be able to search it...I can see how this applies to the situation. Simple fact, don't do anything illegal unless you aren't afraid of getting caught

Add "claim to think" to before every item you just mentioned (e.g. "you (police) claim to smell weed"). Perhaps the problem will be clearer.

Rockstar · 05-19-11, 07:10 AM

There is nothing new about warrantless searches and seizures. A certain Federal agency has been doing it since 1790.

mookiemookie · 05-19-11, 08:26 AM

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=183688

August · 05-19-11, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=183688

That's about a state ruling. This is SCOTUS. Far more disturbing.

mookiemookie · 05-19-11, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

That's about a state ruling. This is SCOTUS. Far more disturbing.

Ah, my apologies then. It seems like our rights are being taken away wholesale then. Two very bad rulings in one week.

In related news, screw Alito. He's terrible.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 05-19-11, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

There is nothing new about warrantless searches and seizures. A certain Federal agency has been doing it since 1790.

I assume this agency is U.S. Marshals. Am I correct?

Rockstar · 05-19-11, 01:21 PM

It began as the Revenue Cutter Service under Alexander Hamilton and is now known as the United States Coast Guard.

Warrant-less searches and seizure DO NOT under any circumstance relieve the officer from having to articulate what they did and why.

.

Dan D · 05-19-11, 04:47 PM

Platapus · 05-19-11, 07:33 PM

But like the Indiana case, nothing has changed. The SCOTUS has only affirmed the exemptions that have been in place.

The thread title is misleading, no where in the Slip Opinion does it say that the court ok warrant-less searches.

There is precedence that has been recognized by the courts that allows police officers to conduct a search of a place of residence without first getting a warrant. Some, but not all, of the exemptions are listed below.

1. To render emergency aid to prevent injury
2. When police are in "hot pursuit" of a suspect (you can't just duck into your apartment and call it safe)
3. To prevent imminent destruction of evidence

The actual legal question under consideration is based on a limitation on exemption number 3.

The police may not rely on the need to prevent destruction of evidence when that exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police. The SCOTUS has made such decisions in the past.

It is this question that the SCOTUS was considering. Not whether the already existing exemption is or is not valid. When reading SCOTUS decisions, it is important to understand the exact question being considered.

This is why the claim that the SCOTUS "Ok' warrantless searches" is not valid for this case.

Let's look at a short history of this question

The Fayette County Circuit Court allowed the exemption of preventing the destruction of evidence as a valid exemption, in this case, for applying for a warrant.

The case was appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals who affirmed the decision (agreed with the Circuit Court)

The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the decision (disagreed with the Circuit Court's decision) citing the challenge to the exemption that the police may not rely on the need to prevent destruction of evidence when that exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police, citing SCOTUS past decisions.

The SCOTUS reversed the decision (agreed with the Circuit Court's decision) based on the opinion that the police did not create the exigency. The vote was 8 for reversal and one dissenting opinion (which is not necessary a vote against reversal)

No where in the decision was there any decision to change any of the already existing exemptions for that was not the problem given to the SCOTUS.

As far as our constitutional rights are concerned, this case changed nothing. One has to be careful not to read into a SCOTUS decision, they are very carefully worded to address the specific question put before them.

Again, don't rely on the media as a source, go to the Supreme Court of the United States page and retrieve the Slip Opinion for Kentucky v King number 09–1272. The Slip Opinion is only 27 pages long.

There you will find the facts of the case.

August · 05-19-11, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Again, don't rely on the media as a source, go to the Supreme Court of the United States page and retrieve the Slip Opinion for Kentucky v King number 09–1272. The Slip Opinion is only 27 pages long.

There you will find the facts of the case.

Personally next time i'll just wait for the Platapus Report.

Platapus · 05-19-11, 07:46 PM

Gotta remember, last semester I took an excellent legal research class.

Learned a lot in that class, one of the better classes in my whole doctorate program in my opinion.

August · 05-19-11, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Gotta remember, last semester I took an excellent legal research class.

Learned a lot in that class, one of the better classes in my whole doctorate program in my opinion.

Doctor Platapus?

05-18-11, 09:45 PM	#1
Feuer Frei! Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Valhalla Posts: 5,295 Downloads: 141 Uploads: 17	Supreme Court OKs warrantless searches WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence might be destroyed. The justices said officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs. Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, Justice Samuel Alito said for an 8-1 majority. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case had handed the police an important new tool. "The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases," Ginsburg wrote. "In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant." She said the Fourth Amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house. "How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ... forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked. An expert on criminal searches agreed, saying the decision would encourage police to undertake "knock and talk" raids. "I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in," said John Wesley Hall, a criminal-defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark. "I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along." The court in the past has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, the Fourth Amendment "has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." One exception to the search-warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police also may pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence. The Kentucky case arose from a mistake. After seeing a drug deal in a parking lot, Lexington police officers rushed into an apartment complex looking for a suspect who had sold cocaine to an informant. But the smell of burning marijuana led them to the wrong apartment. After knocking and announcing themselves, they heard sounds that they said made them fear that evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door in and found marijuana and cocaine but not the original suspect. SOURCE __________________ "History is the lies that the victors agree on"- Napoleon LINK TO MY SH 3 MODS

05-18-11, 09:50 PM	#2
gimpy117 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 3,243 Downloads: 108 Uploads: 0	Isn't that probable cause? you smell weed, hear people scurrying around inside. If it would be in my car and they smelled beer (for example) they would be able to search it...I can see how this applies to the situation. Simple fact, don't do anything illegal unless you aren't afraid of getting caught __________________ Member of the Subsim Zombie Army

05-18-11, 10:02 PM	#3
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Let's face it, the Founders did a great job on the Constitution, but when it came to drafting the 4th Amendment they pretty much just @#$% on the page. __________________

05-19-11, 08:26 AM	#6
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=183688 __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

05-19-11, 01:21 PM	#10
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	It began as the Revenue Cutter Service under Alexander Hamilton and is now known as the United States Coast Guard. Warrant-less searches and seizure DO NOT under any circumstance relieve the officer from having to articulate what they did and why. . Last edited by Rockstar; 05-19-11 at 01:50 PM.

05-19-11, 07:10 AM	#5
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	There is nothing new about warrantless searches and seizures. A certain Federal agency has been doing it since 1790.

05-19-11, 04:47 PM	#11
Dan D Grey Wolf Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: 9th Flotilla Posts: 839 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	__________________

05-19-11, 07:33 PM	#12
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,365 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	But like the Indiana case, nothing has changed. The SCOTUS has only affirmed the exemptions that have been in place. The thread title is misleading, no where in the Slip Opinion does it say that the court ok warrant-less searches. There is precedence that has been recognized by the courts that allows police officers to conduct a search of a place of residence without first getting a warrant. Some, but not all, of the exemptions are listed below. 1. To render emergency aid to prevent injury 2. When police are in "hot pursuit" of a suspect (you can't just duck into your apartment and call it safe) 3. To prevent imminent destruction of evidence The actual legal question under consideration is based on a limitation on exemption number 3. The police may not rely on the need to prevent destruction of evidence when that exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police. The SCOTUS has made such decisions in the past. It is this question that the SCOTUS was considering. Not whether the already existing exemption is or is not valid. When reading SCOTUS decisions, it is important to understand the exact question being considered. This is why the claim that the SCOTUS "Ok' warrantless searches" is not valid for this case. Let's look at a short history of this question The Fayette County Circuit Court allowed the exemption of preventing the destruction of evidence as a valid exemption, in this case, for applying for a warrant. The case was appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals who affirmed the decision (agreed with the Circuit Court) The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the decision (disagreed with the Circuit Court's decision) citing the challenge to the exemption that the police may not rely on the need to prevent destruction of evidence when that exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police, citing SCOTUS past decisions. The SCOTUS reversed the decision (agreed with the Circuit Court's decision) based on the opinion that the police did not create the exigency. The vote was 8 for reversal and one dissenting opinion (which is not necessary a vote against reversal) No where in the decision was there any decision to change any of the already existing exemptions for that was not the problem given to the SCOTUS. As far as our constitutional rights are concerned, this case changed nothing. One has to be careful not to read into a SCOTUS decision, they are very carefully worded to address the specific question put before them. Again, don't rely on the media as a source, go to the Supreme Court of the United States page and retrieve the Slip Opinion for Kentucky v King number 09–1272. The Slip Opinion is only 27 pages long. There you will find the facts of the case. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

05-19-11, 07:46 PM	#14
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,365 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Gotta remember, last semester I took an excellent legal research class. Learned a lot in that class, one of the better classes in my whole doctorate program in my opinion. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.