Death of the 4th Amendment

[Graphicd00d]

"This 5th Curcuit ruling is criminal, similar to Supreme Court rulings of the past declaring black people slaves. It is a total violation of the Bill of Rights and is null and void." - Alex Jones

Text

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Graphicd00d
"This 5th Curcuit ruling is criminal, similar to Supreme Court rulings of the past declaring black people slaves. It is a total violation of the Bill of Rights and is null and void." - Alex Jones

Text

I fail to see this as a blatent violation of the 4th amendment. In the case in question they were given permision to search the house for him and when he wasn't in the bedroom they looked in the closets for their own safety. It has always been true that officers can search for criminals without warrent if they know they are on the premises or given permission and they are allowed to "clear" a house for their own safety.

As long as the judges are harsh with any potential abuses of this I don't think it's "new" nor do I think it's abusive. Officer safety is paramount.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: rahvin
As long as the judges are harsh with any potential abuses of this I don't think it's "new" nor do I think it's abusive. Officer safety is paramount.

Title of the linked article: Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States of America.

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.

I don't see any equivocation or exceptions in that statement.

Even more important, I don't want to trust individuals to assert their personal opinions of when they have the right to violate someone's Constitutional rigths. That's where John Ashcroft is coming from, and I consider him one of the most dangerous men in the U.S., today. :disgust:

 

[rahvin]

Harvey,

I'm scared of Ashcroft as much as you are but did you read the article? The title is NOT representative of what occured. The officers showed up to question a convicted felon about threats to kill two judges. They were given permission to enter the house and search for the suspect. Upon finding the bedroom empty they searched the closets for the suspect. During this search they observed some firearms that should not have been in the home per the individual being a convicted felon. After locating the individual hiding in the bushes in the backyard they got his permission to search the house and then secured the firearms which are undoubtably being used as a felon in possesion of a firearm charge against the individual.

I still fail to see what was improper about the actions taken or the result that occured, nor do I see anything the officers did as some new search power. Currently if officers are trying to apprehend a suspect and in the process observe some other illegal activity it can be used against them even if the officers didn't have a warrant. This article presents facts then resorts to dirty journalism by claiming that they can now do quick searchs of any home they want and that is blatently false. To me this case based on the facts presented was a fairly clear cut case of officers being given permission to search and the accused not liking what they found in their search.

 

[Graphicd00d]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: rahvin
As long as the judges are harsh with any potential abuses of this I don't think it's "new" nor do I think it's abusive. Officer safety is paramount.

Title of the linked article: Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States of America.

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.

I don't see any equivocation or exceptions in that statement.

Even more important, I don't want to trust individuals to assert their personal opinions of when they have the right to violate someone's Constitutional rigths. That's where John Ashcroft is coming from, and I consider him one of the most dangerous men in the U.S., today. :disgust:

I agree with you here Harvey.

I will support peace officers but will not support police state activities. When they signed up to be a police officer they knew the risk "To serve and Protect". I do not support laws that destroy my Bill of Rights just to keep the police safe.

It's not easy being the good guy and never will be.


Here is another example

 

[Harvey]

The site is really slow, right now, so I can't get back to it to double check. The title of the article is scary enough to take notice. If this really represents an opening to weaken the Fourth Amendment, the problem for me is the idea of allowing individuals to override the Constitution, instead of following established, legal procedure.

 

[Graphicd00d]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Harvey,

I'm scared of Ashcroft as much as you are but did you read the article? The title is NOT representative of what occured. The officers showed up to question a convicted felon about threats to kill two judges. They were given permission to enter the house and search for the suspect. Upon finding the bedroom empty they searched the closets for the suspect. During this search they observed some firearms that should not have been in the home per the individual being a convicted felon. After locating the individual hiding in the bushes in the backyard they got his permission to search the house and then secured the firearms which are undoubtably being used as a felon in possesion of a firearm charge against the individual.

I still fail to see what was improper about the actions taken or the result that occured, nor do I see anything the officers did as some new search power. Currently if officers are trying to apprehend a suspect and in the process observe some other illegal activity it can be used against them even if the officers didn't have a warrant. This article presents facts then resorts to dirty journalism by claiming that they can now do quick searchs of any home they want and that is blatently false. To me this case based on the facts presented was a fairly clear cut case of officers being given permission to search and the accused not liking what they found in their search.

I will have to also agree with you here rahvin. Maybe I should have put a question mark in the title.

He was too stupid to know his rights and should have asked them to show a search warrant or get one.

I also see a trend that is like a plague in the U.S.

Public schools are dumbing down the kids and not teaching the the basics of the Constitution. They are also doing it in the College and Universities. They want nothing more than a worker class (slaves) instead of free thinkers.

When I read that article it sounded an alarm off for me. I know they will use this as an opening later to start cracking down on law abiding citizens ala USPATRIOT act. Once you give them an inch they take a mile.

We need to start telling people to wake up and see what is happening in our country. We may sound like a bunch of cooks at first but so did the founding fathers.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The site is really slow, right now, so I can't get back to it to double check. The title of the article is scary enough to take notice. If this really represents an opening to weaken the Fourth Amendment, the problem for me is the idea of allowing individuals to override the Constitution, instead of following established, legal procedure.

No it doesnt. This opinion is narrowly focused around police being given consent to enter a building than doing a "protective sweep"

Protective sweeps have already been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. And the wording of that opinion by the court, IS the basis of this ruling. This does NOT allow cops to subjectively say they fear for their lives and then search a building. They have to be inside the building legally(with consent).

Ive heard someone say that this opens the doors to cops barging in without consent, planting evidence, and then saying they were given consent of some bullshit like that. This ruling really doesnt change much, and doesnt open the door to any more abuse than there currently already is.

The ruling is VERY LOGICAL for the case that the 5th Circuit was ruling on.

 

[digitalsm]

What funny is, the 1st Circuit Court ruling from the 25, IMHO is much more damaging to the 4th amendment than this. It basically allows cops to trick people into exiting a building at which point, they can then search them, if they feared they had a weapon on them. Sure the ruling says the police just asked the guy, but last I checked when a cop barked something at you, it was a command.

In any event, both can easily be combated by refusing to give consent(regarding the 5ths ruling), or refusing to exit a private building(1sts ruling). The cops can't do anything in either case if that happens.

 

[digitalsm]

Also I am still very critical of that article. It is very POOR journalism. Yes they dramatically updated it from the original version. But they still left out the key part, police have to be in the building LEGALLY, given CONSENT, in order to then do a protective sweep.

 

[rahvin]

Just to put my perspective into the mix I've written at least 9 letters to my congress critters asking them to repeal and/or scale back the Patriot act. This case isn't in that ballpark.

 

[SuperTool]

If he just kept his mouth shut and didn't sign a waiver, he wouldn't be in this situation, because then the burden would be on prosecution to prove those guns were his since he wasn't in the room. I am willing to give the officers a pass on that one. Bottom line, keep you mouth shut and don't sign anything until you talk to a lawyer.

 

[Harvey]

OK. I got back to the site to read the whole article again, and I agree that, in this case, the guy signed off on the search, and the cops had reasonable grounds to be looking for him. I'm just a bit jumpy any time I hear about chipping away at Constitutional guarantees, especially when we have an attorney general like Ashcroft whose favorite song has to be, "Praise The Lord, and Shred The Constitution."

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Cops already have the right to search your person when they're just talking to you. It's for their own safety of course, funny the cop that did that to me felt he needed to ask if I had any pot on me before doing it. I understand these guys have a tough and dangerous job, and I am not against them doing things to protect themselves, but when it treads on constitutional rights the crap needs to be thrown out in the court, not made lagel. And no, I didn't have any pot, so this isn't bitterness talking. If they were given permission to enter and search by someone legally entitled to give that permission then fine, otherwise they should have had a warrant before going in there, end of story.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Harvey
OK. I got back to the site to read the whole article again, and I agree that, in this case, the guy signed off on the search, and the cops had reasonable grounds to be looking for him. I'm just a bit jumpy any time I hear about chipping away at Constitutional guarantees, especially when we have an attorney general like Ashcroft whose favorite song has to be, "Praise The Lord, and Shred The Constitution."

yes, ashcroft has everything to do with a search conducted by local cops