The Fourth Amendment Is Rapidly Eroding Away

[Thaeoles]

Home Insecurity - Reason Magazine

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court said the "exigent circumstances" that exist when someone might be flushing drugs down a toilet allow police to enter a home without a warrant, even if their own actions create those circumstances.

As the lone dissenting justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted, this decision "arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases." Instead of "presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate," they can retroactively validate their decision to break into someone's home by claiming they smelled something funny and heard something suspicious.

Can someone say, "Police State"?

 

[DeathMagus]

Ewww....

 

[Billnew]

This was a SC decision?

The judge was wrong, it does not open up avenues for police to do warrantless searches if looking for drugs. It allows police to do any search, as long as they say they are looking for drugs.

Name a crime that someone could have in thier home, police can search for it, any criminal act, police kick in the door claiming a annonymous caller reported drugs being sold here.

"No drugs, but we found this...Your under arrest."

This didn't make national news?

 

[Supreme]

So, a guy's wife calls 911, she invites them into his house, a guy attacks a police officer... and he's surprised?

If there's one moronic thing to do when the police are searching your house, it's to attack one of them.

 

[blanning]

This was a SC decision?

SC in this case means Supreme Court as opposed to South Carolina, which I think is what you meant.

The judge was wrong, it does not open up avenues for police to do warrantless searches if looking for drugs. It allows police to do any search, as long as they say they are looking for drugs.

Name a crime that someone could have in thier home, police can search for it, any criminal act,

... or really anything at all, illegal or otherwise ...

police kick in the door claiming a annonymous caller reported drugs being sold here.

"No drugs, but we found this...

...thing that wasn't here a few minutes ago...

Your under arrest."

Hey look! Someone is starting to "get it"!

This didn't make national news?

What a great question!

 

[Brak]

This doesn't erode the 4th Amendment--that pretty much nullifies it completely in my mind.

 

[wintermile]

Hosts at current events radio stations have been quoting how an Indiana sheriff is on record stating he is ready to do house to house searches. The Indiana supreme court ruled it is legal for police officers to enter a residence without a warrant.

I signed a petition opposing the decision.

 

[Blackguard_]

The Indiana supreme court ruled it is legal for police officers to enter a residence without a warrant.

No it didn't, it ruled the citizenry has no right to resist the police illegally entering a home, such as with warrantless house to house searches. It doesn't make those searches legal.

The Indiana Sheriff may be on the wrong side of the law, but he has realpolitik on his side. No one can legally resist his illegal searches, and the police are unlikely to face any real consequences for breaking the law.

This doesn't erode the 4th Amendment--that pretty much nullifies it completely in my mind.

Seconded. The whole point of requiring a warrant specifying what they're looking for and a probable cause is to avoid stuff like this.

What was wrong for a British colonial agent to do looking for smuggled molasses or whatever is somehow Ok for a US police officer looking for drugs?

 

[wintermile]

No it didn't, it ruled the citizenry has no right to resist the police illegally entering a home, such as with warrantless house to house searches. It doesn't make those searches legal.

The Indiana Sheriff may be on the wrong side of the law, but he has realpolitik on his side. No one can legally resist his illegal searches, and the police are unlikely to face any real consequences for breaking the law.


Seconded. The whole point of requiring a warrant specifying what they're looking for and a probable cause is to avoid stuff like this.

What was wrong for a British colonial agent to do looking for smuggled molasses or whatever is somehow Ok for a US police officer looking for drugs?

Thank you for your correction. I read the majority of Indiana Supreme Court Judges partially based their decision on 1920s scholars who claimed individual liberty is void compared to police officers' safety. That's OpEd ThinK.