Are you concerned about police "no knock" warrants?

Destruction of evidence is nowhere near enough justification for a no-knock. Yes it makes it more difficult to convict people but as Hugo Black said, that's the point. The founders that wrote our beloved 2nd amendment wrote the 4th and 5th specifically to make it more difficult to convict someone.

That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights.
 
Stage, I may be wrong, but it looks, to me, like the "exigent circumstances" pretty well negates the requirements as specified by the BOR. This came from wikipedia, so it may not be accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, most searches by the police require a search warrant based on probable cause, although there are exceptions. Any police entry of an individual's home always requires a warrant (for either search or arrest), absent exigent circumstances (i.e. hot pursuit of a felon; imminent destruction of evidence; the need to prevent a felon's escape; or the risk of harm to the police or others). In order to obtain a search warrant, an officer must first prove that probable cause exists before a magistrate or judge, based upon direct information (i.e. obtained by the officer's personal observation) or hearsay information. Hearsay information can even be obtained by oral testimony given over a telephone, so long as its source has a basis for its knowledge that is either reliable or has veracity, as determined by a totality of the circumstances. Both property and persons can be seized under a search warrant. The standard for a search warrant is much lower than the lack of reasonable doubt required for a later conviction; the idea behind this is that the evidence that can be collected without a search warrant may not be sufficient to convict, but may be sufficient to suggest that enough evidence to convict could be found using the warrant.
Click to expand...

badbob
 
Bob, the exigent cirmcumstances that you speak of are actually several specific instances that SCOTUS has determined a warrant is not needed. Wiki listed almost all of them, but an event must specifically fall into this category in order for this to apply.

Most of these exceptions are common sense as well. If the cops are chasing after someone, and the perp happens to go into a house, its nonsensical to expect the police to end the chase, go see a judge, get a warrant and return. The perp would be long gone. I have no doubt that the framers didn't intend this to be the result when they wrote the 4th amendment.
 
Shot placement is king....penetration is queen...and having a gun in a gunfight is emperor to all....

and extra magazines and ammunition is the Empress. ;)
 
Most of these exceptions are common sense as well. If the cops are chasing after someone, and the perp happens to go into a house, its nonsensical to expect the police to end the chase, go see a judge, get a warrant and return. The perp would be long gone. I have no doubt that the framers didn't intend this to be the result when they wrote the 4th amendment.
Click to expand...
While you're right about that I highly doubt they also intended for cops to be able to bust in without warning on questionable or fabricated tips to stop a person from indulging in a substance while causing no one else any harm.
 
The bottom line remains that the founders wrote the 4th and 5th amendments with the intention of making it harder to convict people of crimes, to keep government from imprisoning folks for actions which are not inherently crimes. Believe what you want about drug use but the pothead getting high giggling at cartoons does not deserve a SWAT team busting into his home.
 
Quote:
to stop a person from indulging in a substance while causing no one else any harm.

That's a really naive description of drug use.
Click to expand...

No, it's a very accurate one.

What's naive, or even deceptive, is blaming the purported harm to others usually attributed to drug use on the drugs rather than on the individual using the drugs. Families "destroyed by drugs" are really destroyed by laziness and refusal to accept personal responsibility. Vicims of "violent crimes fuelled by drugs" are really victims of violent criminals who also happen to use drugs.

I invite you to become a victim of crime sometime, like I have. You will find that the perpetrator has the same predatory impulses whether he is using drugs, is in a drug-free but drinking phase, or is using nothing at all.

I know for a fact (but will not reveal how; sorry) that, during Prohibition, those who sold illegal alcohol also sold marijuana. It seems generally accepted that pre-'60s, a relatively "drug-free" era was the greatest. But it was well before the '60s that CocaCola contained cocaine and that paregoric was OTC, along with many narcotic-containing patent medicines. These included, by the way, heroin.

Why didn't we need "no-knock" raids back then, back in the "good old days"?

No, something else changed during the '50s, and then morphed during the '60s and matured in the '70s and '80s. It was the widespread availablity of television. It took a few years for the owners to realize how much money could be made by infusing drama into the reporting of news, and that television was the perfect instrumentality for this.

Hype became, and still is, reality.

Arrests without raids, particularly dramatic no-knock raids, don't attract the worm-brained rubberneckers to the screen. No-knocks and standoffs do. The television media have a great vested interest in the continued use of such tactics, so they're not going to go on a campaign any time soon against them. And, since drugs seem to attract no-knocks, the media isn't going to be presenting a truthful view of them either.

No need to worry, though. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and it's only a matter of time before your favorite innocuous pastime is seen on the evening news as having a "Hidden Hazard" and becomes banned and subject to no-knock warrants to protect the children.
 
While you're right about that I highly doubt they also intended for cops to be able to bust in without warning on questionable or fabricated tips to stop a person from indulging in a substance while causing no one else any harm.
Click to expand...

You are right, and a warrant will never be issued when all the police have is just a tip. This has also been ruled on by SCOTUS. The tip alone aint going to cut it.

Now, if the officers have a tip, and then do some surveilance that demonstrates corroborates what the tip said, then you might have something.
 
You are right, and a warrant will never be issued when all the police have is just a tip. This has also been ruled on by SCOTUS. The tip alone aint going to cut it.

Now, if the officers have a tip, and then do some surveilance that demonstrates corroborates what the tip said, then you might have something.
Click to expand...
Then what happened in Atlanta last fall? Oh right, that warrant wasn't based on a tip, it was based on a lie.

Yes, warrants are issued all the time based on nothing more than tips from confidential informants. It's the War on Drugz, get used to it. One of these days it'll be the War on Gunz and you'll be singing a different tune.


Or maybe it already is and y'all just don't realize it.
 
Abstract

That's a really naive description of drug use.

No it's not. Plenty of people use and have used drugs without harming others. I did drugs in high school and when I first started college. I harmed nobody and I eventualy stopped on my own and went onto cheaper and more fun hobbies.

It is one of the greatest lies that "illegal drugs" destroy lives. MISUSE of anything will cause harm. Alcohol, guns, gambling, cars, all can destroy lives if misused.

I see no reason why pot should be illegal. It is less harmfull than tobacco and has medical benifits. Yes you are impared when high on pot, but you know and admit that you are impared and either don't drive or drive very slowly. (I never wanted to drive while high anyway cause it was such a buzzkill.) I never met a violent person high on pot, I have met plenty of violent drunks.
 
Then what happened in Atlanta last fall? Oh right, that warrant wasn't based on a tip, it was based on a lie.
Click to expand...

If you're going to argue a specific case than at least post the facts so I know what you're talking about.
 
Well, after reading the 4 pages of that thread, I still dont see what the problem is. The warrant never should been issued. How old the lady is in this case is irrelevant. The fact that she started blowing officers away is also irrelevant to the issue of the warrant.

If any evidence was obtained as a result of this search had the old lady not played billy the kid, it would have been thrown out and there would have been no conviction.

This is the law and it has been for some time.
 
Maybe you missed the point. They busted in on a warrant that was granted on the cop's word that a confidental informant had given them a tip. That's it. No other evidence. Nothing. Not one shred. Even worse is that it later turns out these guys may have simply been lying through their teeth but the point remains that yes, no-knocks and other warrants are indeed most certainly issued on nothing more than "tips".

The old lady played Billy the Kid? Wtf? So people have no right to defend themselves against random strangers bursting into their home with guns drawn?
 
Even worse is that it later turns out these guys may have simply been lying through their teeth but the point remains that yes, no-knocks and other warrants are indeed most certainly issued on nothing more than "tips".
Click to expand...

Not only that, a "tip" can be from a citizen who's concerned that a crime may be taking place or from a disgruntled person of any flavor.

Bottom line: someone who doesn't like you can legally murder you by way of anonymous tips and no-knock warrants based on lying informants or police.

Is that how you like your civil rights served?
 
Maybe you missed the point. They busted in on a warrant that was granted on the cop's word that a confidental informant had given them a tip. That's it. No other evidence. Nothing. Not one shred. Even worse is that it later turns out these guys may have simply been lying through their teeth but the point remains that yes, no-knocks and other warrants are indeed most certainly issued on nothing more than "tips".
Click to expand...

No they aren't. You have a single case here where an improper warrant was issued. Conntrast this with how many proper warrants are issues and this makes up, what, 1% of all warrants.. probably less. Mistakes are made. There are impulsive or even bad cops. Does this mean the system is somehow falling on its head? No. If the lady had not decided to shoot the officers she would have had her day in court and would have easily been acquitted. Thus her rights would have been preserved.



The old lady played Billy the Kid? Wtf? So people have no right to defend themselves against random strangers bursting into their home with guns drawn?
Click to expand...

Yes she did. The cops stated that they announced before they came in. Believe them or not, but you don't have any contrary information to show. In either case, this does not affect the 4th amendment argument that is present.

Had she not shot at the cops, or had she surived she would have been able to sue the department for their mistakes. NONE of this has anything do do with the 4th amendment however.


Not only that, a "tip" can be from a citizen who's concerned that a crime may be taking place or from a disgruntled person of any flavor.

Bottom line: someone who doesn't like you can legally murder you by way of anonymous tips and no-knock warrants based on lying informants or police.

Is that how you like your civil rights served?
Click to expand...


Again, this is bogus. The police just don't kick down doors and shoot people. The law is already clear that warrants cannot be based on tips alone, nor simply the word of a CI. If a judge decides to essentially break the law then theres not much we can do about it except fight it in court. Same if a cop decides to arrest you for simply running a stop sign. Are you going to shoot him cause he's voilating your rights? I don't think so. You're going to spend your night in jail, hire the best attorney you can and then nail his ass ot the wall.

Once again ladies and gentlemen. Lets put this in perspective. The percentage of invalid warrants that are issues are incredibly small. Of these, the number that are served by no-knocks even smaller. This is NOT a crisis. This is not the 3rd reich. Sure there are examples of things gone wrong. But for every one of these I can show you 1000 that went right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top