Just a "Minor Setback" for Fourth Amendment Rights

This Is a sad story, looks to me he will finally be freed if the story goes as reported. The thing that makes this a sticky situation is the fact that they had warrants for both apartments----"""His affidavit for the warrants names Smith but not Maye, referring only to "person or persons unknown" in the other apartment. Both apartments are described using the same language."""----therefore this was not a mistaken search. Just a no knock search.
 
Maybe this will get my point across.

Let's say six months from now one of your family members is murdereed. The police go to the suspect's home with warrant in hand but the officer forgets to knock on the door.
Evidence is found tieing the person to the murder but in court some smartass lawyer gets the evidence ruled inadmissible because the police didn't knock:rolleyes: Who's crying forth amendment now?.

Oh but not you because it has already been found that evidence found under this action is admissible six months before!

The only thing that I see on this ruling is that some scumbag isn't getting off on a technicality this time! I would think this is a good thing, but maybe my judgement is impaired because I've inhaled too much pistol smoke.:D I like to see the justice system WORK!
 
but the officer forgets to knock on the door.
Click to expand...
Right, like an officer would "forget" to knock on the door... when he's picking the lock or breaking the door down. :rolleyes:

The point of all search and arrest procedural safeguards is not to prevent the innocent from being convicted... that's what courts and their procedural safeguards are for. The point of search and arrest procedure is to limit the damage that can be caused by bad laws and bad cops. If you think there are no bad cops or bad laws, there's no reason to limit police searches and arrests at all.

Personally, I think there are very few truly evil cops, but more than enough bad laws... and there are plenty of marginal cops who will use all the tools permitted by the High Court to enforce those bad laws.
 
Let's say, six months from now, one of your family members is murdered.

The police, having obtained a warrant to search a house for illegal drugs, either gets the address wrong on the warrant, an informant gave bogus info or they simply go to the wrong address altogether. Because the subject is a known druggie and has access to deadly weapons, the police make the call, at the door, to not K&A (a discretionary decision the majority said that officers may make). During the rush into the house, the victim was suspected of holding a weapon and was fired upon, for officer safety. It turns out your wife/daughter/son was simply holding a hair brush that the officer mistook for a gun. Who's crying 4th amendment now?

Oh but not you because it has already been ruled that you have other means to remedy this violation of civil rights.

[A horrific tragedy, yes. But a mistake that happens from time to time, but by no means is this far-fetched.]

Ah, but this wasn't even murder! The officers, acted in good faith and are therefore immune to criminal or civil action. Should your attorney (you did get one, yes?) somehow be able to get past the bar to immunity and actually file the Blivens action, will you win? (You only get attorney fees awarded if you win, contrary to what the majority implied in their opinion.)

The better question is what will prevent this from happening again? This civil action will possibly deter only the local police force that the suit affects. It will do nothing to deter abuse elsewhere.

And that is the effect of removing the exclusionary rule from 4th amendment jurisprudence, even in the types of cases the majority ruled upon.
 
Contender-
You keep "trying a different way" and we keep responding the same way. We understand your point; you don't seem to understand ours.

There is not a single item in the Bill of Rights that cannot be discarded completely, if we lived in a world where there were no transgressions by Executive (that's "police") Agencies. If you feel we live in such a world, then your point is well taken and has great merit.

However, the Founders didn't live in such a world; so they enumerated Rights that were sacrosanct; they recognized that criminals might, from time to time, hide behind these Rights; but they felt it more important to protect the innocent from unwarranted police action than to guarantee that every single criminal was immediately brought to justice.

There are other forms of Government wherein the primary emphasis is on capturing the bad guys and keeping the population "safe" from them...these are inevitably defined as Totalitarian States. I dunno; maybe we've "evolved" in the past two centuries; perhaps we no longer need worry about widespread cases of agency and individual injustice.

But then, that's a pretty big "perhaps" even with my eyes closed.
Rich
 
Actually Rich you said the exact thing I was thinking once I got thru reading Antipitas's post. These days you hear more about criminals getting off on bogus technicalitys than the police making mistakes and breaking in/searching the wrong house. I'm thru with this thread because I believe we are pretty much damned if we do knock and damned if we don't knock!
 
The water is getting warmer...

At what point, at what insult to your freedom, do you say "That's it. No more!" and take up arms against the oppressor called "The US Government"?

What event has to happen before you exercise the 2nd amendment right because you're about to lose them all?

If you don't already have in mind "If X happens, it's war.", then you'll forever live on a slippery slope of "Well...it's not that bad." as you slide ever further into oppression.

The founders knew damn well that all governments eventually get oppressive, that's why they armed the citizenry, so they could affirm their rights by force when need be.

Everyone's trigger event will be different, but if you don't have one at all, you might as well turn in your paperweights now, because that's all the good they'll do you (and everyone else).
 
The water is getting warmer...
Click to expand...
Umm... are you sure? It feels the same today as yesterday, notwithstanding the fact that my skin is starting to blister. I think it's an allergic reaction to the water or something.
 
nbk-
For many (most?) of us, it's hardly time to declare armed revolution; especially when we can still execute a revolution at the polls.

The problem is (again, for many of us), our "trigger point" is the sound of a door crashing, people screaming and white light blinding. When any of us reach that "trigger point", good guys on both sides of the thin blue line die. It's already happening and if it ain't the cops fault, it surely shouldn't be the Law Abiding Citizen's fault. But both groups are still the ones dying or trying to do a job; both finding less and less stable ground on which to stand.

Meantime a shadow grows over Freedom.
Rich
 
Please. :rolleyes:
You folks aren't about to execute a 'revolution at the polls'. What are you gonna do, vote Democrat? I doubt it.
What else can you do? Nuthin'.
 
Please.
You folks aren't about to execute a 'revolution at the polls'. What are you gonna do, vote Democrat? I doubt it.
What else can you do? Nuthin'.
Click to expand...
Let's put it in perspectibve: "Revolution at the Polls" was only brought up in counterpoint to a question as to when you go to guns.

Well, there's two types of Defeatists in this world:
1) The type that commiserates about how impotent they are in the face of Real Power
2) The type that fights, knowing the odds are not on their side, but recognizing that we are defined by the fights we choose, not those we surrender.


So, what can you do?
- You start from the local level.
- You ferret out Real Constitutionalsts for Local Government, State Legislature and US House of Reps.
- You encourage and support them, whether they are Democrat, Republican, Libertaian or United Socialists of the World.

You work to raise money for them; you work to get them in office. You do the best you can.

Did you already give up GS? I suspect not. We gain our freedoms back the way we lose them....by degrees.
Rich

That's what do; don't you?
 
I could be entirely wrong in/with regard to the following however respecting this USSC ruling, it strikes me that Mr., Mrs., Ms. law abiding citizen will come out of this with the short straw.

One can put any amount of lipstick on this pig, however I believe that nothing will change the above conclusion, barring The Court reversing itself, which I submit is unlikely given the court, as it stands now, and it could get worse.

I do not have any answers to the obvious question of what's next or what to do.
 
If you're fortunate enough to find a politician or a potential politician with the cajones to stand up and fight on this side of the line... or at least say so until he gets elected and gets caught scarfing $$$ or stashing it in his freezer. Positions seem to change somehow once in Power. (Even our local Las Vegas/Clark County Recorder got busted last week for $$$)

It certainly looks like members from both parties, a majority of whom are attorneys, along with their appointed judicial bench (another flock of attorneys), are stacking the deck slowly but surely so that only THEY, as THE LAW, have ALL the rights and thus ALL the power over ALL THE PEOPLE.

Unfortunately, there are very few Larry Craig and Ron Paul types in office.

Cops and Homeowners (the majority, hopefully law-abiding) are each placed at risk should the unthinkable occur. The only ones NOT in the line of fire (or potential line of fire) are those passing the laws and those passing judgement, because they HAVE their own security forces to protect them. We call them our Police Agencies, who, it has been ruled, have no duty to protect Joe Citizen. Just Joe Citizen's Gov't.

The War on Drugs gutted the Ninth Amendment.

The Tenth? Hah!

I think that just about all of the BOR's with the exception of the 3rd and 7th have been "legislated" over or "judicially interpretted" to the point where, as Orwell wrote (and I paraphrase here) "It Means What WE Say It Means"

But whaddaIknow?

One could argue that we should all become either Attorneys or LEO's or run for office ourselves. Heaven forfend we remain individualists who think we have too much government, who own firearms and work from January to May to keep ourselves fettered on our knees. 5 months out of 12... I guess it isn't THAT bad.

Yet.

"Sure come on in. If you've got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in. Make yourself at home. What's that? Thought Crime? Guilty as charged. Sedition on the Internet? Assault Weapons? Terrorist you say? No Habeas Corpus? No Trial? No Attorney?"

Never happen here. This Is America.

Or was.

Who wrote, He who governs best governs least? Thoreau?

Oh well, he went to jail too. :D

It wasn't supposed to happen that the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Branch would ALL decide to gang up on the populace. Might as well ignore that idea as well.

"A Republic Madam. If you can keep it."

Rich, very few of the members here can afford to own a politician or two. They're pretty expensive, ya know?
 
^+1

Politicians are human and have human flaws. What *I* do is keep them pitted against each other so they don't have time to be pitted against me.
Haven't you noticed that every time one of these parties has the reins all to themselves it's our rights that suffer?
It's called checks and balances and right now we don't have any.
 
I realize that this is a "threadjack." But there is an important point to what I'm about to write.

In 2003, I ran for Mayor of my town. I lost by about 30 votes.

Since then, we've had a major police scandal as well as a hushed up scandal in the city admin involving porn on city computers. The Chief resigned in disgrace. 6 officers were forced out, some on bogus charges. The city's chief electrician was forced out.

One of the cops and the former electrician sued the city and won a settlement. Records were sealed and NDA's were signed.

Last fall, 2 council positions were up for grabs and the former Cop and the Electrician both won council seats, defeating the incumbents! Despite this win, these two guys are outnumbered in council, because the other two councilmen are of the "old guard" with the Mayor casting the deciding vote.

But all is not lost! I've been approached by several prominent citizens, to run again. A political fund has already been started. In the fall of '07, my chances of being elected are good. In addition, the other two council seats are up for election. We, my campaign director and workers, already have two people in mind to run against those incumbents. If any one of us gets elected, we will have a majority vote within the city government. Currently, the chances are very good that at least two of us will be elected, which would give us a supermajority.

From this level, we can influence who gets voted for State positions.

GoSlash, that's how you have a "Revolution at the Polls." One vote, one election at a time. But of course, that means getting involved and putting your money where your mouth is. Think big, but start small.
 
Baba-
Brilliant summary of the issues.

As concerns the "revolution at the polls": I didn't say it was easy or even likely; I simply alluded to the fact that it's a lot more productive (and genuine) than internet railing against "the Man".

In fact, when I wrote that post I was specifically thinking of Antipitas and his former bid for public office. I'm delighted to hear he's considering a second run.

Anti-
When you pull the trigger on this, please let us know. I just found a few shekels in the SWAT Magazine Political Fund. ;)
Rich
 
As concerns the "revolution at the polls": I didn't say it was easy or even likely; I simply alluded to the fact that it's a lot more productive (and genuine) than internet railing against "the Man".
Click to expand...

Actually you alluded to it as an alternative to armed insurrection. That's my point; the government is screwing us over *now*. You can support the grassroots all you want, but that's not gonna help you when the government is tapping your phone, denying you habeas corpus, disseminating taxpayer-funded propaganda in the media, snooping into your personal information without a warrant, encouraging no-knock raids....
You're not going to fight them because you're too partisan to ever vote against the people who are doing it to you. Not when the alternative is even worse.
All I'm saying is that the only recourse you have within the system is to vote in good politicians when you find them and vote out bad ones. Regardless of party. When both alternatives suck, don't help either party get a stranglehold.

By the time they come for your guns it's already too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top