Tweet
Our Constutional Rights that is.....In the news today: The Surpreme Court ruled this week that Police Officers may enter and search a home without a warrant so long as one occupant consents even if the owner has previously objected and denied the request....
The ruling based on a Los Angeles Police dept search gives Police more leeway to search homes without obtaining a search warrent from a Judge even in situations where there is no emergency...
This case started when LA Cops knocked on a home owners door and asked to come in and look around...The owner refused and said they had no right to search his home without a warrent....They took him in for questioning on another case they were working on and thought he might be a suspect....Later Police went back and asked his girlfriend if they could come in and search for a weapon...Since she wasn't there when the earlier request was made and she wasn't told that her boyfriend and homeowner had already said no to the search request she said ok ........
In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court ruled that the home owner didn't have the right to refuse the search after his girlfriend gave the ok even though he had previously that day said no and he wasn't there to stand up for his rights...
In the past the court had described the protection against home searches as the "Very Core" of the fourth amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures and to search a home a Police Officer would need probable cause and a warrent from a Judge in order to do a search if the occupant refused their initial request under their 4th admendment rights...
I wasn't sure if I should put this post in General, RKBA or here but it could go in any of them....As for RKBA what if the Jack Boots do start going house to house looking to confiscate guns and there is nobody home but your latch key 13 year old, is a kid going to know their constitutional right to say no? The Cops could just say "Well the kid shook his head so we went in"....They Police already use this tactic when a drug dog is involved in a search, They can say "Well Your Honor the dog gave an indication so we went in" What was the indication, waging his tail, sitting down, licking his nuts???...Truth is the sign is whatever the dog did when they wanted to search somebody....
Don't get me wrong here...I'm a law and order guy and I support the Police but this no warrent search is crap IMHO....Bottom line is the SCOUS is supposed to be there to protect the citizens constitutional rights not bend them until the scream for mercy....Sorry for the rant but this just isn't right and we seem to be losing more and more of our God given rights everyday and it seems the 9 SCOUS judges are becoming the destroyer of and not the defender of the rights of the citizens....What do ya'll think about this?
The ruling based on a Los Angeles Police dept search gives Police more leeway to search homes without obtaining a search warrent from a Judge even in situations where there is no emergency...
This case started when LA Cops knocked on a home owners door and asked to come in and look around...The owner refused and said they had no right to search his home without a warrent....They took him in for questioning on another case they were working on and thought he might be a suspect....Later Police went back and asked his girlfriend if they could come in and search for a weapon...Since she wasn't there when the earlier request was made and she wasn't told that her boyfriend and homeowner had already said no to the search request she said ok ........
In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court ruled that the home owner didn't have the right to refuse the search after his girlfriend gave the ok even though he had previously that day said no and he wasn't there to stand up for his rights...
In the past the court had described the protection against home searches as the "Very Core" of the fourth amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures and to search a home a Police Officer would need probable cause and a warrent from a Judge in order to do a search if the occupant refused their initial request under their 4th admendment rights...
I wasn't sure if I should put this post in General, RKBA or here but it could go in any of them....As for RKBA what if the Jack Boots do start going house to house looking to confiscate guns and there is nobody home but your latch key 13 year old, is a kid going to know their constitutional right to say no? The Cops could just say "Well the kid shook his head so we went in"....They Police already use this tactic when a drug dog is involved in a search, They can say "Well Your Honor the dog gave an indication so we went in" What was the indication, waging his tail, sitting down, licking his nuts???...Truth is the sign is whatever the dog did when they wanted to search somebody....
Don't get me wrong here...I'm a law and order guy and I support the Police but this no warrent search is crap IMHO....Bottom line is the SCOUS is supposed to be there to protect the citizens constitutional rights not bend them until the scream for mercy....Sorry for the rant but this just isn't right and we seem to be losing more and more of our God given rights everyday and it seems the 9 SCOUS judges are becoming the destroyer of and not the defender of the rights of the citizens....What do ya'll think about this?
Comment