Indiana repeals the 4th amendment?????

[East_TN_Patriot]

I read that as well.

What will happen is it will happen a few times without any objection then it will become common place across the nation. And in every instance they will cie the IN supreme court rulling as well as the supreme court ruling as precedent. It is not the officer's fault but the administrators fault as well as our fault for allowing it to progress.

It is a sad state of affairs in this country when citizens begin to fear LE, that is already happening, and it is about to get much, much worse.

Dolomite

That Supreme Court case is not changing case law. It has long been recognized that destruction of evidence is an exception to the warrant requirement in the 4th Amendment. If an officer has probable cause to believe a suspect is destroying evidence, they are not required to wait to obtain a warrant. The case law at the federal level has not limited this exception to any particular level of seriousness, but individual states or police agencies can restrict officers to more limited circumstances (eg. felony crimes or crimes of violence). Again, this ruling does not relieve officers of the legal requirement to establish probable cause or obtain a warrant as necessary. It also does not protect officers who make unlawful searches & seizures from civil ramifications.

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble here, but there is a very long list of established exceptions to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment including:

Destruction of evidence

Plain view

Open fields

Motor vehicles (Carroll doctrine)

Protection of life & property

Hot pursuit

International border crossings

Abandoned property

Felony arrests on probable cause

Certain misdemeanor arrests on probable cause

Consent searches

Searches incident to arrest

Inventory searches in accordance to documented and uniformly applied agency policy

Investigative detentions based upon reasonable suspicion ("Terry stop")

"Plain touch" during a lawful frisk

Exigent circumstances of compelling public interest (e.g. in the case of an escaped prisoner)

And more recent additions include:

Searches of students in public schools

"Sneak & peek" searches under the USA PATRIOT Act

Edited May 20, 2011 by East_TN_Patriot

[LagerHead]

That Supreme Court case is not changing case law. It has long been recognized that destruction of evidence is an exception to the warrant requirement in the 4th Amendment. If an officer has probable cause to believe a suspect is destroying evidence, they are not required to wait to obtain a warrant. The case law at the federal level has not limited this exception to any particular level of seriousness, but individual states or police agencies can restrict officers to more limited circumstances (eg. felony crimes or crimes of violence). Again, this ruling does not relieve officers of the legal requirement to establish probable cause or obtain a warrant as necessary. It also does not protect officers who make unlawful searches & seizures from civil ramifications.

That's the important part. It doesn't change the requirement of the 4th Amendment at all. If it did I wouldn't even be partly for it in any way. I'm still kind of torn. Even though I find it hard to argue with Napolitano I just don't Joe Crackhead holding officers at bay with a shotgun.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, while sitting on the throne in an apartment, a police officer hears the toilet flush, does that

make probable cause to allow him to break my door down? I don't think so. It also is my responsibility

to protect my family, and I will.

Most of the things East TN Patriot mentions are understandable and reasonable exclusions because they are, either in plain view, or subject to an obvious criminal activity.

Maybe the Founders should have been more specific in the Bill of Rights. the problem I have is that

constitutional law can be made to be worthless so easily. Personally, I think the police, since they can't and are not obligated to protect you, shouldn't be given such power. It is too easy for someone to abuse.

That's why the Founders put it there, in the first place.

This isn't bashing anyone except the people who commit crimes against the freedom loving

people of the United States, so please don't draw some conclusion that I care any less about police.

I just don't like giving power to anyone, especially when it was written in the Constitution to protect

Americans from unlawful searches and seizures, which is what has happened with this and the Asset

Forfeiture and seizure laws that are abused by all of government, city, state and federal.

Edited May 20, 2011 by 6.8 AR
add

[East_TN_Patriot]

So, while sitting on the throne in an apartment, a police officer hears the toilet flush, does that

make probable cause to allow him to break my door down? I don't think so. It also is my responsibility

to protect my family, and I will.

Protect them from what? The police? Are you suggesting that you have a moral obligation to "protect" your family from a police search that you believe to be unlawful? This suggests that you think there are roving bands of thug cops looking for any reason to victimize and brutalize innocent people.

Your first point is part of the problem here. You have dissolved this broad issue down into one singular overly simplistic scenario. Clearly a cop can't just walk around, listen for a toilet flush, and kick in someone's door. That's not what happened in the case that was decided. First, the police have to have lawful authority under the 4th amendment to be in a place to start with. Curtilage is protected under the 4th Amendment so the police can't just go snooping around your property. Next, the officer would have to have enough information to establish probable cause that the person in the structure is engaged in criminal activity. The concept of probable cause requires that you have enough information that a jury of other reasonably rational people would come to the same conclusion as the officer when presented with the same facts. This holds the individual officer accountable for the decisions they make and keeps them from making bold and irrational leaps in logic (like one cop I used to work with who tried to convince me that cigarette butts and a Gideon Bible in a vehicle was probable cause to search a vehicle for drugs - my immediate reply to that logic was "WHAT?!?"). Then if the officer has developed probable cause that a crime is taking place in that structure, they are required to get a warrant absent one of the exceptions established in case law. Next, they have to have probable cause that what's going on in the structure meets those requirements, again with the same logic to probable cause applied above. If the officer simply can't articulate the facts that justify the warrantless entry, they have violated the 4th Amendment and will lose the criminal case and be subject to civil, and possibly criminal, penalties.

In the case scenario, the officers were responding to a call (this covers the first requirement I mentioned), they saw and smelled marijuana (clearly PC of a crime), when they knocked and announced the suspects began to run around in the home (suggesting that they were in the process of destroying evidence), and the officers made entry. One other point is that once the officers have made entry, they can only do as much as is necessary to secure suspects and the endangered evidence, then they are generally required to stop their actions, hold the scene, and obtain a warrant to do any further searches or seizures beyond the scope of the original entry/search.

The case law mentioned in this thread did nothing to relax the pre-existing requirements under the 4th Amendment, but added additional clarification and confirmation. And just as posting gun-buster signs doesn't stop the bad guys from bringing guns into businesses, case law and legal restrictions do nothing to prevent crooked cops from violating your rights. Just be glad that the tools are there for honest cops to do their jobs and that the courts didn't relax the requirements instead of worrying about "protecting your family" from the police.

[vontar]

Interesting. What if you believe the person trying to detain you or gain entry is impersonating an officer? I guess I'd take my chances on the resisting charge rather than risk letting some waco in my house.

Kinda like castle doctrine, then let the courts sort it out. However I am pretty sure they will also at that point come in guns blazing.

Apparently the US Supreme Court made a similar ruling yesterday....

Court'>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_warrantless_entry"]Court sides with police in warrantless search - Yahoo! News

I disagree with the Ends justifying the means. Break in, get evidence then use the evidence against someone. That used to be able to be thrown out as illegally gotten evidence. Fruit of the forbidden tree.

This whole thing is about Unlawful entry, in short, they are saying they can legally unlawfully enter and the poor citizen can do nothing but bend over and take it.

I see probable cause being abused if they want to. Kinda like if a LEO wants to stop a car, follow it long enough it will make a mistake. Probable cause, =I saw the home owner giving hand signals to a known drug dealer (translation-saw the home owner wave a a neighbor)

As a Libertarian I have a problem with this on some level but I do see most LEO's as decent folks with an often thankless job. Maybe Fallguy or some other attorney or officer could tell us: what is the most common reason criminal cases are thrown out of court? I would imagine that unlawful searches must rank up there.

But you are still going to have to hire a lawyer and your house has been tossed.

I was trying to write something up but this said is pretty good

I am not a strong writer but I have strong opinions.

You know, Judge Napolitano is hard to argue with.

Resisting the State - Fox Business Video - FoxBusiness.com

Edited May 21, 2011 by vontar

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Protect them from what? The police? Are you suggesting that you have a moral obligation to "protect" your family from a police search that you believe to be unlawful? This suggests that you think there are roving bands of thug cops looking for any reason to victimize and brutalize innocent people.

Your first point is part of the problem here. You have dissolved this broad issue down into one singular overly simplistic scenario. Clearly a cop can't just walk around, listen for a toilet flush, and kick in someone's door. That's not what happened in the case that was decided. First, the police have to have lawful authority under the 4th amendment to be in a place to start with. Curtilage is protected under the 4th Amendment so the police can't just go snooping around your property. Next, the officer would have to have enough information to establish probable cause that the person in the structure is engaged in criminal activity. The concept of probable cause requires that you have enough information that a jury of other reasonably rational people would come to the same conclusion as the officer when presented with the same facts. This holds the individual officer accountable for the decisions they make and keeps them from making bold and irrational leaps in logic (like one cop I used to work with who tried to convince me that cigarette butts and a Gideon Bible in a vehicle was probable cause to search a vehicle for drugs - my immediate reply to that logic was "WHAT?!?"). Then if the officer has developed probable cause that a crime is taking place in that structure, they are required to get a warrant absent one of the exceptions established in case law. Next, they have to have probable cause that what's going on in the structure meets those requirements, again with the same logic to probable cause applied above. If the officer simply can't articulate the facts that justify the warrantless entry, they have violated the 4th Amendment and will lose the criminal case and be subject to civil, and possibly criminal, penalties.

In the case scenario, the officers were responding to a call (this covers the first requirement I mentioned), they saw and smelled marijuana (clearly PC of a crime), when they knocked and announced the suspects began to run around in the home (suggesting that they were in the process of destroying evidence), and the officers made entry. One other point is that once the officers have made entry, they can only do as much as is necessary to secure suspects and the endangered evidence, then they are generally required to stop their actions, hold the scene, and obtain a warrant to do any further searches or seizures beyond the scope of the original entry/search.

The case law mentioned in this thread did nothing to relax the pre-existing requirements under the 4th Amendment, but added additional clarification and confirmation. And just as posting gun-buster signs doesn't stop the bad guys from bringing guns into businesses, case law and legal restrictions do nothing to prevent crooked cops from violating your rights. Just be glad that the tools are there for honest cops to do their jobs and that the courts didn't relax the requirements instead of worrying about "protecting your family" from the police.

Protect my family from anyone breaking my door

down, without exclusion. All I think this did was

put the police in that category, when it shouldn't

have.

I don't understand why it is necessary to begin

with. If law enforcement is turning in to SWAT

team raids, this so called civil society is sunk.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark@Sea]

Just be glad that the tools are there for honest cops to do their jobs and that the courts didn't relax the requirements instead of worrying about "protecting your family" from the police.

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story

Oh, I'm just thrilled.

This, and any law, should be considered in light of how it can be abused. I guarantee this wonderful new tool for police will be abused, and lead to the deaths of innocent people.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Mark@Sea

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Klatu, veranda, nicto

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldogy]

Cut to the end. Destruction of evidence? What evidence is so important that we are allowing the Constitution of the US to be degraded even more so than it has already been?. All this because someone smelled MJ? Perhaps we need to rethink malum in se vs malum prohibitum and priorities. What is really important! What grows government!

just thoughts from the oldogy

Edited May 21, 2011 by oldogy

[leroy]

Wait till some hard cases (...think Rocky and Leon Houston here...) get their doors kicked in and think it's a home invasion. There are simply some places in which folks can do this stupid stuff (...read that inner city, crackhouses, dopeheads, etc....) and some places where ya cant. This is a dangerous rule. It presupposes that there will be no shooting back if a door is kicked in unannounced (...if im understanding this right...). There are some folks layin in the ground who have tried this before. It may work out in some inner city places and ghettos. It could be dangerous other places.

Food for thought.

leroy

[Guest Lester Weevils]

There have been incidents of homeowners getting shot defending against plainclothes no-knock entries on search warrants written with mistaken address.

There have been incidents of home invasions with criminals dressed up as police.

If you set up the system so that people can't legally defend against any warm body in a police uniform kicking down the door, then every home invader with a lick of sense will go find himself a police uniform for work clothes. OSHA work safety rules for home invaders.

Ain't cop bashing. Police largely follow policy and do what they are told, as they should. It is just a bad policy.

It needs to be universally accepted that police never kick down the door in the middle of the night with no warning. If police expect dangerous criminals behind the door, then Swat should set up outside the home and wake up the residents with a bullhorn to serve the warrant. Then if the residents don't comply, Swat can take whatever other actions are necessary.

I don't care if that means sometimes drugs get flushed down the toilet. A clean bust is not worth the jack-boot policy. The cops just follow the policy. They don't make the policy.

It needs to be clear that if somebody is breaking the door down with no warning, that it ain't the police, regardless of what clothes the invaders are wearing.

I'm very amiable and wouldn't get in a fight with someone I know is police, but would definitely sue later if they did it wrong. But the no-knocks happen in such a way that it isn't often clear to a homeowner that he is dealing with police.

[Caster]

Wait till some hard cases (...think Rocky and Leon Houston here...) get their doors kicked in and think it's a home invasion. There are simply some places in which folks can do this stupid stuff (...read that inner city, crackhouses, dopeheads, etc....) and some places where ya cant. This is a dangerous rule. It presupposes that there will be no shooting back if a door is kicked in unannounced (...if im understanding this right...). There are some folks layin in the ground who have tried this before. It may work out in some inner city places and ghettos. It could be dangerous other places.

Food for thought.

leroy

I dunno who Rocky and Leon are, but this is RIGHT! @ 2am I will NOT be taking the time to discern friend from foe from PoPo if my door is being kicked in. I don't have anywhere else to go, to retreat to, so if I'm cornered in my home, I'm going to start swinging.

That being said, a knock at the door anytime, and a officer with a warrant Id's himself politely; Wether I've done anything wrong or not, I'd open the door and say, "Come on in, let me put a shirt on and we'll take a ride. Wanna cup of coffee?" I know a cop never knows what's behind door number 1, but there are other MANLY qualities besides being tough and brave. COURTESY happens to be one of them.

To all the cops who are courteous and do their job without any unneeded atitude, THANK YOU, Keep your vest tight and be careful out there!

Edited May 21, 2011 by Caster

[leroy]

Caster:_______________

Check this out: Houston shootout sequence unclear » Knoxville News Sentinel.

These guys were tried twice. Mistrial (...i think first...). Acquittal on second.

leroy

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Caster:_______________

Check this out: Houston shootout sequence unclear » Knoxville News Sentinel.

These guys were tried twice. Mistrial (...i think first...). Acquittal on second.

leroy

A .357-caliber gun issued to Jones was used to fire several shots into the home and front porch of Leon Houston. According to testimony from both a Roane County lawman and a relative of the Houstons, it was on that front porch where the brothers had been dining on Vienna sausage and chocolate milk in the company of two unidentified women that they would have encountered Jones and Brown.

A bad end to a perfectly good dinner date of vienna sausage and chocolate milk!

[vontar]

Most of the points have been said and anything I say would be a rehash. The whole thing STINKS and is just not right.

Chip Chip Chip

Rights are been eroded and most people don't even notice.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Caster:_______________

Check this out: Houston shootout sequence unclear » Knoxville News Sentinel.

These guys were tried twice. Mistrial (...i think first...). Acquittal on second.

leroy

Tried twice with unlimited resources like the government has, thanks to our tax dollars, and still acquitted.

Now, ain't that interesting? Even the judge had his doubts, hmm....

[Dolomite_supafly]

I said from day one that there was something not right when there was a mistrial when officers were killed. I said either it didn't happen as portrayed or LE within the community was so out of control and so disliked that the Houston's peers would side with murderers over LE. Sounds like a little bit of both.

It has been reported numerous times that a no knock was served on the wrong house and the homeowner either gets killed or charged when they fire at the would be intruders. In instances where someone dies the person responsible for the mistake, ie the person in charge, should be charged criminally for the death rather than the usual, month off without pay and additional training. Maybe this will ensure those who are in charge are doing proper diligence in preparing for the raid. No amount of additional training or money is going to bring back an innocent person and those responsible should feel some sort of long term pain for what their negligence caused.

I just want people to be accountable for what they do. Not just LE but anyone. We have become a society of "not my fault" people. Everyone is looking for someone to point the finger at for their own shortcomings or faults. I seen it in trials when they try to blame the father's or mother's poor parenting for the reason why little johnny is a murderering POS. Fault needs to be placed squarely on those who are responsible.

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I said from day one that there was something not right when there was a mistrial when officers were killed. I said either it didn't happen as portrayed or LE within the community was so out of control and so disliked that the Houston's peers would side with murderers over LE. Sounds like a little bit of both.

It has been reported numerous times that a no knock was served on the wrong house and the homeowner either gets killed or charged when they fire at the would be intruders. In instances where someone dies the person responsible for the mistake, ie the person in charge, should be charged criminally for the death rather than the usual, month off without pay and additional training. Maybe this will ensure those who are in charge are doing proper diligence in preparing for the raid. No amount of additional training or money is going to bring back an innocent person and those responsible should feel some sort of long term pain for what their negligence caused.

I just want people to be accountable for what they do. Not just LE but anyone. We have become a society of "not my fault" people. Everyone is looking for someone to point the finger at for their own shortcomings or faults. I seen it in trials when they try to blame the father's or mother's poor parenting for the reason why little johnny is a murderering POS. Fault needs to be placed squarely on those who are responsible.

Dolomite

And this is reason enough to keep the 4th Amendment intact, to prevent ANYONE from doing this kind

of garbage.

There were plenty of opportunities to get the guy in Waco and Ruby Ridge. The same probably held true

in this case, if, in deed it needed to happen at all.

I'm always courteous to people, LEO included. I expect it in return. I don't want to live in a police state,

and I know too many police who agree with me.

[DaveTN]

The 4th amendment is alive and well. It’s obviously in much better shape than the 2nd. (Depending on how you interpret the 2nd)

Our founding Fathers did not intend for the Constitution to protect criminals. They were much tougher on them than we are today. The cops don’t need warrants signed by a Judge and how would that change anything if they did? Other than give the criminal more time to prepare.

In the story that started all this, it appears to me that the Officers had probable cause to enter the home (Domestic Violence). You may not like that but it’s here to stay. The women’s groups that got those laws passed in almost every state have more political clout than any gun rights group ever thought about having. The only group that gets more done than them is probably MADD.

If you are beating your wife; the cops are coming in. Resist if you like, you will be dead or in prison. How’s that protecting your family?

Are mistakes made? Certainly they are. It happened right here in Lebanon when the cops got the wrong house. The homeowner resisted and was shot to death.

Real cops coming through your door that you think is an illegal entry? You have legal recourse.

Fake cops coming through your door? Wow tough call. Life isn’t fair.

Many of you here that want to tie the hands of Police Officers or put their lives in danger are using the exact same arguments that the anti-gun people use against us. Sure things can go wrong. Does it happen enough to require a search warrant from a Judge when the life of an innocent person is in danger? Absolutely not.

[East_TN_Patriot]

It needs to be universally accepted that police never kick down the door in the middle of the night with no warning. If police expect dangerous criminals behind the door, then Swat should set up outside the home and wake up the residents with a bullhorn to serve the warrant. Then if the residents don't comply, Swat can take whatever other actions are necessary.

It is universally accepted policy. The courts have continuously reaffirmed the requirement for the police to "knock and announce" before gaining entry and must give the occupants reasonable time to open the door. Many states restrict this further and require warrants be served during specific hours during the daytime. Officers must request special permission for "no-knock" warrants or other variations on the established restrictions and provide probable cause that this variation is necessary. The judge must agree and sign off on it. Even in a "no-knock" warrant, the police must announce themselves immediately upon gaining entry. Police agencies also regularly restrict officers to utilizing these types of entries on a limited basis due to the potential negative ramifications of them. Agencies also regularly restrict officers from making forced entry without a warrant to violent crimes or felonies.

Again, lets be clear that these cases didn't change anything. They applied pre-existing case law that's been around for decades. Some of you folks are starting to sound like the Sovereign Citizens and act like there has been some sort of cataclysmic shift in the legal protections under the 4th Amendment. There has not been. If you really don't like this reality, then consider that you have been living most of your lives under a false impression of reality and somehow you and probably absolutely everyone you know has somehow managed to take a dump and flush without the police storming your home.

Two other important points should be mentioned here. First is one that has already been alluded to and that is the over-use of police SWAT teams. This is a topic that has been debated quite a bit in the criminal justice world. It's clear that on many occasions agencies have been a little too eager to use this massive show of force against non-violent suspects. It's also known that this explosive display of police power has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians who are responding to what they believe to be a criminal invasion of their home. This reality leads me to the second point and that is the "War on Drugs" that our nation has chosen to engage in.

The very clandestine and private nature of the illegal drug trade has required law enforcement to utilize more invasive tactics to detect and apprehend drug violators. Officers inherently adapt these techniques to all other aspects of their investigative activities that ultimately include normal citizen encounters. The violence associated with the drug war also requires officers to utilize more violent tactics, which inevitably diffuse over into normal police/citizen encounters. So while many are decrying what they see as the decline in privacy rights, they are also supporting the aggressive enforcement of drug laws not realizing that the two are not particularly separable.

So it comes down to this simple reality of life regarding the police: We want them to have the power to stop and search people, as long as they aren't stopping and searching me. We want them to have the power to arrest people, as long as they aren't arresting me. We want them to have the ability to kick in doors and point guns at people, as long as they aren't kicking in my door or pointing a gun at me. We want the police to utilize all officer safety measures possible unless they are treating me like a potential threat. We don't mind all the devious and underhanded tactics that police employ to catch bad guys, but get upset when we are the subject of them. We want our privacy rights respected, but not the privacy rights of those who want to consume certain substances that the rest of us define as evil (even if they haven't committed any other crime other than drug possession).

Ya can't have it both ways folks.

Edited May 22, 2011 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Two other important points should be mentioned here. First is one that has already been alluded to and that is the over-use of police SWAT teams. This is a topic that has been debated quite a bit in the criminal justice world. It's clear that on many occasions agencies have been a little too eager to use this massive show of force against non-violent suspects. It's also known that this explosive display of police power has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians who are responding to what they believe to be a criminal invasion of their home. This reality leads me to the second point and that is the "War on Drugs" that our nation has chosen to engage in.

Thanks East_TN_Patriot

Dunno nothin about law enforcement, but drugs, guns, and "terrorist takedowns" seem to be the biggest use of no-knock warrants? Plenty of live footage on police-oriented documentary TV programs has shown drug no-knocks. They yell "Police" then bang down goes the door. The resident would have to be as fast as "The Flash" comic book character to have any chance of answering the door before they come streaming in.

I'm not pro-drug, but am anti-war-on-drugs. The cure is worse than the disease. Civil liberties are more important than putting addicts and dealers in jail. If the addicts can get what they want at Rite-Aid or the liquor store, then the dealers will have to get a real job or enter some other crime specialty.

[leroy]

I think this is a bit over the top:

So it comes down to this simple reality of life regarding the police: We want them to have the power to stop and search people, as long as they aren't stopping and searching me. We want them to have the power to arrest people, as long as they aren't arresting me. We want them to have the ability to kick in doors and point guns at people, as long as they aren't kicking in my door or pointing a gun at me. We want the police to utilize all officer safety measures possible unless they are treating me like a potential threat. We don't mind all the devious and underhanded tactics that police employ to catch bad guys, but get upset when we are the subject of them. We want our privacy rights respected, but not the privacy rights of those who want to consume certain substances that the rest of us define as evil (even if they haven't committed any other crime other than drug possession).

Ya can't have it both ways folks.

Most folks simply want to be left alone and secure in their own homes. I keep hearing about this "war on drugs" and handling of thugs. There aint much of that goin on in my estimation. If LEO gets lucky enough (...or, in most cases, is allowed....) to find some of these chumps; the legal system simply lets them go. In my mind, at least, the idea of "agressive enforcement" of laws is laughable.

I and many others are, indeed, alarmed at the idea that the police or anyone else for that matter could kick your door in without announcing themselves all in the name of "suspicion of wrongdoing".

ET: I noticed that you live in north knox county (...powell...). In the last couple of years there have been two or three home invasions that resulted in death either to the perpetrators of the invasion or the homeowner. There is a case on trial right now in the knox county court RE: a home invasion in south knoxville that left three people dead. Two innocents in the house; and one thug. This crime was perpetrated on a retired LEO officer, who the perpetrators knew, and were willing to try to kill in order to take his perscription medication.

The fact is that folks are edgy. They do not feel safe in their own homes and are wary of those knocking on their doors; let alone those who would put their foot to the door and kick their way in; no matter who they purport to be --- thug or LEO. There are lots of folks (...including me...) who cant tell the difference when the door cracks in; and that is the exact crux of the problem.

To be looked upon as "protectors of the community" and legitimate representatives of government, it is my view (...and i believe the view of many others...) that LEO should be held to a high standard of conduct. Once you kick in the wrong door and shoot the wrong family member, it simply aint enough to say "sorry, we made a mistake", and go on about your business. To say that these "wrong entries" dont happen is to ignore reality. I do not believe that the LEO enterprise is in any way anything other than a microcosm of anything other than the whole of society. That says to me that they are just as prone to do the wrong or mistaken thing as anyone else. This aint LEO bashing; its a simple observation of the reality of things.

The fact is that this ruling is dangerous to both citizens and LEO. The point of this whole little essay is to say in the kindest possible terms that not all judicial rulings are beneficial or necessarily correct.

I'll close with this observation:.... In our system (...for the time being, at least...) the government derives its power from the consent of the governed (...as some smart guy said years ago...). When government infringes on that consent (...which i think this does...), there is an inevitable pushback. The wise among the "governors" understand that well and are faithful stewards of the power handed to them by the "consent of the governed". This ruling stretches the forbearance of the governed and means nothing to the thug element in our society. All in all, this is a bad ruling and should be quietly set aside. There are simply places where application of this ruling is a dangerous thing. This ruling presupposes a docile and unarmed populace. There are places where this is simply not so. Many of them are in Tennessee (...and i would assume, in other locations as well...).

Food for thought.

leroy

[DaveTN]

I think this is a bit over the top:

Most folks simply want to be left alone and secure in their own homes.

So when your daughter or your Granddaughter is getting her face beaten in by her thug drug dealer boyfriend she decided to live with; you want the cops to stand by and call a Judge?

This isn’t about a bunch of quotes from our founding fathers being taken out context. It’s about real life innocent citizens being in danger and calling the Police to save their lives.

Standing around and waiting while someone gets a Judge out of bed? You can’t be serious. It wasn’t that way when I was a cop and I pray it never goes that way.

Who would you blame when you found out the cops were on-scene and standing by waiting on a Judge while your daughter was killed. Is your daughter or granddaughter an acceptable causality? Mine isn't.

Maybe the Officers sent to tell you your relative was dead could offer some quotes to help you feel better.

Food for thought Leroy.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

In cases where police partially-dissasemble a residence or vehicle looking for contraband, but they don't find any contraband-- Is there a requirement that the police should put it back the way it was, or at least pay the cost of putting it back the way it was? Just wondering.

Long ago saw incidences where the police didn't put it back the way it was, but dunno if that was or was not legal.

Back around 1970 there was this kid who was probably a light-weight teen dealer. I didn't know. The police never caught him in the act. More than once the police would pull him over and disassemble his junky old VW on the side of the road. Not finding anything, they would drive off with him standing there by his VW, seats and assorted parts strewn all over the sidewalk. Always wondered if that is legal. Doesn't seem right anyway.

As before, ain't sayin bad about police. Just wondering about policy which would lead to such behavior. The police gotta do what they's told, if they wanna keep the job. Just like everybody else.

[DaveTN]

In cases where police partially-dissasemble a residence or vehicle looking for contraband, but they don't find any contraband-- Is there a requirement that the police should put it back the way it was, or at least pay the cost of putting it back the way it was? Just wondering.

No.

Back around 1970 there was this kid who was probably a light-weight teen dealer. I didn't know. The police never caught him in the act. More than once the police would pull him over and disassemble his junky old VW on the side of the road. Not finding anything, they would drive off with him standing there by his VW, seats and assorted parts strewn all over the sidewalk. Always wondered if that is legal. Doesn't seem right anyway.

He had recourse against the Officers if they were violating the law. Based on what you describe I can only guess that he chose not to pursue that because he was a criminal and it was the cost of doing business. Agree??