Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DiabloLoco]

Another topic to discuss with your spouse, minions, and any other person that you have residing in your home.

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#ixzz2uShayhFz

Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.
The 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg in dissent and faulted the court for retreating from the warrant rule.
"Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today's decision tells the police they may dodge it," Ginsburg said.

[MamaLiberty]

The only surprise is that these three statists did not go along with it! Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ginsburg are no friends of liberty.

[fred.greek]

Where does it say, unless someone else says it's ok?

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

[MamaLiberty]

Where does it say, unless someone else says it's ok?

Amendment 4
 but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

It's all in the big "BUT" here... Remember who gets to determine what is "probable cause"... ain't any of us.

[Rarick]

Yeah instead of defaulting to NO, they are setting up a default to YES whenever possible in their analysis.  A definite case of totalitarian and statist thinking is occupying the bench in SCOTUS............  I have yet to see a "Null and void because we couldn't see where this law fell in compliance with the constitution, nor is there any part of the constitution that specifically allows for this.  Shall not be Violated, and shall not be infringed require very careful and specific definition.  This does not pass standard, repealed.

[mouse]

So if you refuse a search they can coerce your elderly grandfather into agreeing, then do it anyway?

[MamaLiberty]

So if you refuse a search they can coerce your elderly grandfather into agreeing, then do it anyway?

If he is easily influenced or intimidated, yes. Not my grandfather, God rest him. He was much more stubborn and independent than I am. LOL

[Silver]

Where does it say, unless someone else says it's ok?

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

The courts have added "or upon a claim of receiving permission from a dog" for many years now.

The 4th amendment is a dead letter.  The constitution has succeeded brilliantly in
allowing the federal government to expand its size and power without limit.

Peace,

Silver

[Adventurer, Explorer, Inquiring Mind.]

So if you refuse a search they can coerce your elderly grandfather into agreeing, then do it anyway?

If he is easily influenced or intimidated, yes. Not my grandfather, God rest him. He was much more stubborn and independent than I am. LOL

I've known you for some time now.  I can safely say I am unaware that it was possible to be more stubborn than you.

[MamaLiberty]

I've known you for some time now.  I can safely say I am unaware that it was possible to be more stubborn than you.

LOL My father's people were Scottish Highlanders, and I've often thought they are the most stubborn people on earth. Except perhaps for the Dutch... My mother's ancestors were from Holland.  Double whammy. LOL  The only grandfather I ever even met was the Dutchman.

[Bill St. Clair]

LOL My father's people were Scottish Highlanders, and I've often thought they are the most stubborn people on earth. Except perhaps for the Dutch... My mother's ancestors were from Holland.  Double whammy. LOL  The only grandfather I ever even met was the Dutchman.

My wife's mother says she used to think the Scots were the most stubborn people on the planet, until she met (and married) a Finn. I'm Scot on both sides, but my wife is much more stubborn.

[Who...me?]

Where does it say, unless someone else says it's ok?

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

The courts have added "or upon a claim of receiving permission from a dog" for many years now.

The 4th amendment is a dead letter.  The constitution has succeeded brilliantly in
allowing the federal government to expand its size and power without limit.

Peace,

Silver

Now I understand why they seem to shoot everybody's dog...so the mutt cant testify that he did not give permission...it all makes sense now