PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes



sirgonzo420
16th May 2011, 01:37 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/sc-dc-0517-court-search-20110516,0,6820148.story


The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.



...
It began when police in Lexington, Ky., were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer and then walked into an apartment building. They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one. They pounded on the door and called "Police. Police. Police," and heard the sounds of people moving.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in, and they broke down the door. They found Hollis King smoking marijuana, and put him under arrest. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

But the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned his conviction and ruled the apartment break-in violated his 4th Amendment right against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Police had created an emergency by pounding on the door, the state justices said.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal from state prosecutors and reversed the ruling in Kentucky vs. King. Alito said the police conduct in this case "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking down the door to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

...

Ares
16th May 2011, 01:48 PM
Copying Indiana I see.

platinumdude
16th May 2011, 03:21 PM
This is huge, and only one reply so far? The supreme court just threw out a major part of the constitution in an 8-1 fashion.

Awoke
16th May 2011, 03:24 PM
I think it's just because nothing surprises a lot of us any more. Sadly.
Thanks for the OP!

mick silver
16th May 2011, 03:25 PM
i am shock ............ not really

Book
16th May 2011, 03:31 PM
http://darlingtonplumbing.com/Silent-Flush.html

Exhibit "A" for the Defense your honor...

:D

Twisted Titan
16th May 2011, 04:03 PM
when injustice becomes LAW rebellion becomes DUTY

Glass
16th May 2011, 04:11 PM
"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

This suggests that any private citizen can break down your door if they suspect you are engaging in a crime in your home.

Half Sense
16th May 2011, 04:13 PM
Uh, wouldn't you have to "move through the house" in order to ANSWER YOUR DOOR?

So, if Police knock on your door and you get up to answer it, they can legally bust the door down without a warrant.

mrnhtbr2232
16th May 2011, 04:15 PM
Ho hum, another day, another loss of rights. I guess now I'll have to keep a battle rifle by the damn toilet just so I can take a dump.

sirgonzo420
16th May 2011, 05:12 PM
According to the decision, the SCOTUS did not decide if there were "exigent cicumstances" or not, just that the cops' actions were 'lawful' and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, assuming there *were* "exigent circumstances".

The SCOTUS said whether or not there were "exigent cicumstances" is an issue that should be remanded back to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Since the Kentucky Supreme Court originally said there were "exigent circumstances", but only because the cops caused those "exigent circumstances" in the first place, which invalidated their claim, I figure they (Kentucky S.C.) might say that the circumstances weren't really exigent in the first place, and that someone moving, talking, or flushing a toilet, is just fuckin' that, and isn't an "exigent circumstance" requiring one's door to be kicked in by thugs shouting "POLICE!".

Son-of-Liberty
16th May 2011, 05:14 PM
tag

vacuum
16th May 2011, 05:32 PM
I suppose that, if, theoretically, police could hear evidence being destroyed, that would give them probable cause. But this is just a completely impossible and impractical decision to reach. Sound doesn't provide enough information as to what is happening unless you literally hear someone say "hey, flush these drugs down the toilet! quick!" from someone yelling across the room to someone else.

Cobalt
16th May 2011, 05:45 PM
The court jesters need to quit hearing cases while they are high

Dogman
16th May 2011, 05:45 PM
I suppose that, if, theoretically, police could hear evidence being destroyed, that would give them probable cause. But this is just a completely impossible and impractical decision to reach. Sound doesn't provide enough information as to what is happening unless you literally hear someone say "hey, flush these drugs down the toilet! quick!" from someone yelling across the room to someone else.


But it does give them another Bullshit way to cover their asses, when they bust down your door! If they want they will, but may get thrown out of court. With this ruling any sound or no sound, just suspecting someone is
home, they can claim they heard what they thought they heard, even if total bullshit, they have the excuse to
charge in. End result it makes it easer for them to get a conviction, less chance of unlawful entry and have the case thrown out.

sirgonzo420
16th May 2011, 05:53 PM
The court jesters need to quit hearing cases while they are high


Judges are always the highest in the room...