As printed in the Los Angeles Times: Feb 25, 2014
The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said ” police need not take the time to get a magistrate’s approval before entering a home in such cases…”
But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches.
IMHO as a retired pig the Supreme Court black-robed ones just kicked out the supports holding the 4’th amendment up. The collapse now comes as the cops will use any ruse to gain entry to your home, even if they know they don’t have enough evidence for a judge to issue a warrant.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#ixzz2uUpiM1Lp
And on the same day we get this news story:
Members of Congress and constitutional law experts testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, warning that the legislative branch is in danger of ceding its power in the face of an “imperial presidency.”
The hearing, “Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” focused on the multiple areas President Barack Obama has bypassed Congress, ranging from healthcare and immigration to marriage and welfare rules.
Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, testified that the expansion of executive power is happening so fast that America is at a “constitutional tipping point.”
“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” he said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”
“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” Turley said.
http://freebeacon.com/the-imperial-presidency/
To the Libertarians who think they have a right to commit crimes on their own private premises:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Exceptions_to_the_warrant_requirement
Gil – The only time a crime has been committed is when there is a victim. Using your typical line of reasoning it was okay for the Nazis to kick in doors looking for Jews that might be hiding in your residence. After all it was “the law.” The same thing applied to hunting down runaway slaves too, since harboring a human being who merely wanted to be free was considered a “crime” at one time in U.S. history. Explain to me how raising a plant for your own personal consumption or (in the case of places like New York, D.C., Chicago, Connecticut) possessing a fiream, an inanimate object, is a crime. If you can’t show me an injured party you don’t have a crime; plain and simple.
It’s one thing to reasonably believe that someone’s life is in immediate danger and take exception to a violent perpetrator’s right to privacy. It’s a totally different matter to make excuses to do what would amount to illegal entry without the robes and medallion of office, because you’re a nosey busybody that wants to go on a fishing expedition. The Fourth Amendment was wisely put in place to prevent the latter. Some Wikipedia entry based on case law (that came from the same government that wants this power) doesn’t change the fact that authorities poking around in our homes, cars and bodies without our consent is a violation of our rights as well as the Supreme Law of the Land. It justifiably can and should be resisted by any means necessary to stop it. Once you violate my rights little troll, you implicitly forfeit your own. Gnaw on that for a while.
Gil, no victim, no crime. Please come onto my property so I can show you the difference. Oh wait, you’d be on my property without a leg to stand on so to speak. That’s ok, I have a nice place for you to nap indefinitely. Wu? Pigs hungry?
So you agree with the notion that when a crime is committed on private premises by the owner then the police have to get a warrant before they can do a thing? How quaint.
@Gil – They were searching / fishing for property. No crime was committed on the premises, and there was no emergency to enter after they had been already been told told no. Long held case law then requires a magistrate review the facts and determine if a search is permissible, and if so he will grant the request and issue search warrant for specific property to looked for and brought to him. The Wiki article exception you linked to does not apply, as they had already been told no by the owner. Or at least it did not until this new 5-4 ruling.
This case blows that long held premise of a man’s home is his castle out of the water. It is the same actions by King George and his gang that was the reason for the amendment to be written in the first place.
And it will be solved by the same actions this time around, too…
Only this time it’ll be worse.
Quite right Jean. Musket balls and sword slashes are nasty. But what a 30 caliber Nosler Ballistic Tip does to soft tissue at 3200 FPS+ is almost unbelievable.
Eightsoutman – I doubt even a pig will eat that…
Boothe, I never cease to be amazed by trolls and their aberrant personalities. You have to wonder what sort of trauma they experienced to be so bent.
Boothe, good point. I don’t use hardball unless I need some greentip for a “special purpose” as Nathan’s mama would say.
How this will work:
Mr. Rojas, you are being detained for investigation, come with us to our squad car for some Q & A.
1 minute later
Mrs. Rojas, now that you are alone in your home. Let us tell you Big Scary lie #1, #2, and #3… …OK, Mrs. Rojas, thank you for your newfound willingness to cooperate and submit to the openly tyrannical naked police state.
Effect:
Another instance of American men being relentlessly cuckolded by Big Daddy government.
Garysco =’s
bacon=> transforming into => beacon
@Tor – In the cited case the (resident) suspect said no to a search. Later, when he was not there the roommate said OK. The cops never asked for warrant, and there were no “exigent circumstances” requiring immediacy.
Now it is OK to BS anyone to get inside your home for any “reason”, even after the cops were told no, and then once inside to “search” for something they are interested in (not even a person). Well let your mind wander what Pandora’s box the Supreme’s have opened up, and where this will end up.
One of the things we need to be constantly trying to educate people about is that the Bill of Rights is NOT a granting of rights by the government. It is a partial list of rights that we have as humans and intended as a restriction on government violations/restrictions of those rights.
But in law schools these days, a class on Constitutional Law does not even LOOK a the Constitution, only at case law, i.e,. various court interpretations of what they say the Constitution means. And many of those do severe violence to the clear meaning of the document. Not that the Constitution is perfect, or necessarily even valid (especially since Appomattox). But it is written in clear English, easily understood.