Police Search Power Boosted

[Jim Finnel]

The Supreme Court Says Officers May Break into Homes in Certain Drug Cases.

The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.

Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ...forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.

An expert on criminal searches said the decision would encourage the police to undertake "knock and talk" raids.

"I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along," said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark.

In the past, the court has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, "The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." One exception to the search warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence.

The Kentucky case began when police in Lexington sought to arrest a man who had sold crack cocaine to an informer. They followed the man to an apartment building, but lost contact with him. They smelled marijuana coming from one apartment. Though it turned out not to be the apartment of their suspect, they pounded on the door, called, "Police," and heard people moving inside.

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

The Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky vs. King that the officers' conduct "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking in 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," Alito 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.

The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether police had faced an emergency situation in this case.


NewsHawk: Jim Behr: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2011 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: latimes.com
Details: MapInc
Author: David G. Savage

 

[SMOKE 1]

str8 BULLSHIT!!! R you serious? Even thou they already did this now they really have a reason and a way to enter YOUR house without a warrant!

 

[G-Dog]

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ...forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.


The only righteous justice on the panel. It turns my stomach. This case really bothers me. All the police read these rulings and will be acting on them immediately. Cops will be kicking down doors right and left after this. They were in the wrong apartment and the man still got 11 years. I am not a fan of cocaine or crack, but I am a fan of the US Constitution. What these asshole cops did and what the supreme court pigs approved is a huge loss to the American people.

 

[DL-Toker]

The Supreme Court hasn't had the best track record lately, and this is just a further example. It seems the nation is being converted from 'by the people, for the people' to 'by the government, for the same'. Anti-drug legislation and related court decisions have done more to nibble away and destroy our Constitutional protections than pretty much anything else.

Please don't get me wrong: I avoid hard drugs...pretty much anything but Cannabis...like the plague. Have seen too much of what they can and will do to otherwise okay people back when I was a cheapskate and lived in the ghetto...think DUMB kid. Lost a close friend to that stuff, too. Still not necessarily advocating for the legalization of anything but MJ. All that said, methinks the cure is worse than the disease. This decision goes beyond opening the door to potential abuse: it bulldozes a hole in everyone's wall just in case access is needed.

Any LEO with 2 brain cells to rub together can look at the Decision and see that going forward, they can 'smell something suspicious' outside anyone's door, knock and 'hear suspicious noise' from within, then kick the door down. Strictly to protect evidence from being destroyed, of course.

I find it fascinating that absolutely nothing (that I have seen, at least) has been made of that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. I guess everyone who matters has agreed that it's really just a loophole...much more important to protect the proles from themselves.

Me? Bitter? Naw, not a bit...what ever gave you that idea? We have such amazing strengths as a nation, but choose to hobble ourselves in so many ways...so frustrating...yep, time for another toke...or 4

Nope, the decision still sucks. Though more blazed than I was - wasn't kidding about the bong hits - I am still horrified. More now than I was this morning when I first heard about it. The erosion continues and deepens...

 

[Propa Gator]

When I was young, old folks said this country was going to Hell, and that
Music trends in those early 60s were awful! Indeed???
Where are those anachronistic fogeys now?
Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who's the luckiest geezer of all
I've lived my life(mostly) prior to the fall, and now
Much that I see, hear and smell is corrupt offal.

They shoot horses, don't they? Can a Gator get a break?
Oh, nevermind
I hear the sirens singing my song

 

[branson111190]

I know one thing for sure ... they kick down my door they're fucking paying for it because they wont find shit .

 

[primebadboy]

Dont most US. states allow the use of lethal force when it comes to protecting ones home,and private property? They should be shot!!!

 

[Thew1sest]

Dont most US. states allow the use of lethal force when it comes to protecting ones home,and private property? They should be shot!!!

Good ol' Texas

 

[DL-Toker]

Dont most US. states allow the use of lethal force when it comes to protecting ones home,and private property? They should be shot!!!

Many states allow residents to use lethal force in self-protection. FROM CRIMINALS. Don't forget that we are talking POLICE breaking your door down, not criminals.

If you manage to survive shooting AT the police, much less actually hitting one, you're done. Under the jail with the key melted down and made into a belt buckle for the cop you shot at. Finished.

Firearms are NEVER the answer when dealing with police. Ever. Please, please understand this. Unless you like either dying in a hail of bullets or hanging out in prison, forever, trying to use a gun to deal with police is guaranteed to only make the situation worse. I promise.

Please excuse me for jumping in with both feet on this: loose, irresponsible talk re: firearms makes the site look bad and gives a really negative image to all its members. It also plays into highly negative 'pothead' and 'druggie' stereotypes among those who aren't friendly to the CannaCause.

I'm with ya on the outrage over the Court's travesty, but the answer has nothing to do with firearms. That is about changing/rewriting the law. Legally.

Please note that I am not advocating for or against private gun ownership or legitimate self-defense, only taking issue with what I see as an irresponsible statement.

Sorry for the rant. Truly, I mean no offense to anyone, especially Prime. I hear and share the outrage. Nevertheless, loose firearms talk is a real hot-button for me, though.

I'm usually much more positive

 

[G-Dog]

I resisted commenting DL, because gun talk brings out the worst. I agree with what you say. Many states consider shooting a cop an aggrivated form of murder, like murder 1 or in the first degree and impose death penalties. And as you say, if you even survive long enough to make it to court. Cops are brothers in a war zone and consider anyone that harms a cop a top priority. They have parades in towns at tax payer expense to honor fallen cops, and they do shit like that even for police dogs. And in most states and under federal guidelines marijuana offenses are aggrivated by firearms even being in the presense of a grow or dealer operation.

 

[DL-Toker]

Thanks for the support, G! I usually bite my tongue, too...until I can't :-[ 'Nuff said there, tho. Sounds like we're in full agreement. Back to the subject at hand!

 

[primebadboy]

Sorry people i meant no disrespect,it was a figure of speech ,(i live in CANADA) and don't pretend to know any of your state laws...I am just blown away that with how serious the american people take the constitution that 8 people out of 9 voted to allow a persons RIGHTS to be STOMPED all over ,Wether they own their home or wether they are renting their PRIVATE residence should never be allowed to be VIOLATED!!!! makes me sick !!! I hope they decide to change their ruling. Property owners and Renters allike have the RIGHT to their PRIVACY!!! Again NO OFFENCE to anyone PEACE

 

[DL-Toker]

Sorry people i meant no disrespect,it was a figure of speech ,(i live in CANADA) and don't pretend to know any of your state laws...I am just blown away that with how serious the american people take the constitution that 8 people out of 9 voted to allow a persons RIGHTS to be STOMPED all over ,Wether they own their home or wether they are renting their PRIVATE residence should never be allowed to be VIOLATED!!!! makes me sick !!! I hope they decide to change their ruling. Property owners and Renters allike have the RIGHT to their PRIVACY!!! Again NO OFFENCE to anyone PEACE

Hey, man, thank you for your understanding. Sorry to have jumped like that, but firearms are such a huge political thing down here (yep, you found an American), and we're already 'out of the mainstream' on this site, given what we all want legalized. .

Back to the point of the thread, I couldn't agree with you more regarding the privacy implications of the decision. I am still flatly stunned that the Court could take such action. With ya 300%...and seriously, thank you for your understanding. I'd much rather get beyond differences and on to similarities and shared interests

It's great to be among like-minded people and who knows? Perhaps we Americans will pull our heads out of...an impolite place...and strengthen privacy laws in a big way. We need to put the teeth back into legal privacy...

 

[primebadboy]

It has been said when the AMERICAN people stand united on an issue,and present that opinion LOUD and as one voice the goovernment will back down every time ,,it's just the people seem to be unaware they posses that great a power.

 

[G-Dog]

Whether you rent or buy your home you are supposed to be guaranteed the same protections under the 4th amendment of the US Constitution period. These cops made a mistake (entering the wrong apartment chasing a suspect) and took an opportunity to bust someone else. Probably feeling pretty lucky they did find drugs to justify their mistake and not be held liable for civil damages. If a cop broke my door down and I was clean I would not just go after them for money, but all the jobs of the parties involved. I do hold my personal privacy very high and consider my home my sanctuary away from evil. I do want to feel free to protect my home with necessary force for those reasons. What this ruling does is throw a monkey wrench into the whole idea of a man's home being his own.

 

[branson111190]

The whole system is grinding towards a massive meltdown . I agree with people not knowing the power they hold to voice what they believe . Land of the free home of the brave ? We are all slaves to the vice grip the government has on the balls of this country , not enough people know how to stand up for what they believe !

 

[DL-Toker]

Prime's dead right about the power of the people. Funny it takes a Canadian to remind us 'rugged individualist' Americans of the facts. Good lookin' out and speaking up, my man.

The US government certainly understands the power of the people - it's done everything possible to subvert and distract its citizens in so many ways for so many years, now...imagine that. The pendulum will swing back...and when it does...hehe.

May it swing soon!

 

[Propa Gator]

When millions of Americans twice asked BHO on town hall, about "our" governments ridiculous position on cannabis, we were first laughed at, then ignored. He is a tool. Our government officials dance to music played by their owners, and it 'ain't us, Bubba'. We exist in a capitalist society, where the highest bidder names the tune. Major policies are directed in back rooms, including wording for use upon the product. Same product sold to advertisers on TV: us, but on a grand scale. "It isn't personal. It's just business"

Don't blame cops, they are mere pawns. Their self-will has been replaced in training. Honor the threat they pose, but don't seek humane report with any.

Blame local politicians, but don't expect lasting or significant changes through them. You will always be either out-bid, or trumped.

Blame national politicians, but their price is way beyond mere mortal reach. They've all been apprised of the price to pay if they don't 'play ball by the rules'. Pluma o Plata: Either a comfortable life of wealth, or political death and separation from the public teat. Idiotically speaking the old cliches, and quoting flawed statistic(to be generous) seems impossible, considering facts easily learned. How could they be so 'thick'? Their skin may be thick, but their mouths have been told what to say. "Plumo o plata baby, how you want to play?"

The owners remain nameless, as they wish. They can afford anonymity and separation, which is necessary for real, personal security. They profit from large-scale commerce and will squash individuals who threaten their play. Some "little" people are punished for public instruction purposes, in shockingly and heart-breaking ways. Just "sending a message".

Gandhi's followers beat the 'Raj' with wide-spread non-violent civil disobedience, and boycott. That's the way, but is there time?
I keep a low public profile, and try to be lucky. Squeeky wheels get greased in my world.

 

[branson111190]

Is there time ? Always . Even in the worst of situations and near impossible ones , something can happen . Nothing is impossible , I think we have to stop hoping and doing .

The pendulum will swing back...and when it does...hehe.

May it swing soon!

Newton's 3rd law , everything has an equal and opposite reaction . Except we may have discovered perpetual motion with an increased output , the power of the people will come back tenfold !

 

[MasterLynxx]

Innocent until proven Guilty? Not if they can incarcerate you, you're not. That would be a complete contradiction of the definition of INNOCENT!!!
Not just in our homes, but everywhere the government controls, or seeks to control, is it that they have the "RIGHTS" to own and control in which "THEY" see & deem as fit. It is our Blindness that allows them this "RIGHT" to so.

It is now the home. It used to be the farmer that grew to much to the farmer in town no-one liked; the creator/inventor getting ahead/the 'upper-hand'; the car with the loud music & "Dark" figure in the car to the "Klan's"; the dwelling that uses to much electricity, or brewed their own mix... Or the "N" with his pants round their ankles, that has to be dealing crack... Or worse yet, that grown man (not the DAD- NOOOOO!!!) near the playground...
We have been fighting this amendment, of some form since I can relate in history. In the 60's it was Black "Folks". In the 40's & 50's it was anyone Italian, or Irish... 20's & 30's Mexican's, Asian's, immigrants of lower standings...
We give up our rights, for our securities... We fear more then what our desire to know the truth is. We have the desire to go into the UN-known, yet we all wait until someone else goes first, then condemn them for every aspect of their voyage...
Then turn-around and condone them for the crimes they've committed during the process, and claim it in the name of "___" God, Justice, Government, Taxes, Security, and my favorite, "FUTURE Endeavors!!!"
Being raised in institutions and homes I learned along time ago "WE" have no "RIGHTS" to say "They can or can't do something, or enter somewhere's with or without prior consent and knowledge of their presence. "We" have no right if an "Officer" or even a citizen wants to "ASSAULT" or "KIDNAP" anyone of us for any reason, from any aspect or part of our life. When they wrote our constitution, they intentionally left loop holes and easy eyelet's for them to alter and adjust, to deemed fit. It is the teachings of the "Roman" culture that they have utilized to lead "US" blindly into agreeing with every paper introduced to "US" as appropriate, or "a part of" life. We have been brought up that if we are innocent, "just let them ravish and dissect any part of you're life they want. You have nothing to worry about right"? (Mr. M. Strindberg)
"If you're guilty is when you run..." is what any "legal official" will say. You have no rights as our constitution is written, the "Patriot Act" is the direct result of proof that our rights, are simple privileges... Grow up in an institution. Watch you're birthdays, holiday's go by without even a simple "Happy" or "Merry". And you grow to see, you're life is a f*cking privilege and everything in it. Including what we believe is our rights.
The 'right' to eat; have a bed; clean clothes. a Dr. to see once a decade... Are you kidding me, an Education... or what if HIGH school just wasn't enough; get a better education? Go to work for the rest of your life, to pay off the extra education (that is turning out to now be a waste of time and money, reports say...). When you grow up in society, you're taught these are rights, you live enslaved from birth, you learn these ARE privileges to be deserved or lost.

Freedom to speak ...and say what? Anything that is deemed inappropriate or discomforting is now UN-lawful, or illegal. Say bomb on a plane... call an "Officer" on their character... and see what happens. Incarceration=imprisonment
Imprisonment=enslavement
Read a Dictionary, then read some court documents...

You're "Right" to privacy -is that of what you're neighbor deems comfortable.

You're right to bear arms, -a discussion as to whether or not you "NEED" to own a "SEMI-Auto" weapon to hunt.
...really????

You don't have to prove guilt, but prove you're innocence.
Just the simple mention of a rumor is evident enough to have a "Just" cause to intrude on everything. Look how simply a "POLITICAL" Career can be re-born, or destroyed based on how it's presented, from something that would put anyone of us in jail. It doesn't mean a thing if it turns out to be an invalid accusation or not, you're name's "scarred" for life...
If you have a 'scar', you know 'the scar' always has a story; & every story is in the presentation.

"In the Best interest of..." or "On the side of caution..." I bet is something everyone of us has heard in regard's to anything outside the "BOX" or "Norm", or if you've ever been to court.

I support our constitution, and giving the power to the people, but the way our rights have been written, we are all doomed for enslavement. But that's where the problem lies, in part.
Whether a whip, and 7' Goliath is used to brutally enforce authority, or the mental manipulation that "You brought it on yourself" is the tormentor, it is still communism, and suppression from any perspective you look at it from. Most minds see every incident as a single event, when in reality it has to be perceived from a worldly "from space" perspective -look at more aspects of human existence from more of an 'outside the box' perspective.
I myself, have been raised "hallucinogen-ticized" my whole life, and it wasn't until I was able to break free, to intoxicate myself, that I learned to see things in a whole new light and began to pay attention to simple evident facts right there in front of us all, as well as some of the nightmare's I've been obligated to endure.
Here, a few similar events I've encountered, have been an immediate arrest for "failure to provide proof of identity" based on a "Cop" thinking I looked like a suspect in a robbery over 2miles away. Mind you, I was just an average "Joe" -waiting at a bus-stop, with my headphones on ,minding no-ones business -not even my own. Approached, interrogated (questioned) arrested & then charged; arresting me on an outstanding warrant (which mind you was for a $27.00 U.S.D. surcharge from over a year previous)...
I was arrested and charged with 'resisting arrest' and for 'failure to abide an officer's instructions' due to an apt. I was asked to babysit for a few minutes in while the mother went to the store, with my girlfriend at the time. The door, was double sided dead-bolt so you had to have the key, the owner was in possession of, to open. They kicked in the door, because I was unable to, and arrested me... then charged me.
We have no ability to fight a war, let alone an individual argument against a completely corrupted system, that we give the authority and consent to. We would have to "Stand-Up" and "Stop" letting the Government confuse the already minuscule, naive minded, foolish american.
(Look how simple it is to scam the "Average" American. Seriously, have you ever read some of em', you have got to be f*cking retarded to believe the b*llsh*t their trying to sell you.)

We need to stop letting them in our schools to be honest, but that's a whole different topic. We need to stop buying, their bullsh*t lies and their worthless GAS!!!!!!! Stop letting them decide where our money is spent, or who produces it... We would find our rights as written, can be practiced as presented initially, but we need to do something together. UNITED, and we shall overcome. Divided, and we shall always be violated.

So in ending, it is not surprising to me that they went along with this judgement, nor is it surprising they got the law passed. Pay attention now, the election is just around the corner, and I'm not mentioning this to vote and make a difference, but to pay attention to the realities of who, how & why they're running & who/how they get into their office(s) of choice. Then watch what really happens after the voting's done...

The Supreme Court Says Officers May Break into Homes in Certain Drug Cases.

The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.

Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ...forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.

An expert on criminal searches said the decision would encourage the police to undertake "knock and talk" raids.

"I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along," said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark.

In the past, the court has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, "The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." One exception to the search warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence.

The Kentucky case began when police in Lexington sought to arrest a man who had sold crack cocaine to an informer. They followed the man to an apartment building, but lost contact with him. They smelled marijuana coming from one apartment. Though it turned out not to be the apartment of their suspect, they pounded on the door, called, "Police," and heard people moving inside.

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

The Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky vs. King that the officers' conduct "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking in 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," Alito 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.

The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether police had faced an emergency situation in this case.


NewsHawk: Jim Behr: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2011 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: latimes.com
Details: MapInc
Author: David G. Savage