And the tyranny continues. Welcome to the land of the free...where flushing the toilet is suspicious behavior. That flushing sound is your freedom going down the toilet whether you smoke or not. WASHINGTON ââ¬â The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence. Voting 8-1, the justices reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King's apartment. The court said there was no violation of King's constitutional rights because the police acted reasonably. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=3187032
I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps someone who is can correct me. But I was under the impression that the police did not need a warrant if they had "Probable Cause" of a crime being committed. In this case, the smell of pot is the Probable Cause. Picture the scene: Cops are outside the apartment of a man who is stabbing his wife. They hear the screams, but cannot enter because they are waiting on a judge to approve the warrant??
Probable cause should not violate the 4th amendment, which in this case it clearly does. The police have a right to conduct a warrant-less search in a "public" place. Your home is not a public place. Judge Napolitano, an actual libertarian unlike some of the posers at ET, is in agreement with that fact of constitutional law. Below is a cut and paste: In the criminal arena probable cause is important in two respects. First, police must possess probable cause before they may search a person or a person's property, and they must possess it before they may arrest a person. Second, in most criminal cases the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted. There are some exceptions to these general rules. Police may briefly detain and conduct a limited search of a person in a public place if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a level of belief that is less than probable cause. A police officer possesses reasonable suspicion if he has enough knowledge to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that criminal activity is occurring and that the individual played some part in it. In practice this requirement means that an officer need not possess the measure of knowledge that constitutes probable cause to Stop and Frisk a person in a public place. In any case, an officer may not arrest a person until the officer possesses probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. The requirement of probable cause for a Search and Seizure can be found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, 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 searched. All states have similar constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. The requirement of probable cause works in tandem with the warrant requirement. A warrant is a document that allows police to search a person, search a person's property, or arrest a person. A judicial magistrate or judge must approve and sign a warrant before officers may act on it. To obtain a search or arrest warrant, officers must present to the magistrate or judge enough facts to constitute probable cause. A warrant is not required for all searches and all arrests. Edit: Judge Napolitano did not write the above opinions.
Captain Obvious, are you pretending to be a libertarian now? LOL. Your politics change more then the weather here in Chicago. Hahaha.
No, but I do respect the consistency of actual Libertarians. Most of the posers here are Libertarian as it suits their personal agenda. The rest are Neo-Con Fascists hell bent on grabbing all they can while the ship sinks. The ship that they torpedoed in the first place.
OK, I'm going to call you out on that. Tell me who on here is pretending to be a libertarian to suit their political agenda. I know very few libertarians on this site. The ones I do know never post. So let me hear these names. And wtf is a neo-con fascist? That term is sort of contradictory no?
This post is fraught with contradictions. First, "First, police must possess probable cause before they may search a person or a person's property". I see no distinction between a house and, say, a car in that statement. I also see no exclusion of a house in the definition of Probable Cause you mentioned. Additionally, in your "The requirement of probable cause for a Search and Seizure can be found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, 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 searched." It says "no unreasonable searches". So the definition of unreasonable comes into play. Apart from that, I see no defense of your position. If someone is committing a crime behind the closed door of their private residence and the police know it, with or without a warrant, they can act to stop the crime. It is only for the search of said property without probable cause that you need the warrant.
The right needs law enforcement to enforce their criminal constituencies at the expense of the middleclass so they're going to keep inventing ways to keep their paychecks fat. "I smell marijuana" so they invade a home. Earned their keep for that day. The wealthy have their attack dogs chomping at the bit and at the ready.