Police no longer need warrants to raid homes

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

mintpressnews.com/213964-2/213964/

Precedent established in Wisconsin.

Fucking nifty the era we live in. States can nullify Federal laws, such as legalizing weed, which your not supposed to do constitutionally given federal laws have supremacy over state laws. Now we have Canadians unlawfully running for presidency, and a state supreme court decided to nullify the national constitution.

If this precedent is taken as it is, police now have a defence in court for kicking down anyone’s door without warrant, on the flimsiest of evidence.

Ironically, this means the police in states the legalized weed, can now randomly kick down doors in a neighborhood, arresting everyone who has quasi-legal weed, as it violates federal law, and whatever else they may find, cause someone had a fight on the street a few hours earlier and ran away unidentified. Break out the battering ram, we gotta go house to house, room by room, drawl by drawl looking for victims.

Thanks a lot you fucking potheads for destroying the fourth amendment.

2

In Murica the land of freedom and democracy. :laughing:

3

I can understand the justification of searching a house if they think there might be somebody injured, but wouldn’t any illegal shit the found by so doing be inadmissable as evidence?

4

Police may already enter homes if they suspect beyond a reasonable doubt that something injurious is occuring. This is different from that. Entering a home to save a life without a warrant is different from the ability to raid homes for no reason and without a warrant.

5

Not just a warrant, but the response has to be timely, if it’s under reasonable grounds for searching for a injured person… unless of course they have really good new info, lie hearing screams or seeing a trail of blood. Obviously it’s lacking here.

I highly doubt the weed was moaning, bleeding out and saying it was dying… so we van rule out sensory indications. Likewise, this was if I recall correctly, a street brawl. Just because you disrupt the public order outside doesn’t mean your the Texas Chainsaw Massacre family on the inside, the two kind of crimes may overlap, but only in the most outrageous of extremes.

We established the 4th Amendment for exactly this reason… Boston Merchants had been subject to Writs of Assistance, which last for the remainder of a kings reign, plus six months, where the police can endlessly molest property owners, checking out and seizing property. In the most important case, what lead more or less directly to the logic we used for crafting state bills on warrants, as well as the fourth amendment, was a case of a merchant volunteering to a search of his home and business. They got to the basement, saw a room locked… he refused to open it, police said they would force it open, he said no, they had no right, you do that, he would physically resist all unlawful actions.

They went, got a writ for that cellar specifically, found the house barracaded and surrounded by 300 locals, gave up, went back to England, got troops to occupy Boston.

Then there was a tea party in the Harbo, so on and so forth.

This is exactly the same situation.

What is a further insult, the supreme court of the state that was present for the case, wasn’t fully present, in relation to the number who voted in the end. This one justice wasn’t present, and isolated the judgment to audiotapes.

The whole theory of a supreme court us to have the whole court in judgment literally sit there on a fucking bench, together. You can’t have two supreme courts, ruling simultaneously… if they are separate, then they don’t represent the final consensus of the law. It means some other judge was that also has a final say was off doing who knows what.

This doesn’t mean the supreme court can’t half die in a plane crash and still carry on with the survivors. It means half can’t meet, and another iof it’s judges who were aloof make a counter ruling, upsetting the other supreme courts ruling, cause he was kissed off that they made a shitheaded decision without including him in, as he is a head honcho too.

While courts haven’t always had audio transcripts, they have always had writing. Judges, as well as Juries, are expected to be in the courtroom, present, so the defendant can eye them for examination to make sure they aren’t violating his rights, so he may seek an appeal, and vice versa, so they can see to his character and mannerism.

We don’t know what this lady was doing when she was listening to these tapes… her kids could if been breaking vases, dog pissing on her great grandmothers carpet, stopping the tapes to go out to eat, listening to them in the background while watching her soap operas, while fucking in bed… this guy clearly got shafted on his side of justice in not being able to see one of the judges that was reviewing his case, to assert his right to arguments and to be cross examined by her.

Judgment in a supreme court doesn’t have to take place in the court, it can take months, take place mostly at home in a study looking over precedent and laws… but for crying out loud, you gotta be present for the case, if your going to judge the appeal. We don’t do invisible justice, where a ruling is handed to you by a invisible judge. This is a scary precedent. Whats to stop a defendant from being dragged into a dark room with a light over his head, no judge in sight, can’t see the prosecutors or jury? Can’t hear them unless they want you to. Your defendant is talking on a headset, a bailiff is telling you to ask random questions…

No, honestly, fuck that. Appeal courts can rule on the legality of court rulings below them, but that’s hardly invisible… the defendant gets to be there. This is the first time I heard of a new judge phoning in a judgment to a case she wasn’t present for, at all.

6

Liberals, women, and children making laws to please their senses.

7

Wow, you blame potheads for the police doing warrantless raids. yeah, those potheads are the powerbase moving things more and more towards fascism. They wanted to smoke pot and lobbied. The trend towards greater police power has nothing to do with them and they are likely fighting it more than other randomly chosen groups.

But other than that, yes, this is part of a very bad trend in the US.

8

You think this is terrible, just wait for when military convoys start pulling through your neighborhood where soldiers raid your home. Coming to a neighborhood near you within the not too distant future.

9

They did that in the movie “Super 8”, where you see the military convoys offload next to the “One Way Dead End” sign, next to the Byzantine Catholic steeple… I used to live right there. They sent military units through my old elementary school, and tanks through the playground.

Yes… I do blame the potheads. Paramilitary Discipline is very, very difficult to manage, in thus case and other cases, such as the fattie put in a choke hold, dying saying I can’t breathe… I see a general pattern… cops increasingly insulted to their faces, they know damn well what’s going on, but people keep playing the system against them, making them look like shit, watching problems unfold right under their noses.

This guy in the link had a identical setup to how Smears describes his old operation. Its a gateway drug, people get hooked, and go on to even worst shit. I’m not interested in the ethics of drug distribution, if you wanna impress me, go get a pharmacology degree. Drugs rip up communities, my brother is locked up again for this shit. He admitted to be he used to deal weed… he himself went on to do heroine, dropped several hundreds of thousands of others peoples dollars looking for the shit in Detroit to bring back. It started with weed.

I’m guessing the cops more or less hadva long running suspicion, but no probable cause, the guy was giving them shit, so the kicked the door down.

This nasty precedent wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for shitheads unnecessarily pulling this shit. Cops always should abide by the law, just as men should never hit their women… but we all know women can do shit to get a man to hit her, even the most militant of feminists know there are certain directions, certain things you don’t do to a man… he will flip, and hit you.

Same goes for the cops… these are bad cops… I take any hit like this on the fourth amendment, very seriously. But… we also gotta recognize it is a two way street… our society has been battered by drug use, a lot of people have lost loved ones. I’m likely going to lose half my siblings to this plague. Cops are humans too, if anything, given the hostility in their profession they encounter daily, and need to stay healthy and young, more high octane than average. They make their own decisions, but also rely on group think in these situations, and stress is contagious.

As much as we press cops to do better, and I certainly do, we need to do better on a community level. One of which isnt to undermine the rule of law by semi-legalizing a still verymuch otherwise illegal drug, joining in drug cultures that kill and hurt people in our communities, fighting tooth and nail to fuck society over. People doing this dont have to clean up the mess, if successful they do what Smears does. Its other people who have to put society back together after they made theur quick buck, got their cheap fucks, and got high while doing it.

This case wouldnt of been forced this far if there wasnt a sense of indignant unjustice by locals knowing he was a svumbag drug dealer, of politicians pledging to get hard on crime, etc. Its a perfect storm tgat let thus idiot twat of a justice rationalize such a horrific precedent.

Alot of people where I kive die weekly from drugs. Small town. Im losing my siblings. Loosing the little kids. Thus site list a moderator to suicide, the drufs he used clearly wasnt helping. You cant see beyond the hedonistic high you reao, your party culture… seems funny and innicent, but its not funny in the emergency room when they keep declaring them dead… for something that remains illegal… for very good reason.

If you push to a hedonustic, careless extreme, destroying life, expect coercive force to get dumber and more brutal. Its damn near a universal rule, elasticist in society snaps between those extremes. Its very much a calculas of the law having its back against the wall and lashing out. The lomgterm reprecussions however, will very much outlast the war on drugs… out proliferation of smart phones, chemucal sensors (already in existence) that can be added to them, cameras seeing in other frequencies other than visible light will more or less destroy this drug culture iver the next few decades… a cop in twenty years driving down a street will kniw instantly who us smoking what from residues detected by wavelengths on their doors and houses. But we will have this blasted precedent on the books for far longer. It will be used increasingly in cases that have nothing to do with drugs.

So yeah, I blame the fucking drug ysers for this. The started this. Look how far NYC cartied its respinse to drug and gang violence… blacks coukdnt walk outside their apartments without being stopped and frisked. These policies, these vad laws, judt dont appear on their own… they arise iut if something.

Never stop pressuring cops to do better… but at the same time we gotta acknowkedge both sides of the problem. We need to do more to lock people like Mr. Reasonable away behind bars. Theybare very much the problem.

10

It isn’t even “bad cops”. It is bad judges.

And certainly nothing to do with potheads.

11

Turd, you’re the only person I know who could come up with a way to hate something that the police are doing but then turn around and blame their victims for the problem. I know you’re a law enforcement/force your morals onto everyone/in love with the police type, but man this is just disappointing.

12

Someone smoking pot is not insulting anyone, especially if they are in their home. Why should a cop take that personally? If they have any sense they hate the drug laws AS DID EVERYONE, EVEN THE RIGHT, in places like Portugal where they got rid of most of them and found…things got better for everyone and they saved a lot of money. Police, right wing law and order types, they all now approve. But even if this were not the case, any cop getting insulted by someone smoking pot is confused about semiotics.

TV is a gateway drug. No heroin user wasn’t addicted to that first. Further the worse shit…studies with people who get to control their own use of clean heroin is that they CAN WORK, reduce their dosage after time, and most stop after less than ten years. And even paying for their habits is vastly cheaper than the drug war and deaths are almost noll. This was carried out in Switzland and England. You have bought the whole drug war bs. Most of the problems are related to illegal production, internecine conflict, additives in the drugs, what the penal system does to these people and not the drugs.

The people who have insulted the police are the people who made all this illegal and put the cops in a shitty position.

I am sorry about your brother’s situation, but try reading…

chasingthescream.com/

Then come back. You have been handed a line of bullshit. It does not hold scientifically. Not that anyone with power wants to know this, since the agenda is more law enforcement, more surveillance, more control.

I am not blaming the cops. As James says, blame judges, but also legislators for setting up this bullshit.

Wtih a cop you can fuckig look at them funny. You can be filming them from your own property. Some cops of course, but the courts are supporting all sorts of violence by cops that they did not before.

No, it’s not. Criminals have laws against their behavior. Cops get paid for theirs. There is a confusion about their work if they or really you think that a criminal is being insulting and being unfair by committing a crime. They are committing a crime and can be punished for this. A bank robber with a gun is not insulting the police. I will never hear you say this. He is breaking the law and the cops get to do stuff. They don’t get to do extra - Oh, you fucking bank robber, you are making me lose face as a cop. I shoot you an extra time because you insulted me. No.

13

Turd wrote:

When will addicts actually stop and accept responsibility for their own actions and the havoc they wreak on their families. They seem to think it is everyone else’s fault but never their own for actually deciding to take the drug in the first place. Do they think they won’t become addicted, when they are surrounded by people who are. It is a selfish decision to say ‘yes’, when we live in an era where there is so much information about the consequences of drug taking, I mean, how many warnings do people need. Life is not a bed of roses for the majority of us, people have an educated choice, and whatever that choice is, they have to take the responsibility for their own actions.

14

Sometimes, but not usually. When it does happen, it’s generally because the people who start with weed and move on to worse things are the type of people who were destined to end up on worse things anyway. i’ve been smoking weed almost daily for 12 years and i’ve never even tried cocaine, heroin, or any other illicit drug besides weed in that time.

15

i knew a guy that used to wear ripped jeans. He went on to become a strongman for the Mob in New Jersey, where i grew up. He’s not the only criminal i knew of who wore ripped jeans. Ethics of telling people what to wear be damned, ripped jeans lead people to become criminals, and i think the government needs to put a stop to it before things get even worse.

16

Is this guy for real?

No wonder you have lost all or most of your rights for personal freedom in the U S of A.

New World Order not that far away.

17

Sometimes i don’t know if other people are really just extremely thick or if i’m just too subtle.