Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with this ruling is that the majority opinion say that they have ruled to make the exigent circumstances rule more objective. But that's untrue. It makes it more subjective, because it puts the judgment more squarely in the hands of the police. "It sounded to me like evidence was being destroyed." "It sounded to me" is a wholly subjective evaluation, not objective in any way.
But they still have to prove that it was those sounds they were reacting to, and that those sounds could reasonably be believed to lead to evidence destruction. It's still up to a jury to determine if the police acted legitimately.
I suspect this ruling would have been completely different in a state where medicinal marijuana use is legal. The odor of marijuana wouldn't even afford police a reason to suspect illegal activity in the first place!
Our government continues to charge forward with ways to spy on, intrude in, and control everyday life. They expect there to be trouble as the economy continues to collapse and either hyperinflation or major deflation strike as a consequence of the massive devaluation of the dollar and continuing federal overspending and borrowing. Government caused all our problems (by supporting the greed and insanity of Big Business) but does not intend to burn up in the inevitable collapse. If they have to call back our incredibly oversized military from all the foreign wars to fight the citizens here, they will do it. That is probably one of the reasons they keep the military so huge, long after the fall of Russia and with absolutely no military threat to our nation. After all, they have to keep the voracious military-industrial complex fed with multiple pointless foreign wars that nobody really knows why we're in. Terrorists? Saving rebels? Humanitarian aid? The reason changes (because the real reason cannot be stated) with every different audience the politician speaks to. The continuing gullibility of the average citizen is truly mind-boggling.
Not long ago on another forum, someone pointed out that the government can now drive up your driveway (even if your "driveway" is just a route on the grass) to your house and place a GPS locator on your car. That's because of the new supposition that your driveway, even if you are on a 100 acres tucked away in the woods, is considered "public" rather than private.
Great. Patriot Act, indeed. Too bad it will be used primarily against American patriots.
Great! How nice to know that for no reason whatsoever and without a warrant, police can break down your door and enter your home. Chalk it up to another of numerous reason to re-elect OBAMA (NOT)!
Supreme Court: No warrant needed if police discern destruction of evidence - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110516/ts_csm/384310 - broken link)
I believe this is happening in Indiana right now yet there is nothing about it on the Indiana threads. You'd think it would be the utmost critical issue on everyone's mind!
This is terrible and very embarrassing! The last time the cops broke down our door they found mom on the sofa gang-banging three neighborhood guys.
The problem with this ruling is that the majority opinion say that they have ruled to make the exigent circumstances rule more objective. But that's untrue. It makes it more subjective, because it puts the judgment more squarely in the hands of the police. "It sounded to me like evidence was being destroyed." "It sounded to me" is a wholly subjective evaluation, not objective in any way.
Not only that if you have a questionable police officer this is just a giant incentive to plant evidence to justify such a search especially if the search turns out to be unreasonable, but they find something else illegal.
But they still have to prove that it was those sounds they were reacting to, and that those sounds could reasonably be believed to lead to evidence destruction. It's still up to a jury to determine if the police acted legitimately.
I suspect this ruling would have been completely different in a state where medicinal marijuana use is legal. The odor of marijuana wouldn't even afford police a reason to suspect illegal activity in the first place!
How do you reasonably discern the difference between flushing a toilet to rid it of excrement and flushing a toilet to rid it of drugs? Does the toilet make a different sound? Since there is no way to discern between the sound of cocaine being washed down a sink, or coca-cola being washed down a sink, the police premise comes back to the odor of marijuana, not to the sounds being made in the apartment. And the fact that based on that odor, they could have reasonably obtained a warrant. Is it reasonable for people who, upon hearing a pounding on a door and the announcement of the police, to become flustered and move about? Regardless if they're engaged in criminal activity or not. If someone were to pound on my door, I might rinse out that glass of coke, stack the newspapers on the coffee table, try to hide the pile of ironing I'm working on. The suspicion that evidence is being destroyed based on the noises of humans moving about is incredibly subjective.
How do you reasonably discern the difference between flushing a toilet to rid it of excrement and flushing a toilet to rid it of drugs? Does the toilet make a different sound? Since there is no way to discern between the sound of cocaine being washed down a sink, or coca-cola being washed down a sink, the police premise comes back to the odor of marijuana, not to the sounds being made in the apartment. And the fact that based on that odor, they could have reasonably obtained a warrant. Is it reasonable for people who, upon hearing a pounding on a door and the announcement of the police, to become flustered and move about? Regardless if they're engaged in criminal activity or not. If someone were to pound on my door, I might rinse out that glass of coke, stack the newspapers on the coffee table, try to hide the pile of ironing I'm working on. The suspicion that evidence is being destroyed based on the noises of humans moving about is incredibly subjective.
I don't know how one reasonably discerns the difference. I'm sure the prosecution will have to call the police as witnesses and their testimony will be heard by a jury and either viewed as reasonable or not. I suspect most jury members will find the mere flushing of a toilet sound to be unreasonable reason on its face for the police to break down a door. But each case will have to be judged on its own merits, just as they are now.
I don't know how one reasonably discerns the difference. I'm sure the prosecution will have to call the police as witnesses and their testimony will be heard by a jury and either viewed as reasonable or not. I suspect most jury members will find the mere flushing of a toilet sound to be unreasonable reason on its face for the police to break down a door. But each case will have to be judged on its own merits, just as they are now.
It isn't much different from probable cause (just a more specific form), which is determined by the police in the moment and later judged in court.
By the way, I'm not a fan of Obama, but this has nothing to do with him.
I don't know how one reasonably discerns the difference. I'm sure the prosecution will have to call the police as witnesses and their testimony will be heard by a jury and either viewed as reasonable or not. I suspect most jury members will find the mere flushing of a toilet sound to be unreasonable reason on its face for the police to break down a door. But each case will have to be judged on its own merits, just as they are now.
Then what was the point of the Supreme Court's ruling? THEY said it was to make such decisions more objective. But it doesn't do that at all. What it does do, I think, is embolden the police officers to take the risk, to rely on their personal judgment (entirely subjective) rather than to wait for a warrant.
Tyranny now walks about in the open without shame.
That's right MOgal and it's wearing a uniform with our flag on it! But as you have said before, the law is the law. If you don't like it, unchamber that round, and work to change it.
Tyranny now walks about in the open without shame.
Public Rep!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh NO! The facists are here!
