Court sides with police in warrantless search
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.
Officers knocked on King's door in Lexington and thought they heard noises that indicated whoever was inside was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.
Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that people have no obligation to respond to the knock or, if they do open the door, allow the police to come in. In those cases, officers who wanted to gain entry would have to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant.
But Alito said, "Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame."
In her dissent, Ginsburg said her colleagues were giving police an easy way to routinely avoid getting warrants in drug cases.
"Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant," she said.
The case concerned exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement that police need a warrant to enter a home.
The issue was whether warrantless entry was justified after the officers' knock on the door triggered a reaction inside that sounded like the destruction of evidence.
An odd set of facts led to Monday's ruling.
Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/press-118223-search-associated.html#ixzz1MaMnqh8Y
Categories: Government, Martial Law, Police Brutality, Conspiracy
Tags: Police Brutality Police Abuse Conspiracy Martial Law Constitution
All it takes for a thief to dress as a policeman and they can get into your house take what they want and by the time you realized that that person was really not a policeman they have stolen a lot of your properties.
What are you going to do? Who are you going to sue? I think that will be covered by the property insurance policy. Insurancecompanies are going to have to raise premiums to cover all those cases!!
Reply to this
Apparently, police have the right to suspect a law-biding, peaceful citizen with no previous criminal record may actually be a violent person doing something nefarious but that right doesn't belong to you. Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds. You have the right to prove you are innocent!
Reply to this
How many court rulings do we need that say ordinary citizens don't have the right to protect themselves from the government before we understand that we don't have the right to protect ourselves from the government? WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM OUR GOVERNMENT!
Reply to this
This is One of the reasons the American revolution was fought and just because the supreme court rules it legal does not make it right--the supreme court once ruled slavery was legal.
Reply to this
Ironic the "court" will hear this case but not a case on redition and shipping prisoners around the globe to be tortured. Not that the court isn't 100% politicized. Better known as oucome based justice.
Reply to this
Hmmm
The problem with ANY warrantless search of a person or his home is so cut and dried as to be laughable. WITHOUT a warrant police cannot LEGALLY enter your home period. Probable cause is a red herring people. The 4th Amendment is crystal clear. NO WARRANT NO ENTRY. If we are truly a nation of laws governed by tenants put forth by the Constitution there would NEVER BE police entry into a private home without a warrant because it is expressly prohibited. See if the government, police and the courts don't like the requirement to have a warrant then they have ONLY ONE RECOURSE, CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. Anything else is flat out UNCONSTITUIONAL.
The ONLY reason they are getting away with this crap is becuase we the people are allowing it.
Reply to this
And if we don't allow it, our options are 1. Argue with a taser or,
2. Try to prove our innocence before courts (our government) that believes strong adherence to the constitution is a reason to suspect we are terrorists.
Reply to this
That is the hardest part ---- how do you fight against something so much bigger than you? As a mass of people...... but I keep waiting for the mass and it never arrives.
Reply to this