The Democrat Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

Made in the USA Mug

[StrangeSox]

McCain responds to Santorum's claim that he "doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works:"

Who?

[bmags]

McCain responds to Santorum's claim that he "doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works:"

Who?

 

TELL HIM TO GOOGLE IT

[StrangeSox]

To follow up on Balta's post in the ® thread,

 

Newt: "So let me say on the record, any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood."

 

lulwut?

 

"Never Intended to be a Factual Statement" is the new Republican meme?

Edited May 18, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

To follow up on Balta's post in the ® thread,

 

Newt: "So let me say on the record, any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood."

 

lulwut?

 

"Never Intended to be a Factual Statement" is the new Republican meme?

He's having an impressively solid meltdown this week.

[lostfan]

He's having an impressively solid meltdown this week.

Gingrich's spokesman had a bizarre quote (seriously the whole thing was just f***ing weird) that referred to him as a "Washington outsider." lol. Was he or was he not the Speaker of the Motherf***ing House?

[lostfan]

Scott Walker, Man of the People, cracking down on unconstitutional visitation rights for homosexuals.

Please someone give me one valid reason to do this besides intentionally being an asshole.

 

I don't really care about how one feels about gay marriage or homosexuality in general but I can't see how someone could be comfortable with the government getting THAT deep into your life and then with the same mouth saying your political opponents are dong more than you when nothing they've ever said is anywhere that intrusive (cuz you know proposing a couple percentage points extra of taxes is the same thing)

[mr_genius]

He's having an impressively solid meltdown this week.

 

very impressive indeed.

[StrangeSox]

The 4th Amendment took a beating on Monday with the SCOTUS' 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v King.

 

the opinion

[NorthSideSox72]

The 4th Amendment took a beating on Monday with the SCOTUS' 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v King.

 

the opinion

I read the brief and an analysis, and I agree with the decision here.

 

[StrangeSox]

I read the brief and an analysis, and I agree with the decision here.

 

There's really not much of a 4th amendment left these days since there's so many exceptions carved out. Now if police knock on your door and they hear you moving around, that's an exigent circumstance.

[NorthSideSox72]

There's really not much of a 4th amendment left these days since there's so many exceptions carved out. Now if police knock on your door and they hear you moving around, that's an exigent circumstance.

That's a ridiculous exaggeration and you know it. That is not what this decision said, at all.

 

[StrangeSox]

That's a ridiculous exaggeration and you know it. That is not what this decision said, at all.

 

But that's what it amounts to. It's only a paraphrasing of the dissent:

How “secure” do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?

 

The question presented: May police, who could pause to gain the approval of a neutral magistrate, dispense with the need to get a warrant by themselves creating exigent circumstances? I would answer no, as did the Kentucky Supreme Court. The urgency must exist, I would rule, when the police come on the scene, not subsequent to their arrival, prompted by their own conduct.

 

The Kentucky Supreme Court found that the suspect they were pursuing did not know he was being chased. There's also no reason to believe that the people would have "made sounds that sounded like destroying evidence" if the police didn't come pounding on their door. So they created the exigent circumstances. This ruling makes it harder to get evidence suppressed due to a warrant-less search because the bar for post hoc justifications has been lowered.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying this one single case is some grievous assault on the 4th. It's just another in a long line of rulings, laws or actions undermining it.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

How “secure” do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?

 

Let's ignore the whole part where they saw a drug deal go down, chased the guys into the apartment building, had it pegged to 2 different apartments, chose one, smelled marijuana, knocked on the door 2-3 times announcing they were police, and then, after hearing rumbling inside (which we all know was "oh s***! the cops! hide the bong!) they entered. Instead, let's assume the cops just started randomly knocking on doors, waited for someone inside to make noise, and then boom, no more 4th amendment.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

They didn't hear toilets flushing or things being burned, they heard people moving around, noises "possibly consistent with the destruction of possible evidence" after banging on the door and announcing that they were the police. That is enough to legalize a warrantless search now.

[StrangeSox]

Let's ignore the whole part where they saw a drug deal go down, chased the guys into the apartment building, had it pegged to 2 different departments, chose one, smelled marijuana, knocked on the door 2-3 times announcing they were police, and then, after hearing rumbling inside (which we all know was "oh s***! the cops! hide the bong!) they entered. Instead, let's assume the cops just started randomly knocking on doors, waited for someone inside to make noise, and then boom, no more 4th amendment.

 

The SCOTUS wasn't ruling on the narrow facts of this one particular case. You know that.

[Jenksismyhero]

They didn't hear toilets flushing or things being burned, they heard people moving around, noises "possibly consistent with the destruction of possible evidence" after banging on the door and announcing that they were the police. That is enough to legalize a warrantless search now.

 

You're ignoring all of the probable cause part of the equation.

[StrangeSox]

You're ignoring all of the probable cause part of the equation.

 

That doesn't appear to be directly relevant to the exigent circumstances question that was in front of the court. If the police knock & announce at your door and claim they heard sounds potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence, they can enter without a warrant.

 

edit: why does probable cause eliminate the need for a warrant? Smelling pot smoke isn't justification for busting down your door. They also weren't pursuing a fleeing suspect, so wouldn't they need a warrant to enter his apartment anyway (assuming they picked the right one)?

Edited May 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

That doesn't appear to be directly relevant to the exigent circumstances question that was in front of the court. If the police knock & announce at your door and claim they heard sounds potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence, they can enter without a warrant.

 

edit: why does probable cause eliminate the need for a warrant? Smelling pot smoke isn't justification for busting down your door.

 

You really honestly believe that the 4th amendment wouldn't protect you against police knocking on your door and breaking it down with absolutely no probable cause simply because they hear movement inside?

[StrangeSox]

You really honestly believe that the 4th amendment wouldn't protect you against police knocking on your door and breaking it down with absolutely no probable cause simply because they hear movement inside?

 

Does this ruling make it easier or more difficult to justify warrantless searches post hoc?

 

And, yeah, according to this ruling, it wouldn't. If the police came to question me for some reason e.g. I was suspected of drug trafficking but they had no warrant, did a knock & announce and then heard "noises potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence," they could break down the door. They didn't violate the 4th or threaten to do so before they believed I was destroying evidence, so they'd be good to go.

Edited May 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

?

 

Isnt whether a warrantless search was legal or illegal a question of fact?

 

So im not sure how SCOTUS wasnt ruling on the facts presented in this case...

 

Note on how specific they are:

 

We, too, assume for purposes of argument that an exigency existed. We decide only the question on which the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled and on which we granted certiorari: Under what circumstances do police impermissibly create an exigency?

 

The only question that was being answered in this case was the following:

 

Does police knocking on the door create the situation which then gave them the excuse to use exigent circumstances to enter?

 

The Supreme Court basically said that a reasonable person when the police knock on the door will answer the door. That you cant just assume that by knocking on the door that people will start to destroy evidence which will create an exigent circumstance, thus allowing the police to enter without a warrant. Its important to notice that the ruling clearly states that had they answered the door and denied the police entry, that the police could not have entered.

 

The ruling is so narrow its almost a question of why did the Supreme Court waste their time.

[Jenksismyhero]

Does this ruling make it easier or more difficult to justify warrantless searches post hoc?

 

Minimally easier in a unique, factual circumstance. The whole idea is that, based on your probable cause that something is going down inside, you don't have to miss the arrest by having to go get a warrant. This is common sense, real world ruling I think.

 

[Balta1701]

So...there is a plane with one of those giant banners orbiting Knoxville right now. I was surprised, because the university is out, so half the buildings here are empty.

 

Looked up...and what is it advertising for? Why, the fact that May 21 is Judgement day.

 

Seriously? It has to cost what, a few thousand dollars to print up a 20 yard long banner, rent a plane, pay the runway fees and registration, then fly it behind the plane orbiting around a small city for an hour. right?

 

Now I'm not a religious person, but from what I do know of Christianity, if you genuinely thought the world was going to end tomorrow, and you wanted to do something with money beforehand...would you blow it on a stupid plane? Or maybe, would you do something like go to the churches and homeless shelters in the area and decide that you were going to make sure that no child in Knox county went to sleep hungry tonight?

 

Which of those would Jesus do?

[southsider2k5]

FWIW, I think saving souls>feeding people.

[Jenksismyhero]

Does this ruling make it easier or more difficult to justify warrantless searches post hoc?

 

And, yeah, according to this ruling, it wouldn't. If the police came to question me for some reason e.g. I was suspected of drug trafficking but they had no warrant, did a knock & announce and then heard "noises potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence," they could break down the door. They didn't violate the 4th or threaten to do so before they believed I was destroying evidence, so they'd be good to go.

 

Actually no, because the exigent circumstance is a factual question which SCOTUS deferred to Kentucky for a ruling on the best system for deciding that. They only ruled that WHEN an exigent circumstance exists a warrantless search is not against the 4th amendment.

 

2. Assuming that an exigency existed here, there is no evidence that the officers either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so prior to the point when they entered the apartment. Pp. 16–

19.

(a)

Any question about whether an exigency existed here is bet-ter addressed by the Kentucky Supreme Court on remand. P. 17.

(b)

Assuming an exigency did exist, the officers’ conduct—banging on the door and announcing their presence—was entirelyconsistent with the Fourth Amendment. Respondent has pointed tono evidence supporting his argument that the officers made any sortof “demand” to enter the apartment, much less a demand thatamounts to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment. If there is contradictory evidence that has not been brought to this Court’s at-tention, the state court may elect to address that matter on remand.Finally, the record makes clear that the officers’ announcement thatthey were going to enter