Connecticut "Police Protected In Illegal Searches"

[jody]

http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-sc0715.artjul15,0,4155120.story?coll=hc-headlines-local">Police Protected In Illegal Searches

QUOTE
The state Supreme Court has rewritten the rules on when a person may be prosecuted for a crime committed in response to an illegal entry or search by police of the person's property.
AND
A federal judge already has ruled that the presence by police on his property was illegal, and the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month rejected the town's appeal of that ruling.

The state Supreme Court left intact the common law right to offer "reasonable resistance" to an illegal entry or search by police, "not rising to the level of an assault."
UNQUOTE

[Lefty48197]

1. There is no such thing as an illegal search these days

What with Nancy Reagan making kids piss into a cup before they can join the marching band, the ideal of "probably cause" no longer exists in this country. Couple this with police "sobriety checkpoints", and we now have a "guilty until proven innocent" society.

[Just_Looking]

2. Here's what I see as the positive of that ruling

If you know it's an illegal search...

Do Nothing but object verbally to whomever is in charge...

Get a lawyer...

Sue the bejeezus out of them...

The evidence they collect will be inadmissable...

You will probably get a buttload of bucks out of the settlement...

The cops will be less likely to perform an illegal search/seizure in the future.