Supreme Court rules police don't need search warrants in "emergencies"

[shance]

So how does one define "emergency", and how does one prove it was an "emergency" and not an illegal intrusion?

More assaults on the Constitution.


"Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the unanimous court, said that officers had a reasonable basis for going inside to stop violence, even though they could not announce their arrival over loud noise of a party.
“The role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided,” Roberts wrote.

The decision overturned a ruling by Utah's Supreme Court that said a trial judge was correct to throw out charges stemming from the police search. The trial judge ruled that police had violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches by failing to knock before entering the house.

When the adults realized the officers were inside the house, they allegedly became abusive and were charged with disorderly conduct, intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor – all misdemeanors.

In a separate opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said that Utah courts could still find that the police entry was unreasonable under Utah's Constitution. He called it “an odd flyspeck of a case,” and said he was unsure why courts had spent so much time on a matter involving minor offenses. "

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060522-0849-scotus-policesearch.html

[Ringo84]

1. An Inconvenient Truth

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ringo

[DRoseDARs]

2. How is illegally entering a home to break up a party an "emergency" ?

While yes, there were activities ongoing that were cited, couldn't someone in that case illegally enter the White House and confiscate documents proving the treasonous activities of the Bush Administration?

Error. Does not compute.

This USSC decision is total nonsense. :thumbsdown:

[maine_raptor]

6. The Officers saw a fight in progress

According to the case, the officers arrived at the home when responding to a noise complaint. When they arrived they observed at fight between several adults and teenagers. That was their "probable" cause. They saw a crime in progress.

Maybe someone should apply the same principal here..............noise complaint at 1600 Penn. Ave,. and have the officers peak in the window while they are there.

Hey, what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander!


(Note to Agent Mike: The above is written with the writer's tongue firmly in cheek and is not meant as any kind of a threat, call for action, etc. Furthermore, let me state for the record, that I checked under my bed last night and Osama was not there. Have a Nice Day.)

[madmusic]

3. I like Justice Stevens. Wish he were President. n/t

Wish he were President.

[genieroze]

4. "he was unsure why courts had spent so much time on a matter involving

minor offenses. " Duh, gotta chop away at that pesky constitution one minor offense at a time.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. The term "emergency" will become the Potter Stewart definition of

pornography, that is, you know it when you see it.

There will be future cases trying to determine whether circumstances were the equivalent of an "emergency", but I think the Supremes will let the police use a subjective standard and let them determine whether THEY alone thought it was an emergency "under the circumstances" and not second-guess their judgment.

The Bill of Rights was a nice idea while it lasted . . .

[Minnesota Libra]

7. Everyone had to know this was coming with a neocon/fundie.............

.....stacked court. Of course an "emergency" will be whatever the police say it is.

"......even though they could not announce their arrival over loud noise of a party."

This could apply to two or three people yelling at each other or an entire crowd. Get read folks there is more of this kind of thing coming too.

[treestar]

12. Don't they have megaphones and sirens?

Justice Stevens is right, though I'm pretty sure why - it was to invent the "emergency" doctrine.

More easing into the police state while the sheeple sit there and feel "protected."



:banghead:

[slaveplanet]

8. Hitler ruled by emergency

decree...one emergency power after another.



How did the police see a fight in progress if the door was closed?

They are not allowed to enter, regardless if the door is locked or unlocked.

They can only enter without warrant if the door is ajar (open, or slightly open, or if they've witnessed a crime in progress and the perp runs inside for cover). And they weasled those rulings some years ago.

On the other hand, this could be great for those PITA neighbors you don't care for much. Weave a clever tale, let your fingers do the walking, and you can have an instant SWAT raid on that pesky party. USSA is here..yee hah

PS: Always lock your door or have a greeter when you throw a party. I've learned that from experience, many moons ago.

[maine_raptor]

9. They looked in a kitchen window

and also saw underage drinkers in the back yard. This "party" was NOT locked away in some room.

[shance]

10. So they say. Why didn't they just knock? That's standard operating proc

edure.

It sounds as though someone was looking for a confrontation, not looking to quiet things down.

This is potentially and with this Administration, an invitation to abuse and cover ups. Who says they don't just come in and take your stuff thanks to the Patriot Act.

LBJ Quote:

"If you let a bully come in your front yard, he'll be on your porch the next day and the day after that he'll rape your wife in your own bed. "

[maine_raptor]

15. They knocked, they yelled and got no response.

That is what is unusual about this case; the cops actually did do what was required of them. I agree with the dangers we face (Patriot Act, etc.), but this case is really something different.

I don't have the link handy (but a quick Goggle search should find it , check the Utah on-line papers), but you should read up on the circumstances behind the decision.

Not all local cops are gung-ho, lock'em up cowboys, you know. Some of them actually do worry about the current erosion of freedom in this country. After all, those are their Civil Rights too.


Edit for typo - I need a second cup of coffee.

[zbdent]

11. I can't wait until some court case goes to trial because

a man was performing an "unnatural act" on a woman that was plainly visible through the window from the street . . . well, if you believe that you can look through the window at such an angle that enables you to see through the closed curtains and the blind . . . because the cop could see that there was "an emergency" going on . . .

[shance]

13. kick

n/t

[sandnsea]

14. Gosh, just ask OJ

The police entered his property because of a speck of blood and the possibility that there was an emergency inside, and they didn't even see a fight or anything else in progress. And no, a murder at one residence doesn't automatically indicate probable cause at an ex-spouse's home.

This isn't anything new. If the police hadn't entered and somebody ended up seriously injured or dead, they'd be criticized for that too.