Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

And in other news: Another one of our civil rights being done away with... Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:56:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Link to story.


Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes


Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

In the past, the court has said police usually may not enter a home unless they have a search warrant or the permission of the owner. As Alito said, "The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house."

One exception to that rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence. Police were attempting to do that in the Kentucky case, but they entered the wrong apartment, raising the issue of what is permissible in situations where police have reason to believe evidence is being destroyed.

It began when police in Lexington, Ky., were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer and then walked into an apartment building. They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one. They pounded on the door and called "Police. Police. Police," and heard the sounds of people moving.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in, and they broke down the door. They found Hollis King smoking marijuana, and put him under arrest. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

But the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned his conviction and ruled the apartment break-in violated his 4th Amendment right against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Police had created an emergency by pounding on the door, the state justices said.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal from state prosecutors and reversed the ruling in Kentucky vs. King. Alito said the police conduct in this case "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking down the door to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

"Destruction of evidence issues probably occur most frequently in drug cases because drugs may be easily destroyed by flushing down a toilet," he added.

The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether the police faced an emergency situation in this case.

Ginsburg, however, said the court's approach "arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases." She said the police did not face a "genuine emergency" and should not have been allowed to enter the apartment without a warrant.


Our 4th Amendment says, "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."

Not anymore. Now, thanks to this "Conservative" Supreme Court, the police can burst into your home for any reason, and arrest anyone they find there. If you attempt to defend yourself and your home from this entry by the police, they'll shoot you. If you're lucky, maybe your survivors can sue the police department later on, in civil court. Anyone want to start up an under/over pool on how many home invasion robberies there are by perps dressed as cops next year?



evil5

DirtyMartini
Posted: Saturday, May 21, 2011 9:05:20 PM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,789
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
So, it sounds like the lesson of the day is...If you hear a knock on the door, don't flush the toilet...





You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2011 5:53:51 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
The GOP stacked Supreme Court of the United Corporations of America - are off the fucking rails...and have been since the end of the last century. Legislation needs to be introduced which limit those fuckers to term limitations - instead of being appointed for life.

what a bunch of shit

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
sprite
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2011 5:56:16 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
we had too many rights anyways. really, the ones we have, we don't excersize enough anyways. maybe, if we have less, we will realize how important they are.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2011 6:59:05 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,268
Location: West Coast
Everyone knows that you need to keep your cocaine in the sugar bowl and your weed in the basil jar.

Stay calm and cool, don't flush the toilet, and blame the aroma on some new organic room freshener that you just bought at one of those crunchy granola hemp stores.

Yeah, these scenarios suck. I can't see how 'breaking down a door' on suspicion alone can ever be justified. Hearing people "moving around" is hardly evidence that you've located a drug den.


Guest
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2011 8:05:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,624
The trick is to not have any doors.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2011 8:25:56 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
not_yet_famous wrote:
The trick is to not have any doors.


Yeah. Privacy. Who needs it?

LadyX
Posted: Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:51:15 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Wow. I'm...not that surprised really. But it is outrageous.

Then again, cops are our friends, right? Nobody would ever abuse this power, right? no


Looks like I better learn to step softly as I carry the ziploc of coke to the toilet. They can't get to the toilet before it's done flushing. thefinger
DirtyMartini
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 2:02:26 AM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,789
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
LadyX wrote:



Looks like I better learn to step softly as I carry the ziploc of coke to the toilet.


I don't know...flushing coke is "drug abuse"...

I sort of like D-Doll's idea of keeping the coke in the sugar bowl, though I think that could cause some confusion if not done properly...

Could lead to scenarios like "Damn, this coke is beat" and "How come Granny keeps putting so much sugar in her coffee?"...

You know what I mean...


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

Buz
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 6:29:52 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,769
Location: Atlanta, United States
I donated to the Libertarian Party. Government is way too big and intrusive and interferes with our lives doing things that should be none of its business. Decriminalize drugs and break the back of organized crime. Government officials can accuse private citizens of crimes just to be able to confiscate (steal) their private property. End government ease dropping and eliminate government stealing from hard working industrious people to give their earnings to lazy shits who will not pay their own way! Laws should be kept to a minimum and end the ridiculous redundancy!

We should stand up and demand the end of the police state!

Buz
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 6:33:01 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,769
Location: Atlanta, United States
Yes! The GOP sucks and the Democrats suck even more!!! Two completely corrupt and evil organizations!!!

lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:12:02 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
This kinda crap really pisses me off. This is what happens when our politicians are in a dogma battle for decades to show who is right and who is wrong. The whole "checks and balances" system is out of whack. Whichever party is in power at the time swings the proverbial pendulem to their side... instead of both parties trying to find some middle ground to stand on.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
sprite
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 9:28:37 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
Buz wrote:
Yes! The GOP sucks and the Democrats suck even more!!! Two completely corrupt and evil organizations!!!


you got that backwards, btw... the democrats suck and the GOP sucks even more *giggles* btw, i have been voting Green party for a while now, not always, but 75% of the time - give your smaller parties some love if you don't like what's going on.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
sprite
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 9:30:31 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
DirtyMartini wrote:
LadyX wrote:



Looks like I better learn to step softly as I carry the ziploc of coke to the toilet.


I don't know...flushing coke is "drug abuse"...

I sort of like D-Doll's idea of keeping the coke in the sugar bowl, though I think that could cause some confusion if not done properly...

Could lead to scenarios like "Damn, this coke is beat" and "How come Granny keeps putting so much sugar in her coffee?"...

You know what I mean...


I keep the E capsules in a vitamin bottle, yeah, you guessed it, Vitamin E. Really, it's fool proof! or was, before i announced it on the forum for like 50,000 people to read - damn my big fat mouth!

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
tomlando
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:28:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/29/2010
Posts: 128
Location: Orlando
lafayettemister wrote:
This kinda crap really pisses me off. This is what happens when our politicians are in a dogma battle for decades to show who is right and who is wrong. The whole "checks and balances" system is out of whack. Whichever party is in power at the time swings the proverbial pendulem to their side... instead of both parties trying to find some middle ground to stand on.


I agree with you! I think the average person is a moderate who agrees and disagrees with stances on both sides of the fence. The power of advertising lies and deception keep people so polarized now there is hardly any middle ground to make compromises. Of course, if the citizens are split 50/50, we cannot be strong and get anything accomplished. And, if people have a fear of police they are less likely to protest or rebel. So I think that is exactly what the ruling corporations want so they have very little resistance to do as they please. The end result is highly policed citizens with a weak government and a strong military.
A corporate controlled government is not a democracy. It just seems to me that when it comes down to it, Less Government only seems to help the Big Guys while increasing government and control for everyone else. So, unless something big happens, I see the loss of rights and privacy continuing.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:37:23 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
tomlando wrote:
lafayettemister wrote:
This kinda crap really pisses me off. This is what happens when our politicians are in a dogma battle for decades to show who is right and who is wrong. The whole "checks and balances" system is out of whack. Whichever party is in power at the time swings the proverbial pendulem to their side... instead of both parties trying to find some middle ground to stand on.


I agree with you! I think the average person is a moderate who agrees and disagrees with stances on both sides of the fence. The power of advertising lies and deception keep people so polarized now there is hardly any middle ground to make compromises. Of course, if the citizens are split 50/50, we cannot be strong and get anything accomplished. And, if people have a fear of police they are less likely to protest or rebel. So I think that is exactly what the ruling corporations want so they have very little resistance to do as they please. The end result is highly policed citizens with a weak government and a strong military.
A corporate controlled government is not a democracy. It just seems to me that when it comes down to it, Less Government only seems to help the Big Guys while increasing government and control for everyone else. So, unless something big happens, I see the loss of rights and privacy continuing.


Exactly. And unfortunately, any 'big thing' is probably only going to cause more fear, and give the government more leverage to take away rights in the name of 'security'. It's amazing what politicians can buy, in the way of support, simply by stoking fear of Muslims, claiming to support Christianity, and painting liberals as (gasp) "socialists!".

lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:49:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
I do believe though, that if we are to stand up for one civil right we should stand up for all of them. I despise those who would burn the American flag, yet I respect their right to do it.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:43:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 543
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
As it becomes easier for the government to monitor us it will become easier for them to control us. The government has grown way to large and encompassing. Both of our major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans trample our civil rights and have been doing so for a long time. Eventually we will lose our liberties. What kind of real power do we have to stop them? Think about it, both parties control the candidates.

The government should have no authority over our bodies, what we eat, smoke, drink, write and think, what God we worship or whether we do or not, where we live or what we do with our property! And the list goes on and on!

x3holly
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 12:00:20 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/9/2010
Posts: 15
Location: United States
Maybe it's my youth clouding my ability to quite think through this fully, but honestly, I would support the Supreme Court in this situation.

The safety of our country, our communities, and my children outweighs my desire for complete privacy. I have nothing to hide, but I would rather have a cop burst in and check my home if he honestly suspected that I was conducting an illegal activity. If it invades my privacy then so be it, enter as he/she may. You'll find nothing but food, baby diapers, and clothes strewn around the floor because it's been a hassle lately. I guess the way I see it is, if we can get more people who are causing problems in society off the streets, then the world will be a better, or safer, place. To lay down punishment and enforce laws that are so often broken will make other people in this country see that our system does in fact work, and will hopefully work as a message to stop the people that are acting unlawfully now, and prevent others from doing it in the future.

And by the way, yes there is bias and people abusing the system in Washington. No matter what party is in front Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party... there will always be corruption. We are humans and therefore prone to having problems and abuse. It's not something that can be stopped but rather something that citizens must learn to deal with. When the United States was set up no one could possibly have known that the Supreme Court would have so much power. It was supposed to be the smallest branch in our government, hence the life long term. To change this people would have to change the Constitution. Which as we all know, is a rather complicated task that would be met with far too many opponents.
Guest
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 12:18:16 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,624
Isn't this exactly wht G Orwell said was coming????
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 3:03:04 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
x3holly wrote:
Maybe it's my youth clouding my ability to quite think through this fully, but honestly, I would support the Supreme Court in this situation.

The safety of our country, our communities, and my children outweighs my desire for complete privacy. I have nothing to hide, but I would rather have a cop burst in and check my home if he honestly suspected that I was conducting an illegal activity. If it invades my privacy then so be it, enter as he/she may.


'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - some tottering old guy said this back when this country was first starting to gel together.

x3holly wrote:
When the United States was set up no one could possibly have known that the Supreme Court would have so much power. It was supposed to be the smallest branch in our government, hence the life long term.


(The Supreme Court was initially designed 'not to be the smallest branch of our government/size does not matter in this case at all' - but to be part of the checks and balances and for the justices and all federal judges to be appointed rather than elected) - This was done purposefully, as James Madison — a founding father and the fourth president — famously argued, in order to allow justices to rule without fear of backlash at the polls. Madison's idea was that if justices were appointed, they would rule thoughtful and accurately, as opposed to ruling in a way that would further political agendas.

x3holly wrote:
To change this people would have to change the Constitution. Which as we all know, is a rather complicated task that would be met with far too many opponents.


Here we endure a rogue court, clearly reinterpreting the 4th amendment of the Constitution...the primary document which they are sworn to uphold and protect, not alter as they see fit. The SCOTUS are not supposed to create new laws out of thin air, alter established amendments, or add/subtract anything from the Bill of Rights.

Yet this Roberts Court...is consistent with its over reach and scope of intrusion on the very documentation it is supposed to protect.

We citizenry elect our state representatives. Only they can initiate impeachment proceedings against a sitting SCOTUS justice.

<from that site> Impeachment trials can be very long, drawn out processes and happen rarely . Of all of the Supreme Court justices who have served, only one, Justice Samuel Chase, has ever been served with an impeachment. In 1805, Chase was found not guilty, and continued to serve on the court until his death in 1811.

Including Chase, the House has only impeached 14 judges in its history. Seven were found guilty and removed from office, 4 were found not guilty, and 3 resigned before the Senate could rule.


And since our SCOTUS has decided that corporations deserve the same protections and enjoy the same or better 'rights' as our individuals in this country, and since our Congress is composed of lobbyist dick-sucking, money chasing cockbites...and we have very few Republicans/Democrats/Independents who have any fucking balls....we likely will not see any impeachment hearings initiated any time soon.

Besides, this Supreme Court has shown a proclivity more towards revenge, than towards fairness.

In no members of Congress, specifically our House or Representatives ever lifts a finger to initiate impeachment hearings towards any of the Justices of the SCOTUS, it is because both major parties are laying in the same bed together...steering our country purposely into a fucking quagmire and fucking us all in our asses, without a kiss.

All of these asshats, serve a few terms in the Senate or House, can retire with full medical and very nice pension$ FOR LIFE. They vote their own gawddamned pay raises and everytime they do that...this country raises hell, but has anything changed on that front...EVER?"

We are letting these sockpuppets dismantle and enslave this Republic right in front of us.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
x3holly
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 4:46:23 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/9/2010
Posts: 15
Location: United States
Then I ask you sir, if you are so against the moves this court is making why do you let your arguments stand only on the internet, or are you doing more?
Be the change you want to see in the world.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 6:07:43 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
x3holly wrote:
Then I ask you sir, if you are so against the moves this court is making why do you let your arguments stand only on the internet, or are you doing more?
Be the change you want to see in the world.


I have written my representatives, my senators, my attorney general(s) on many an occasion. I have almost always voted on election day. I have campaigned for candidates at local through national level.

I have protested against illegal police actions and undeclared wars.

And I have studied the constitution, the courts and the responsibilities of those Senators and Representatives...as well as the history of this country, in depth.

I have not run for office.

Perhaps over the next 20-25 years of your life, you might do the same things, too...as successfully or moreso, than I.

I use the internet to find common ground and read opposing views as well as attempt to persuade and court the assistance of those who are also articulate, thoughtful and curious.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:41:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
x3holly wrote:
The safety of our country, our communities, and my children outweighs my desire for complete privacy. I have nothing to hide, but I would rather have a cop burst in and check my home if he honestly suspected that I was conducting an illegal activity. If it invades my privacy then so be it, enter as he/she may. You'll find nothing but food, baby diapers, and clothes strewn around the floor because it's been a hassle lately.


Let's examine this. Suppose, as you say, it becomes commonplace for a cop to "burst in" to your dwelling, whether he has reason to believe you're breaking the law or not. What happens if your pot smoking friend happened to lose a joint under your couch? (Or baggie of coke, or x-bar, or whatever.) All the adults go to jail and all the kids go to foster homes. On a more malicious note, no cops have ever planted evidence where no evidence was found, have they?

Or a much more likely scenario - what happens when a bunch of criminals dress as cops so they can go "bursting in" on people without fear of armed response by the homeowner? Ever been the victim of a home invasion? I haven't, but I've had to deal with both sides of the event - victims and perpetrators, and it's not a good scene. Take a moment to look at what our founding fathers were accustomed to: Soldiers had the power to arrest people, confiscate all their goods, drag them to the village square, and either shoot them, hang them, or stab them to death. The people at the time had no recourse - there was NO higher authority they could go to for redress. When they wrote the Fourth Amendment, it's purpose was to make sure that no petty tyrant could ever lord this kind of power over people under color of law. Checks and balances were set up to guard against these kinds of abuses. Our Supreme Court has made just that kind of abuse possible.

x3holly
Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 9:27:19 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/9/2010
Posts: 15
Location: United States
I think that both of you have good points.

Also, good job in taking your citizenship and rights to a greater level. Most people don't make the effort but rather sit back and complain about the life they live instead of thriving in it and doing something to change it. So pardon me if I came off as rude. And you are right, I will more than likely take out my own rights to make propositions and state problems with my government as I age and see fit.

I do hope that anyone who reads this, and you two specifically, can understand where the people who support decisions like this come from. Not that I would suspect either of you of being narrow minded when you seem so well versed and educated in your beliefs.

Giving people the amount of freedom they have now does cause problems on occasion. Viable evidence for important crimes can be lost and therefore allow a terrible man/woman to walk free in this world until they repeat the crime and get caught or evidence strong enough to convict can be found. I live in an area that has a bad reputation (thankfully just on the outskirts) and I have seen countless times how the way law enforcement can fail. People that are well known to deal drugs, or to posses an illegal weapon have gotten off free because they simply got rid of the evidence in the time it took for a judge to get out a decision on a search warrant.

While this decision by the supreme court is more than likely made in a rushed environment some change in this direction does need to be made because the laws are abused by citizens repeatedly and in different manners. No one likes to have their toes stepped on, but no one enjoys walking down the street wondering what homes near them posses drugs, weapons, and criminals in them when nothing can be done.
tomlando
Posted: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:29:52 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/29/2010
Posts: 128
Location: Orlando
x3holly wrote: "Giving people the amount of freedom they have now does cause problems on occasion."

Giving up your rights and freedom is like dropping a rare coin in the middle of the ocean. As time goes on its value increases, though you will most likely never be able to retrieve it.
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:55:37 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
I wonder why this isn't the lead story on every newscast in America? It proves to me that "conservative" FoxNews and "liberal" CNN don't really want to show us the national news but continue their brainswashing of their respective audiences. Oh that and more coverage of the Governator and his mistress and lovechild. Afterall, THAT'S real news.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.