Forums

Forum Menu
Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches

CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
in Second Amendment/Politics #1
I'll refrain from commenting.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#axzz2uSHcdXol
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

Adam J. McCleod


· Share on TwitterShare on Facebook

Replies

  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    #2
    Amazing this is news just now. This has been acceptable search practice for a long time.

    Any resident can consent to a search a short time (like a day or so) after another resident denied the same. In instances where there are multiple non-family residents, consent to search by any one resident is viable, but is confined only to common areas of the residence and the one consenter's private room.

    Unfortunately, scope of searches becomes corruptible. The action begins with good intentions (in this case getting a violent gang banger arrested), but a pathway to hell can be paved with the same good intentions.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    #3
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    The action begins with good intentions (in this case getting a violent gang banger arrested), but a pathway to hell can be paved with the same good intentions.

    :that:
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    #4
    ...but, but, but, I heard that we must vote for republicans; Rush even told me so because conservative justices are for freedom and all.
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    #5
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    The action begins with good intentions, but a pathway to hell can be paved with the same good intentions.

    There's never good intentions when regarding the rape of our constitution.
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • horselipshorselips Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    #6
    Apparently possession is no longer nine tenths of the law, now location is.
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    #7
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Amazing this is news just now. This has been acceptable search practice for a long time.

    Any resident can consent to a search a short time (like a day or so) after another resident denied the same. In instances where there are multiple non-family residents, consent to search by any one resident is viable, but is confined only to common areas of the residence and the one consenter's private room.

    Unfortunately, scope of searches becomes corruptible. The action begins with good intentions (in this case getting a violent gang banger arrested), but a pathway to hell can be paved with the same good intentions.
    This is a complicated subject. The Patriot Act administered a crushing blow to 4th amendment rights. Further erosion of these Constitutional rights is more than disturbing. A warrantless search of a dwelling a day or more later authorized by another tenant has what kind of value? The other tenant could have a vendetta. Wanting to get even for something totally unrelated. They now have the opportunity to plant evidence. This procedure is full of holes. Our Judicial system relies heavily on precedence. I appreciate that Law Enforcement want to get the bad guys off the street. When something like this example is judicially accepted it becomes precedence. Our laws protect the innocent as well as the guilty. Sorting them out is the responsibility of the Judicial system as long as they obey the law. Disclaimer: My opinions are mine.
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    #8
    Pelagic Kayaker wrote: »
    There's never good intentions when regarding the rape of our constitution.

    You're looking at it a little cross-eyed. Consent by a resident was given to allow the LEOs in. They didn't force their way through the door. Once you tell a LEO he is allowed to enter (and they probably even asked them sign a home search consent form) then he is allowed to enter. It's not the LEO's fault that the resident didn't say no.

    And before the "coercion" thing comes up, anyone can tell LEOs to pound sand. I get 5 or 6 "No I don't want you to search my [whatever]" a week. I ask, why? Because I believe in the Constitution. But, if I ask and they say "Sure, go ahead", then there is clearly established (and OLD) case law that says your 4th Amendment rights were suspended by YOU until YOU re-invoke them by verbalizing you want the search to end.

    This is not about "stop LEOs from having any reasonable measures to investigate in private dwellings"; this is about "educate yourself about your RIGHTS since you like to mouth-off so much about having them". That goes for everyone...me, you, anyone.

    It's hard for people to believe I am a die-hard Constitutionalist AND a LEO. But we exist.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    #9
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    This is a complicated subject. The Patriot Act administered a crushing blow to 4th amendment rights. Further erosion of these Constitutional rights is more than disturbing. A warrantless search of a dwelling a day or more later authorized by another tenant has what kind of value? The other tenant could have a vendetta. Wanting to get even for something totally unrelated. They now have the opportunity to plant evidence. This procedure is full of holes. Our Judicial system relies heavily on precedence. I appreciate that Law Enforcement want to get the bad guys off the street. When something like this example is judicially accepted it becomes precedence. Our laws protect the innocent as well as the guilty. Sorting them out is the responsibility of the Judicial system as long as they obey the law. Disclaimer: My opinions are mine.

    Well, guess what? That's what you get for inviting another, free-decision-making individual into your domicile and thereby providing to them, residency and thus granting to them an equal ability to consent to the entry into that domicile by government employees who may ask for said consent to enter.

    Again...KNOW your rights and all avenues that stem from those rights and the laws that pertain to them. No one bothers to read co-residency laws. Two adults, not married, share the common areas of their dwelling and by that fact BOTH have equal right to consent to search of that common area.

    In other words, kick your crappy roommate out.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    #10
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    You're looking at it a little cross-eyed. Consent by a resident was given to allow the LEOs in. They didn't force their way through the door. Once you tell a LEO he is allowed to enter (and they probably even asked them sign a home search consent form) then he is allowed to enter. It's not the LEO's fault that the resident didn't say no.

    And before the "coercion" thing comes up, anyone can tell LEOs to pound sand. I get 5 or 6 "No I don't want you to search my [whatever]" a week. I ask, why? Because I believe in the Constitution. But, if I ask and they say "Sure, go ahead", then there is clearly established (and OLD) case law that says your 4th Amendment rights were suspended by YOU until YOU re-invoke them by verbalizing you want the search to end.

    This is not about "stop LEOs from having any reasonable measures to investigate in private dwellings"; this is about "educate yourself about your RIGHTS since you like to mouth-off so much about having them". That goes for everyone...me, you, anyone.

    It's hard for people to believe I am a die-hard Constitutionalist AND a LEO. But we exist.

    That's not the point. I say NO to a search and another occupant says "go right on ahead" and that somehow trumps my decision? ?? This ruling is nothing but prep work by an elitist government to search our homes without warrant and confiscate our firearms. NOTHING MORE. This is also a turning point for me to never trust another republican as long as I live. 100% libertarian from now on. This one cut deep ... it sure did.
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    #11
    Pelagic Kayaker wrote: »
    That's not the point. I say NO to a search and another occupant says "go right on ahead" and that somehow trumps my decision? ?? This ruling is nothing but prep work by an elitist government to search our homes without warrant and confiscate our firearms. NOTHING MORE. This is also a turning point for me to never trust another republican as long as I live. 100% libertarian from now on. This one cut deep ... it sure did.

    Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians....they ALL suck. Trust none of them.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    #12
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians....they ALL suck. Trust none of them.

    Add aliens from other worlds and you are golden !!! :win:

    Come to think of it, add aliens from this world too !
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    #13
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Well, guess what? That's what you get for inviting another, free-decision-making individual into your domicile and thereby providing to them, residency and thus granting to them an equal ability to consent to the entry into that domicile by government employees who may ask for said consent to enter.

    Again...KNOW your rights and all avenues that stem from those rights and the laws that pertain to them. No one bothers to read co-residency laws. Two adults, not married, share the common areas of their dwelling and by that fact BOTH have equal right to consent to search of that common area.

    In other words, kick your crappy roommate out.
    Exactly correct!
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • JermanatorJermanator Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    #14
    I really don't like the decision, but I am going to actually have to agree with Jason on this.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    #15
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    In other words, kick your crappy roommate out.

    Would you verify that the individual that granted access, was indeed a roommate? Would you ask for a lease agreement, or check the ID? Or would just the word of a person that happens to be at my house be enough to enter? If later, it was shown that the person that granted you access was lying about residency, is any evidence now inadmissable?

    What about juvenile children? If my 17 year old said "yeah come on in" is that legal?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    #16
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians....they ALL suck. Trust none of them.


    The problem as I see it, not a single Justice was appointed by a Libertarian president.

    Yeah, yeah, I see the obvious.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    #17
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Would you verify that the individual that granted access, was indeed a roommate? Would you ask for a lease agreement, or check the ID? Or would just the word of a person that happens to be at my house be enough to enter? If later, it was shown that the person that granted you access was lying about residency, is any evidence now inadmissable?

    What about juvenile children? If my 17 year old said "yeah come on in" is that legal?

    I can totally see this rulling cohesively working (as intended) with the NYC gun bans or anywhere else. Cops show up and ask to search Jane Doe's house for "illegal" firearms. Mrs. Doe says "NO!" ...but Mrs. Doe's husband, John Doe, leans more antigun and invites them in saying something what at first seems like a harmless comment such as, "well Hun, I never did like you having guns in the house with the kids..." Anyone who sees "no real harm" with this rulling is a fool. This is just one more step at the destruction of our Tenets. ...and this time it was republican appointed justices. ...but hey! who really cares anymore ...the new Survivor show is starting!
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

MORE YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Sign Me Up
Advertisement