5th District Circuit Of Appeals Ruling
Rat
Join Date: 2002-12-24 Member: 11486Members
Join Date: 2002-12-24 Member: 11486Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">On unwarranted searches of priv property</div> Just a little thing I ran across in the news. Apparently the 5th Circuit just handed down a decision regarding the necessary warrants involved in police searching private property. One link was
<a href='http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2470156' target='_blank'>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2470156</a>
Apparently it regards the "safety" involved in entering private property when doing an unwarranted search. If the police officers feel there may be something dangerous on the property they are granted the right to do a "cursory inspection."
Anyone else see our Bill of Rights-guaranteed liberties being assaulted? Christ, they can come up with any excuse they want to say that your property could be hazardous and just walk right in without a freaking warrant. I think Bush '43' has been reading his Orwell a bit too closely lately
Guess who appoints federal judges. Guess which states this circuit covers. And for any of you who feel that politics don't play a roll in court rulings, check out <i>ILA v. Jefferson Bulk Terminals</i> along with the political situation surrounding it.
As the dissenting judges stated:
"I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions," Judges Harold DeMoss Jr. and Carl E. Stewart wrote. "But the old adage warns us that `The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' "
<a href='http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2470156' target='_blank'>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2470156</a>
Apparently it regards the "safety" involved in entering private property when doing an unwarranted search. If the police officers feel there may be something dangerous on the property they are granted the right to do a "cursory inspection."
Anyone else see our Bill of Rights-guaranteed liberties being assaulted? Christ, they can come up with any excuse they want to say that your property could be hazardous and just walk right in without a freaking warrant. I think Bush '43' has been reading his Orwell a bit too closely lately
Guess who appoints federal judges. Guess which states this circuit covers. And for any of you who feel that politics don't play a roll in court rulings, check out <i>ILA v. Jefferson Bulk Terminals</i> along with the political situation surrounding it.
As the dissenting judges stated:
"I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions," Judges Harold DeMoss Jr. and Carl E. Stewart wrote. "But the old adage warns us that `The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' "
Comments
Because of the threats and Gould's criminal history, the deputies said, they looked for him under the bed and in two closets, where they found three rifles. They later found Gould in the woods and seized the weapons after they got him to sign a permission for the search. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That seems lawful enough to me (though obviously I'm not a lawyer), but the rusulting ruling is overkill. I'm glad that it is currenlty limited to 5 circuit coursts (does that translate to 5 states?), but even that is too many when we're talking about the Bill of Rights.
Guess who appoints federal judges. Guess which states this circuit covers. And for any of you who feel that politics don't play a roll in court rulings, check out ILA v. Jefferson Bulk Terminals along with the political situation surrounding it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes lets all jump on the blame bush band wagon. Its all Bush '43's fault that he only appointed one judge to the 5th circuit of appeals. A majority of the judges were appointed by Reagan, Carter, Bush '41, and Clinton. Don't believe me?
<a href='http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/' target='_blank'>I took 2 seconds to search in google</a>
I think the ruling is bad, and I am glad I do not live in any of the states affected.
Additionally, they had him <i>retroactively</i> agree to the search. When you're being arrested, and the police have <i>already</i> searched the home, agreeing that they can search your home is pretty moot when it comes to defending the police officers actions.
Regarding the appointment of federal judges, I acknowledge the fact that the majority were <i>not</i> appointed by Bush 43. What I will say is that as they come to the end of the careers, and either pass on or decide to step down, realize who you are choosing as your commander-in-chief to replace them. Additionally, check into <i>ILA vs Jefferson Bulk Terminals</i>. Also, look at the current status of American liberties--where laws have already been passed that abridge our liberties in the name of safety; where unconstitutional abridgements go unchallenged because people have been told to fear their neighbors; where a President decides to unilaterally push for more challenges to citizen's rights than any previous President. Think those judges dissenting included the one that Bush 43 put in there? Think they might have been the ones who were <i>not</i> appointed by Republicans?
Siezure is an entirely different issue. Once any immediate danger has been removed (like someone being murdered), there's plenty of time to get a real warrent before anything is removed from the premesis. Evidence collection isn't exactly a crisis.
Siezure is an entirely different issue. Once any immediate danger has been removed (like someone being murdered), there's plenty of time to get a real warrent before anything is removed from the premesis. Evidence collection isn't exactly a crisis. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Discharging a firearm in someone's home is grounds for <i>probable cause</i>, the general standard for entering private property without a warrant. Just as entering a home where a criminal had fled to and then hid inside (if they physically see him go inside and not come out).
Ok, so evidence collection is no big deal, right? Then how come there are more procedural laws regarding the actions of law enforcement on the books than there are for almost anything other area of statutory law that exists? Ever think it might be because they have the capacity to <i>remove someone's physical freedom and possibly their life</i>? What happens when innocent people are being prosecuted? When you're in their spot, you for damned sure want to check every single action the police took when collecting the "evidence" they use against you. There's a reason there's a difference between a "suspect" and a "convict"--it's because they have to <i>prove you violated the law</i>. When the rules of evidence collection are relaxed, it's a LOT easier to make mistakes and convict the wrong person. Just do some research regarding the number of people cleared by DNA evidence. Also look at how many people are on death row because of <i>circumstantial</i> evidence and <i>eyewitness testimony</i>. Eyewitness testimony is the <i>least</i> reliable form of evidence, yet people have been put to death on the word of another person without any physical evidence that would justify that sentence.
The way the article is worded it realy dosn't sound like it gives them much more power.
If they have a reasonable beliefe that their saftey is in danger, then they more then likely also have probable cause to arrest who ever is posing the threat. Once they have the probable cause to arest the person they then can search him and his immediate surroundings (note this is the law before this ruling). This is there to keep evidence from being destroyed.
I would like to see the exact wording of the law, and how judges interpret it (it should be interesting if naught else).
Again, any judge worth his salt is gona throw out evidence found by this meathod when the search was in some place where they had no right to expect a threat to come from.
If the closet the opened was obviously to small for the guy, then they shouldn't have opened it. IF they look in a drug cabnet and find weapons/drugs (of the illegal type), then again, it should be thrown out.
so, yah, I would love to see exact words, and other rullings <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The way the article is worded it realy dosn't sound like it gives them much more power.
If they have a reasonable beliefe that their saftey is in danger, then they more then likely also have probable cause to arrest who ever is posing the threat. Once they have the probable cause to arest the person they then can search him and his immediate surroundings (note this is the law before this ruling). This is there to keep evidence from being destroyed.
I would like to see the exact wording of the law, and how judges interpret it (it should be interesting if naught else).
Again, any judge worth his salt is gona throw out evidence found by this meathod when the search was in some place where they had no right to expect a threat to come from.
If the closet the opened was obviously to small for the guy, then they shouldn't have opened it. IF they look in a drug cabnet and find weapons/drugs (of the illegal type), then again, it should be thrown out.
so, yah, I would love to see exact words, and other rullings <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
probable cause and "i may get hurt" are two very different things. it's the difference between seeing someone being chased through a kitchen with a butcher's knife and saying "there may be knives in this kitchen that could cut me so i better look around."
and it's not like they're necessarily going to the suspect's house in every instance this could be used. as the majority opinion read:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the majority opinion, Judge William Lockhart Garwood wrote that "any in-home encounter poses a risk to police officers, even if it is simply to interview someone. "<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so in this instance, you're a <i>witness</i> to a crime, and the police think your property may be hazardous or unsafe for them to enter (could be as little as them <i>thinking</i> you have a firearm in your house that could be used against them), so they do a "protective sweep" of your home. as someone who is <i>not</i> under direct suspicion of a crime, with police holding no probably cause to search your home, you no longer have the right to force them to get a warrant to search your property--and in this case you're not even the focus of their investigation. sounds a bit like "only criminals have something to hide; law abiding citizens have nothing to fear of this law."
The most dangerous aspect of this law is not necessarily in the letter of it, but more in the <i>stare decisis</i> tradition of federal courts tending to rule on the precedent of previous cases unless a major deviation occurs that draws their attention to it. This ruling sets a precedent for almost completely unrestrained invasion of privacy on the part of law enforcement officials of anyone they decide to visit at home.
What I'm saying is that if you leave your kilo of cocaine on the table, and somebody screams bloody murder in your living room, you should expect (and probably deserve via stupidity points) to spend some time in prison. In this case, the guns were reasonably within plain sight for the purposes of where the police could reasonably look (explained below a bit).
The police are still unable to go poking around in your cabinets for guns or drugs or other contraband without a warrent. Anything that is not in plain sight is still off limits.
Also important here is "cursory" inspection. This case is just barely that, where the police were invited to come talk to a man in his room, where they were told he was at the time. Not finding him, the looked under the bed and in the closet, where they found firearms (which they illegally siezed). If they were not looking for a <i>person</i>, who they were told was there, it wouldn't even be marginally cursory.
Also: a ruling by judges that one particular police action is legal doesn't mean that everything the police did in the case was legal. They only decide on what was appealed. This case is still a mess, and the police messed up all over.