Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

Interesting news you may have missed

341K views 6K replies 126 participants last post by  eddiemon 
#1 ·
I wanted to start a thread like this for awhile, since there's some stuff I'd like to occasionally share that doesn't fit into drama/funny/local (to me)/etc. sections.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/warrantless-house-search

Supreme Court OKs Warrantless House Search

By David Kravets
May 17, 2011

Police do not need a search warrant to knock on a suspected drug dealer’s door and then kick it down when a suspicious bustling noise is heard from the other side, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1.

Monday’s decision seemingly settles a legal issue to which the justices have given little guidance in the past — what type of “exigent circumstances” allow warrantless entry into a house. In this case, a lower court had thrown out the police search on the grounds that the cops effectively created their own emergency — the police had banged on the suspect door without a warrant, and then crashed through it moments later for fear that their knocking had set the inhabitants to destroying evidence. The police could have gotten the warrant before knocking in the first place, a dissenting justice ruled.

The appeal concerned a 2005 crack cocaine sting operation in Lexington, Kentucky, in which an informant purchased cocaine from a suspect outside an apartment complex. The suspect then walked through a breezeway of the complex, and officers on foot lost track of him.

The police, however, smelled marijuana outside an apartment, which was not the apartment the suspect had entered. They knocked and yelled “police,” heard some noise inside and kicked down the door to let themselves in on a belief that drug evidence was possibly being destroyed. The suspect they were looking for was not there, but three others were arrested for marijuana and cocaine possession.

One defendant, Hollis King, challenged his arrest, claiming it was based on an illegal entry. He pleaded guilty on the condition of an appeal and was sentenced to 10 years. A local judge said the authorities had the right to enter his apartment based on the smell of marijuana and the rumbling sounds inside the apartment. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, saying the entry was a Fourth Amendment breach.

“The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the exigent circumstances rule does not apply in the case at hand because the police should have foreseen that their conduct would prompt the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence,” Alito wrote. “We reject this interpretation of the exigent circumstances rule. The conduct of the police prior to their entry into the apartment was entirely lawful. They did not violate the Fourth Amendment or threaten to do so. In such a situation, the exigent circumstances rule applies.” (.pdf)

The decision was an offshoot of a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said the police may not enter a private residence without a warrant unless there was probable cause and so-called “exigent” circumstances.

The authorities in the case decided Monday claimed the exigent circumstance was a belief that drug evidence was being destroyed. Nobody disputes that the smell of marijuana created the probable cause.

But was there an emergency, an “exigent circumstance” where there was not enough time to obtain a court warrant? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believed the police needed a warrant before entering the apartment.

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

The Kentucky Supreme Court found the potential destruction of evidence was an exigent circumstance, but ruled in January that it was unlawfully created by the police.

“Where police are observing a suspect from a lawful vantage point, and the suspect sees police, then the exigency is generally not police-created. But where police unnecessarily announce their presence, and this creates the fear that evidence will be destroyed, police have created their own exigency, (.pdf) and cannot rely on the fear of evidence being destroyed as a justification for a warrantless entry,” the Kentucky high court ruled.

At least 16 states had weighed in on the case, (.pdf) urging the justices to set a nationwide standard on the issue.
 
#3 ·
So when i invent a silent toilet, i'll get rich by selling them to potheads?

I'm on it.

This doesnt bother me too much...druggies are breaking the law, so if they get caught in the end thats okay. But I'm a law abiding citizen so I'm biased in favor of catching criminals.
 
#17 ·
Secure tunneling is traffic that is encrypted from one point to another point. It dropped off the chart probably because, in total percentage, it wasn't even enough to compare with the other traffic types listed. It still is around and corporations and private individuals use it often.

A Virtual Private Network, or VPN, is one type of secure tunneling, and you may use one to access your internal company's network from your home, or have one corporation's location connected to another worldwide location via the internet, but privately encrypted. I don't know if the statistic is counting encrypted peer-to-peer (e.g., bittorrent) traffic, but it helps if you have someone shaping (modifying) your traffic because it's snooping on the data within the packets being transmitted.
 
#24 ·
Well, every day would get a little repetitive. I guess I'm just a pretty straight up guy, and don't have the same social circles as any hoodlums. Also, i'd answer the door in a timely fashion, so I don't think they'd burst in.

Honestly police harassment is so far from my radar screen its not even a concern.

No police officer has EVER knocked on my door, so I'm not too concerned about it starting now.
 
#27 ·
Stop attacking me everybody. Sorry its not on my radar screen as something to be concerned about, but it just isnt. I understand a right not exercised is a right lost. But I'm more of a conformist anyway. Different strokes for different folks i guess.
 
#34 ·
It's weird to me to see WD's responses.

This isn't about the legality of your lifestyle. Read Frick's article up there. They broke into the WRONG house. Even AFTER losing their suspect. That was their first idiot mistake. Making up an awesome story to excuse themselves from looking like idiots to their superiors was their second mistake. There's no incentives for the cops NOT to find something wrong with your house if they break into it accidentally.

There are a number of issues, precedence aside, that need to be addressed here...
 
#35 ·
I understand cops make mistakes. The chances are infinitessimal that it'll happen to my house. Ergo, I'm not too concerned about it. Chances are, this will never impact my life in any way, and if it does, chances are it won't have a major impact.

I refuse to get fired up about something that I anticpate never happening to me, and having a minimal impact if it does.
Sorry...
 
#37 ·
A little of topic but it goes in the same direction.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
 
#39 ·
A little of topic but it goes in the same direction.
Quote:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
I was looking for the exact same quote to post. :) It perfectly sums up why you can't stick your head in sand and ignore stuff just because it doesn't affect you now. You have to defend freedom out at the margins, because if you don't, the margins move inexorably inward.
 
#52 ·
More coming out.

Tucson, Arizona (CNN) -- A U.S. Marine who died in a flurry of bullets during a drug raid near Tucson never fired on the SWAT team that stormed his house, a report by the Pima County Sheriff's Department shows. The revelation was contained in an internal investigation released by the department Thursday. Jose Guerena died May 5 after a SWAT team descended on his home in a Tucson suburb with a search warrant. His home was one of four believed to be associated with a drug smuggling operation in the area. A video released Thursday by the sheriff's department shows the uniformed SWAT team pulling up outside his house, sounding their sirens, banging on the front door -- before kicking it in -- and opening fire shortly after entering the home.

Watch video on CNN affiliate KGUN9

Officers fired more than 70 shots, the investigation showed. Deputies said they opened fire after Guerena, 26, gestured at them with an AR-15 -- a semiautomatic rifle. Some of the officers said they believed that Guerena fired on them, but the investigation showed that no shots were fired from the weapon and it was never taken off the safety position. Initial news reports indicated that he had been struck by more than 60 bullets. However, CNN has seen an initial report from the medical examiner that details 22 bullet wounds. A lawyer representing the deputies defended their actions. "They absolutely responded how they were trained. They responded within Arizona laws, within the law throughout the nation," attorney Mike Storie said. "If you are faced with that type of deadly threat, you're allowed to respond." Guerena served in Iraq and was discharged from the Marines five years ago. He was working for a mining company in the Tucson area. But authorities allege he also was involved in drug smuggling, strong-armed robberies and human smuggling. A search of the home after the shooting revealed nothing illegal, although officers found weapons and body armor. The five deputies involved in the shooting remain on active duty. No criminal charges have been filed and no disciplinary action taken. The findings of the investigation are detailed in a five-inch thick report, including a 60-page statement from Guerena's wife, Vanessa, who was in the home at the time of the shooting along with a young son. In addition to the video, the sheriff's department also released audio of Guerena calling 911 to get medical attention for her husband. Audio of the SWAT team's radio conversations was also included.
She has retained a lawyer, but no legal action has been taken. "We just learned that the sheriff's department has released voluminous amounts of information in respect to this incident," said Guerena attorney Chris Scileppi. "We will review the documents and CDs, and will make ourselves available for comment in the near future."
 
#53 ·
Here's another interesting, related, article:

Colorado ACLU files lawsuit against five Colorado State Patrol officers for shooting and killing an unarmed man in his house because he refused to let them in without a warrant

This in particular caught my eye:

The state troopers were investigating a minor accident that resulted, at most, in minimal damage to a neighbor's lawn. They suspected Jason was responsible for this minor accident and may have been driving under the influence of alcohol. But that provided no legal justification for proceeding without a warrant, drawing their guns, and attempting to kick down Jason's front door. It certainly provided no justification for shooting him dead.

Jason was killed because he did what every American has the right to do. He insisted that police comply with the Fourth Amendment and obtain a warrant before entering a person's home.

For reasons I explain in my column today, Silverstein probably should have qualified that statement: Every American outside of Indiana has that right. In concluding "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," the Indiana Supreme Court cited the potential for violence when citizens fail to comply with illegal demands by armed government agents.
Interesting difference with Indiana.
 
#54 ·
We should all really be fired up about this one:

S4080 (New York) – Reduces regulations on grocery stores selling food items on the number of scales for customer use. The bill was sponsored in the Assembly by Assemblyman Magee.
There is nothing worse than not having a convenient scale in the produce section when you need one. Grab your pitchforks people!
 
Top