TexasCHLforum.com

Another nail in the coffin of the 4th Amendment.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 5.html?amp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

Wow ... just wow. So there were no exigent circumstances that anyone was in eminent danger.

...I don't see any difference between smelling the unmistakable odor of burning pot and seeing it through a window...I believe they were right in going in before it could go away...especially while in pursuit of a drug suspect...a lot of reasonable cause there...

Thread already running:
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=45046&hilit=warrant" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Teamless wrote:Thread already running:
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=45046&hilit=warrant" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is a different article about a different case. The one you linked is an Indiana Supreme Court ruling. The one in this thread is United States Supreme Court Ruling.

speedsix wrote:...I don't see any difference between smelling the unmistakable odor of burning pot and seeing it through a window...I believe they were right in going in before it could go away...especially while in pursuit of a drug suspect...a lot of reasonable cause there...

Might the fact that they broke into the wrong apartment make any difference? Did they have "reasonable cause" to break into any apartment in the apartment house?

To possibly make it a little harder to pass the "smell test" (not a pun), after elsewhere making the arrest of the man they were after the charges against the person arrested were dropped.

Elmo

speedsix wrote:...I don't see any difference between smelling the unmistakable odor of burning pot and seeing it through a window...I believe they were right in going in before it could go away...especially while in pursuit of a drug suspect...a lot of reasonable cause there...

Oh right, I forgot about the clause in the 4th Amendment that says it doesn't apply if cops suspect someone might be using drugs.

speedsix wrote:...I don't see any difference between smelling the unmistakable odor of burning pot and seeing it through a window...I believe they were right in going in before it could go away...especially while in pursuit of a drug suspect...a lot of reasonable cause there...

You need to look at the ruling and not just the particular case where an odor was the pretext for entry. There is nothing reasonable about this ruling. Here's how it's described in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1161.story):

"The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant."

What sounds "suggest" evidence is being destroyed? Is there ANY sound that can't be used as a pretext to "suggest" evidence is being destroyed? Your TV (turned on to cover up the sound of evidence being destroyed). Your toilet flushing (flushing evidence down the toilet). Your stereo on (hiding the "sounds of destroying evidence"). Sound of someone walking (someone destroying evidence). Baby crying (parents must be destroying evidence instead of attending to child). You yell, "someone's at the door" (signal to another person in the house to destroy evidence). This ruling gives the police carte blanche to kick your door down and guts the probable cause standard.

Edited to add:

In fact, the article actually quotes Alito as saying the "sounds of people moving" justify the police kicking your door down, so by this ruling merely trying to answer the door gives the police the right to kick it in. How can a ruling be much more unreasonable or ridiculous than that?

"The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant."

This means they can basically break down whatever door they want. They don't actually have to hear something, just say they did.

Dont give the police reason to believe that youre possessing illegal drugs inside your house and im pretty sure they wont pay you a visit.

VMI77 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...I don't see any difference between smelling the unmistakable odor of burning pot and seeing it through a window...I believe they were right in going in before it could go away...especially while in pursuit of a drug suspect...a lot of reasonable cause there...

You need to look at the ruling and not just the particular case where an odor was the pretext for entry. There is nothing reasonable about this ruling. Here's how it's described in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1161.story):

"The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant."

What sounds "suggest" evidence is being destroyed? Is there ANY sound that can't be used as a pretext to "suggest" evidence is being destroyed? Your TV (turned on to cover up the sound of evidence being destroyed). Your toilet flushing (flushing evidence down the toilet). Your stereo on (hiding the "sounds of destroying evidence"). Sound of someone walking (someone destroying evidence). Baby crying (parents must be destroying evidence instead of attending to child). You yell, "someone's at the door" (signal to another person in the house to destroy evidence). This ruling gives the police carte blanche to kick your door down and guts the probable cause standard.

I agree you need to read the ruling and not the LA Times spin on it, because it (ruling) does not agree with the Times' statement. Exigent circumstances are still required...Chasing a suspect, smell of marijuana, and sounds suggesting destruction of evidence, etc. And they even suggest that the lower court can re-evaluate whether the exigent circumstances were sufficient to allow the warrantless entry.

bci21984 wrote:Dont give the police reason to believe that youre possessing illegal drugs inside your house and im pretty sure they wont pay you a visit.

The whole point was that they hit the wrong house. That kind of puts the axe to your theory.

ScottDLS wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...I don't see any difference between smelling the unmistakable odor of burning pot and seeing it through a window...I believe they were right in going in before it could go away...especially while in pursuit of a drug suspect...a lot of reasonable cause there...

You need to look at the ruling and not just the particular case where an odor was the pretext for entry. There is nothing reasonable about this ruling. Here's how it's described in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1161.story):

"The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant."

What sounds "suggest" evidence is being destroyed? Is there ANY sound that can't be used as a pretext to "suggest" evidence is being destroyed? Your TV (turned on to cover up the sound of evidence being destroyed). Your toilet flushing (flushing evidence down the toilet). Your stereo on (hiding the "sounds of destroying evidence"). Sound of someone walking (someone destroying evidence). Baby crying (parents must be destroying evidence instead of attending to child). You yell, "someone's at the door" (signal to another person in the house to destroy evidence). This ruling gives the police carte blanche to kick your door down and guts the probable cause standard.

I agree you need to read the ruling and not the LA Times spin on it, because it (ruling) does not agree with the Times' statement. Exigent circumstances are still required...Chasing a suspect, smell of marijuana, and sounds suggesting destruction of evidence, etc. And they even suggest that the lower court can re-evaluate whether the exigent circumstances were sufficient to allow the warrantless entry.

The article does actually allude to a supposed "emergency." The problem with that line of reasoning is, much as I hate to admit it, Ginsburg is right on this one, and the claim that the police were in "emergency" circumstances is ridiculous. A guy sold crack to an informant and WALKED into an apartment building. The police weren't even hot on his tail, since they had no idea what apartment he had entered. Then they entered an apartment where they smelled marijuana. And as it turns out, they got the wrong apartment anyway, so there was no "emergency" to act upon --even if you consider someone attempting to dispose of illegal drugs in their possession to be a police emergency (extra hard to swallow in this case given it involved an under surveillance sale to an informant).

Now while it might not be so unreasonable to connect the suspect to the apartment in this particular case, the court ruling doesn't limit police entry to cases where they smell marijuana. What if they just heard a door closing at the end of a hallway and said: must be the apartment, because the suspect just walked in here? What if all the apartments were quiet but one, where music was playing, and the police said: he must be in this one, doesn't sound like anyone else is home? The fact is the police didn't know where the guy went and they just made a guess about the likely apartment. The suspect sold drugs to an informant, presumably under surveillance since the police followed him, and was known to the informant. No one's life was in immediate danger. How is that an "emergency" that justifies breaking into the home of someone that has nothing to do with the crime being investigated?

So, yeah, I get the supposed "exigent" basis, but the claim of exigency in this case (and in lots of other cases involving illegal drugs) is a transparent fiction intended to circumvent Constitutional restrictions. A good part of the supposed War on Drugs is a war on the Constitution. You may not ever personally suffer for it, the odds are probably in your favor if you don't have any connection to illegal drugs, but you do have connections to other people, and you can't always know what other people are up to, so you can never be sure you or someone you care about won't get tagged for something even though you didn't do anything wrong.

Perhaps I should have tied this SCOTUS decision a little better to our context here. Other than for my long-time commitment to preserving our Bill of Rights, this decision gives me as a CHL gun-bearer some awful scaries. Perhaps it is time that we brought the implications of this case into our world.

How many times have we read recently of a loud banging on the door, shouts of "Police, police", followed immediately by hoodlums breaking down the door and robbing, or worse, those innocents in the house -- Houston has had its share of these incidents.

With this decision on the books, what do you as a homeowner do, wearing or having immediately available a firearm for self-protection, when the hoodlums crash into your house? Asking to see a warrant will not help, as the hoodlums will obviously not have one, and they will crash on in. Legitimate LEOs now do not need one, so long as they can fabricate justification ex post facto -- not at all difficult.

Not having seen any identification you of course will recall those lessons received from your CHL instructor, and repeated so often here, about "your home is your castle," and meet them with a firearm pointed at them, if not actually fired. You may find yourself in a no-win situation here, guys and gals.

If they are indeed the police, what do you expect they will do when they see a firearm pointed at them? They are trained, too. If you fire your weapon, what do you think your oath is worth in court versus the oath of a police officer, or that of possibly several of them?

If they are hoodlums, and not the police, could your momentary hesitation caused by your knowledge of this SCOTUS decision cause your death and that of your loved ones?

I think we might all think about these questions, and perhaps our CHL instructors should immediately become aware of this decisison and prepared to pass its implications on to their students.

Plus one more. Can you imagine any better way to encourage home invasions by those pretending to be LEOs than this decision?

Elmo

There are already exceptions to the warrant clause and one of them is if evidence could be destroyed. They has a RAS to indicate evidence was being destroyed and if they had obtained a warrant the evidence would be gone. The SCOTUS is reaffirming an earlier exception but they are extending it to the home. I have no heartburn with this ruling. Just have to be careful and hold those who abuse this, and other exceptions, accountable.