Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

[12Footer]

It's a new day, y'all. This recent decission could spell the demise of "political correctness"...<br />COPS: one, MUTANTS: zero!

About time!

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

Give us a synopsis 12. I don't like to have to register to read these news items.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

Sorry about that, and i don't blame you for not liking those links. I hate those register-first links too, and try to avoid them myself...I forgot this one is one I registered to long ago;<br /> <br />The case is Hudson vs. Michigan. It revolved around a search. "In 1998, police with a warrant entered the unlocked home of Booker Hudson without knocking. They found Mr. Hudson and a loaded gun nearby and some cocaine rocks. Because the cops didn't knock as required, Hudson's lawyers wanted the evidence suppressed, but there was a 5-4 ruling." The Supreme Court said no dice, and the libs are lamenting. It's all over the blogosphere. <br /><br />Here is the way liberal news spins it.<br />They are obviously crying on their ink speaders.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

Cops bustin in unannounced could easily be mistaken for bad guys. Some folks get upset over that.<br /><br />Be careful what you wish for.

 

[artburr]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

Or shot.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

The Supreme Court on Thursday substantially diminished Americans' right to privacy in their own homes.

Losing god given 4th amendment rights is nothing a conservative would be happy about.<br />Catching a millon bad guys is still to high a price to lose even a single sentence of the Constitution.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

Originally posted by Skinnywater:<br />

The Supreme Court on Thursday substantially diminished Americans' right to privacy in their own homes.

Losing god given 4th amendment rights is nothing a conservative would be happy about.<br />Catching a millon bad guys is still to high a price to lose even a single sentence of the Constitution.

Gimme a break Skinnywater. They had a WARRANT!

 

[PW2]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

I have to admit I don't understand the mindset of those that fiercely argue their constitutional rights to own guns unrestricted, yet are willing to give up other rights willy nilly at the drop of a hat.<br /><br />It's not as if the court was asked not to enforce the warrant--only that the police announce themselves and wait a reasonable amount of time before breaking the door down.<br /><br />For as many cases of incorrect addresses, and breaking into the wrong houses as are reported, I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

[Twidget]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

Cops bustin in unannounced could easily be mistaken for bad guys. Some folks get upset over that

From what I understand, the police identified themselves and said they had a warrant. The fact they didn't knock on the door is the technicality the defendants lawyer was using. <br /><br />You gotta admit, that is a pretty lame try at rights violation.

 

[DaleT]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

First off, I don't know the particulars of this case and that's not really my point anyways. What makes this ruling truely scary is the fact that the Detroit PD is, and has been for sometime, under investigation by the FBI for use of a number of improper law enforcement techniques. In their defense they are largely underfunded. However, that does not excuse some of the alleged violations. Holding people without just cause for lengthy times for example. This ruling being based on that department is not, in my opinion, a good omen. Should police departments have to follow the "knock and announce" policy? I haven't looked or thought to much into it, but I will from this point. Ou rights as citizens must be examined whenever the Supreme Court makes a ruling regardless of how it appears on the surface. Every ruling has much further reaching aspects then we may think initially. Yet, as I stated, to make a ruling based on the practices of a department that has fallen into a state where they have been repeatedly admonished by federal agencies is not of sound practice, at least to me.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

Originally posted by BoatBuoy:<br /> Cops bustin in unannounced could easily be mistaken for bad guys. Some folks get upset over that.<br /><br />Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah...Esspecially the genuine "bad guys".<br />I know some here think this is just one more assualt on their rights and freedoms. But I see it as finally -- targeting the CORRECT side in the battle against moral decay, as opposed to the law-abiding side.<br /><br />Judging by the responses, I may be an odd bird. But after years of losing cival rights, I'm a happy camper. The first rights i lost, i can still remember 45years later. Those were not being granted "the moment of silence",followed by the "pledge of Allegiance". Actaully, now that I am playing back the tape in my head, my real FIRST loss was when i first started school-- we actually prayed along with the intercom -- Amen.<br />Then, there were many more. But the stupid ones that effect me daily that pop-into me head are the lost right to not wear a seat belt, followed by my right to smoke. What rights/freedoms they could not assualt, they taxed me so they could fund their assualts on others.<br /><br />I now wear seat belts, and have been off the smokes for 5years. Not because I wanted to.<br />Sig Hiel and all that rot, y'all. I'm just rejoycing over a minor court-decision victory.<br />I can understand some of your trepidation, but have had enough of those slow erosions to freedom in my lifetime, and promise you, that as long as Americans keep voting morallly, soon "political correctness" will be relegated to Dan Rather's prehistoric diary. This ,as those who would drag-down my securities and freedoms will be under increased funding of their own,for my true freedoms. The pendulum is swinging. Goodbye, AlCBS, alNBC,alPBS. Good riddance!<br /><br />.

 

[Kenneth Brown]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

Go get'um 12 feetz!

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

activist judges.....

 

[PW2]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

One thing we see time and again in history is if some group, like the police, have power they will use it.<br /><br />I don't think it is the worst thing in the world that the police be reigned in and forced to be professional, rather than the Gustapo that have been used in the past.<br /><br />And your little spiel scares the beejesus out of me, 12 feetz. As soon as one group decides they know what's best for the rest of us, and will impose that decision by any and all means, it is not a huge leap to outright tyranny. If they obtain power, at least.<br /><br />However well intentioned, tyranny is still tyranny.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

A few years ago,one of New Yorks finest and one of his fellow officers entered a haitian man from behind with a broom stick.This officer was able to hide behind the "blue wall" for quite a while.<br />Do you really want one of these to be allowed in your home without knocking first? They have proven that there are a lot of rotten apples in their ranks.

 

[Parrott_head]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

Ok Folks, <br /><br />Here is a summation of the Hudson Vs Michigan case. <br /> Hudsond Vs. Michigan<br /><br />In a nutshell, the police did not have a "no knock" search warrant. By the terms of the warrant they were to Knock, Announce and then, after a resonable time, Force Entry.<br /><br />They announced, waited five seconds and then forced entry. <br /><br />The police found some illegal drugs and weapons.<br /><br />The crux of the matter is since the manner of entry did not follow the stipulations of the warrant should the evidence be used in court.<br /><br />The arguement for allowing the evidence is that the discovery of the drugs would have been made anyway if they had followed the warrants requirements and therefore should be admissable evidence.<br /><br />The arguement against was that in People Vs. Stephens ruling the evidence should be disallowed.<br /><br />One philosophy with the Stephens decision is to keep "Rogue Cops" from violating the constitutional rights of the citizens.<br /><br />In the written statment for the majority by Justice Antonin Scalia it was stated that those citzens that have had their civil rights violated in such a manner could seek redress through civil court.<br /><br />It was countered that the redress through civil court is meaningless. Moran, council for the Hudson, stated that in the two cases of "knock and announce" that found for the plantiff the monetary award was only $1.00.<br /><br />What does this mean to the average citizen?<br />I'm not sure but only time will tell.<br /><br />My suspicions?<br />Most officers will continue to do their jobs as they have been trained to the utmost of their abilites.<br />A small number will see this as a tool they can use to their advantage and will try pushing the envelope a little bit further.<br /><br />We had a case in my home state where two law enforcmenet agencies were serving a search warrant jointly. The local officers reviewed the warrant and said the residence address was incorrect. <br />They warned the other agency that the address they wanted was very similar but a few blocks over. The locals declined to join in and advised the others to double check their source.<br /><br />The other group ignored the warning and served it anyway.<br /><br />At the residence in question the couple were decorating their Christmas tree with their children. There was a loud pounding on the door and shouts of "Police, we have a warrant". The couple immeaditaly suspected a home invasion was getting ready to take place and tried to get their kids out of harms way.<br /><br />The officers stormed in and threw everyone down and handcuffed them. When the residents asked to see the warrant their request was refused.<br />They were held for quite a bit of time while their house was throughly searched. The officers were desperate at this point to make a case of some sort.<br /><br />Nothing was found. The couple were law abiding citizens. Seems the local law enforcement was right. <br /><br />Oh, the guy they really wanted? We he found out what happened he disappeared to go ply his trade somewhere else.<br /><br />There was quite a bit of rukus about this and then it all disappeared. <br /><br />Let's suppose that the officers found a water pipe in this house. In our state that can be considered "Drug Paraphanelia" and have can be judged a crime.<br /><br />So the cops grab this water pipe and use it against the homeowner. "You file suit against us, this will be presented as evidence." Some folks then would just back away.<br /><br />Remember, a lot of the previous rulings were made in a time where the police often had absolute powers when dealing with the public.<br /><br />Do you remember "Mississippi Burning"?

 

[cpj]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

They had a warrant. They announced themselves. What is the ****ing problem?<br />I dont understand the problem. THEY HAD A WARRANT! That means that they had a resonable notion that he had drugs in his house. Which he did.<br />Maybe Im wrong, and Im being to hard on this worhtless piece of **** drug head. How about this?<br /><br />"Knock knock knock. This is the police. We have a warrant to search your house. Again, this is the POLICE, and we are going to SEARCH your HOUSE for DRUGS. I want you to know for sure that we are the POLICE, and that we are going to SEARCH your HOUSE for DRUGS. I hope that we, the POLICE, In our effort to SEARCH your HOUSE for DRUGS, have given you ample time as afforded under your constitutional rights to be aware of our presence and intention to SEARCH your HOUSE for DRUGS. Please dont flush the drugs down the toliet while we are giving you this 5 minute explanation of why we are here, which is to search your HOUSE for DRUGS. Ok, can we come in now?"<br /><br />I dont get it. If they said they had a warrant,and announced themselves as the police, how is that any kind of violation of his rights?

 

[cpj]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

"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."<br /><br /><br />Now point me to the line where it says that the police must knock first.

 

[Twidget]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

I am still wondering how I would feel better if a bad cop was knocking on my door before kicking it in as opposed to announcing and kicking the door in. <br /><br />Yes, there are bad cops. They are fortunately in the minority. It is just like anything with the media, they go for the one bad cop story as opposed to the hundreds of good cop stories because it sells. <br /><br />Maybe I am naive, but I tend to trust the police. They do a dangerous, generally thankless job and dont make a heck of a lot doing it.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Judicial appointee victories 2 months ago pay off!

I'm not sure what the issue is either. They had a warrant. Criminals have guns or worse. I think this is like the old, separation of church and state thing, not written anywhere in the law, not legally binding, but just PC.