Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

[18rabbit]

This is a huge, Huge, HUGE hit to individual liberty and personal safety. It is so broad and vague as to render the populous ideologically subject to the government at it’s whim. It makes me sick to think about it but this one is worth backing the ACLU on.<br />--------<br />March 27, 2004<br /><br />5th Circuit gives police new power in searches<br /><br />Warrant unneeded in some instances<br /><br />NEW ORLEANS -- A federal appeals court has opened the door for police in Texas and two other states to search residences and buildings for evidence without a warrant -- a ruling strongly criticized by two dissenting justices.<br /> <br />The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a swift sweep of private property to ensure their safety.<br /> <br />Evidence found in that search is admissible if the search is a "cursory inspection" and if police entered for a legitimate purpose and believed it may be dangerous.<br /> <br />The 11-4 ruling affects Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi and replaces a standard set in 1994, when the 5th Circuit held that police can make a so-called protective sweep only if officers are there to arrest someone. 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. ...<br />-------- <br />I got it from WorldNetDaily.com but you can read the whole story here:<br /> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2470156

 

[oddjob]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

This sort of dovetails with the West Palm beach case against Rush Limbaugh. I posted a few threads about it before but several Iboat folks prematurely judged Rush guilty before the legal process began or any charges leveled. <br /><br />Funny thing is Rush has gathered alot of support from Doctors,Lawyers,the ACLU? and a Govenor from the Southwest.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

It is only logical that the ACLU is defending everything their name stands for.They are not republican ,liberal or anything else.They are defending civil liberty.The hard thing is that they often must defend extreme characters,mostly because this is where our liberties are threatened.

 

[oddjob]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

Its a sad affair when folks willing deny consistutional rights to citizens out of patisanship or peer pressure based not on what they know first hand, but what they hear from media spin and other peers that have been pressured.. Some will always follow the path of least resistance. Just keep blinders on and follow the tail in front...

 

[mattttt25]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

"...if police entered for a legitimate purpose and believed it may be dangerous"<br /><br />don't see a problem, in my opinion.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

This is the way I have looked at it my whole life.<br />If the police want to waste their time pulling me over, checking my id or coming and want to look in my house, so be it.<br />I don't do anything wrong so I don't care.

 

[snapperbait]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

"I don't do anything wrong so I don't care." That goes for me too... <br /><br />Ta-ta for now... Make sure ya'll call me when they start checking your "papers" every time you cross into another county or state, and then try to pass it off as "homeland security"... Bet I'll see that happen in my lifetime...

 

[bobingardner]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

A long time ago my brother and I decided on the spur of the moment to do some pheasent hunting. I left the house in a hurry and grabbed a box of shells without looking inside. After a pleasent but unproductive walk through the woods we headed home but were stoped by the game warden. He asked to look in the trunk and since I had nothing to hide I readily agreed. Well, I guess I did have something to hide after all. In the box of shells he found a deer slug which was illegal to have except during deer season. I tried to explain what had happened but he felt it would be best to explain it to a judge. I explained what had happened to the judge and that it was an oversight on my part with no ill intent. Well, he wasn't impressed with my explanation and levied a $300 fine. That experience tells me that if I'm ever in the same situation I shouldn't agree to a search, even if I have nothing to hide. I'm a firm believe in the 4th amendment.

 

[tylerin]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

I don't do anything wrong so I don't care.<br />

pat, pat, pat (your back)

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

Originally posted by 18rabbit:<br />The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a swift sweep of private property to ensure their safety.<br /> <br />Evidence found in that search is admissible if the search is a "cursory inspection" and if police entered for a legitimate purpose and believed it may be dangerous.[/URL]

This ruling is for the officer's saftey. If the officers wanted to be safe, they should choose another job. They should be willing to sacrifice some of thier saftey to give us more freedom. Unfortunately this "protect and serve" idea has gone by the wayside over time. Now it is more like "protect and serve only if I wont get hurt"<br /><br />I dont want to upset those in law enforcement, but this is the way I see it. You guys have a hard and dangerous job, and I admire you for doing it, but dont expect us honest citizens to give up our freedoms, just to make you job a little bit more safer.<br /><br />Ken

 

[18rabbit]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

Rolmops – the ACLU is a bastion of liberal lawyers with a specific and narrow agenda. They only defend liberty to the extent it advances that agenda.<br /><br />Someone that had visited their headquarters commented on a series of plaques that is on the wall of the ACLU lobby. One plague for each of the Amendments they defend…all six of them. The ACLU’s agenda does not agree with 4 Amendments from the Bill of Rights so they do nothing to defend them.<br /><br />The ACLU will never get involved in any gun rights issues, family law issues, income tax issue, or real estate issues, no matter have unconstitutional the issue. The will defend to the death anything to do with getting a democrat elected, affirmative action, or government entitlements for anyone they can classify as ‘victims’. Their agenda does overlap a wee bit with the conservative agenda, but not by much. You do not want to live in an America as defined by the ACLU.

 

[Fly Rod]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

Police in Mass can't just come in and search your premisis without a warrant.<br />Enviromental police [game wardens] have more power in this state. They don't need a warrant if they think that you are breaking the law.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

Bad news, Fly Rod. Used to be police in any state couldn't do it. The right to be free from unlawful search originates with the federal Constitution. The court that set this right aside is a federal court. I don’t see how anyone could entertain the idea that three states, Louis, Texas, Miss are exempted but the other 47 should presume they aren’t. The gov’t never passes on an opportunity to expand its power. My guess is all the other 47 states will be pulled down in very short order.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

18rabbit<br />The aclu is built on the principle that they may or may not agree with what you have to say, but they will defend your right to say it.<br />Please inform me of any other group in the USA that does this. This organisation is altruistic, which is just about as good as it gets.

 

[oregonducker]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

The aclu supports the nambla. The nambla supports men who rape boys. I'd be tempted to kill any man who stood in front of me and said he supported that. If you're going to say that a child rapist has rights that have to be defended by anyone, don't stand in front of me and say it.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: Unlawful Search And Seizure Isn’t Unlawful

The aclu is built on the principle that they may or may not agree with what you have to say, but they will defend your right to say it.<br />

Rolmops - you are in error but I can understand how you came to the position you assume.<br /><br />The ACLU, like all other legal organizations, has its own agenda. It just so happens the ACLU is very high profile and closely aligned with a very, very left-wing agenda. Although they claim to support 1st Amendment issues, and they do, the ACLU is often absent in backing a case when a conservative topic needs defending.<br /><br />Reference the high school child that was suspended for wearing a “Jesus loves me” t-shirt. Reference the school administrator that was fired for wearing a simple, small, common cross on a necklace. Reference the student that was expelled for wearing a right-to-life t-shirt. Reference the student that was suspended for his “Clinton lied” t-shirt. Reference the Nat’l Guardsman that was discharged because he used the word “God” at a funeral, as requested by the family and as required by the military code. All of these were high profile cases; all of them prevailed at their court trials; none of them receiving even an amicus curiae brief from the ACLU.<br /><br />Currently, there is another high-profile case pending of a high school child that was the only student suspended for campaigning to receive an annual award for the most improved African-American student in his school district. His family legally migrated here 6-years ago from Johannesburg, South Africa. He is white…the ACLU is silent.<br /><br />Another very high-profile case is the guy in Florida that almost lost his house because he was displaying an American flag in his front yard. Gubner Bush got involved in this…the ACLU didn’t. <br /><br />There is an extremely high profile case of a woman in Florida that had life support removed, then re-installed… the Gubner got involved in this case, too…because the ACLU wasn’t there in support of her constitutionally protected right to life.<br /><br />The ACLU cannot take every case. It just so happens the cases they do take support the liberal agenda. Coincidence? Rolmops, when you get some free time, take a look into the demographics of exactly whom the ACLU is. Coincidence?