The Police No Longer Have to Knock Before Busting Into Your House

Oh goodie more corrosive satire from the neocon peanut gallery. :laugh:

 

Bumped to the third page in case everyone did not see the question.

Joseph Botwinick

 

There is actually a bit more to it than that. What must a police officer present to a judge in order for the judge to grant that search warrant?

Joseph Botwinick

 

They have a search warrant granted with probable cause shown. Nobody's rights or freedoms have been violated or forfeited.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Just as long as I have the right to shoot anyone who comes busting through my door without knocking.

 

Ken,

1. What this law says is we are not gong to give drug and gun dealers the opportunity to hide their stash while the cops are playing legal games introducing their presence.

2. If a cop busts into my house, I am not going to say a word. That is my legal right. I will probably put my hands up and submit to the authorities. If, afterword, it is determined that the busted in the wrong house, I will call my lawyer and take legal action for them to get me a new door.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Probable cause can be interpreted in a number of ways.

• ​
• http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm

Probable cause can be as simple as an anonymous phone call.

Even when there is no search warrant, and not even a police officer, it can be extremely difficult to defend yourself against someone entering your home without your permission?

Example? Why yes!

I was in my kitchen. There were men in my house installing new windows, so when I heard the door open and shut, I assumed it was one of them.

A few moments later I heard a bit of a ruckus, and it sounded like a couple of the men were trying to make someone leave.

I walked into my living room, where a social worker was rifling through my living room. Lucky for her, I recognized her.

I escorted her out of my home and attempted to press charges of breaking and entering. The police refused to accept the report. The social worker stated she didn't need a search warrant to do that, that she had received a phone call and as a social worker, had every right to enter my home without my permission.

The only thing I got was a letter of apology from the Department of Human Services, and that was only after they received correspondance from my lawyer. I was further threatened for non-cooperation, told my kids could be taken from me just for that. (one of many threats)

Now, for no-knock carryouts of search warrants. That's a bit stupid. There are already laws that allow authorities to enter a home without permission under extenuating circumstances. The government needs NO MORE authority than they already have to intrude into our homes, property, and lifestyles. They already have way too much.

This all equals out to less freedom for all of us. For a freedom loving people, we sure have a funny way of showing it! We just keep handing it over bit by bit. It always sounds like a good idea at the time. It never is though.

Patriot. Wanna be one? Stand up for your country, for your people. Stand up for your government....unless it's doing wrong. Taking away freedoms is wrong. You never get them back once you give them up. Kinda like income tax. It was a good idea at the time, but meant to be temporary. Like the French voice over on SpongeBob....87 yeahs laytyah.... :laugh:

 

Gina,

Was this before or after the recent Supreme Court Ruling?

There is nothing wrong with this ruling. As a matter of fact, it was the right ruling. It neither gave nor took away any power from the government. It simply, as you stated, affirmed their right to enter without knocking if they have a search warrant obtain through probable cause.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The Personal Liability of the Public Sector ​

Administrator Pursuant To 42 U.S.C. Section 1983​

This article examines the liability of government and government administrators pursuant to a very significant federal civil rights statute, Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States’ Code. The article in particular analyzes the personal liability of the public sector administrator under Section 1983. This federal statutory liability frequently is referred to as "constitutional tort" liability, thereby underscoring the constitutional vindication and personal damage elements to this legal wrong. This article will review the key federal statute that safeguards citizens’ constitutional rights from abuse by government, government entities, and especially government administrators. This statute is most noteworthy because it provides a very tangible personal remedy for constitutional violations in a public administration context. The significant concept of sovereign immunity, encompassing absolute and qualified immunity doctrines, also will be explicated, especially from the vantage point of the modern public administrator. The article will note briefly how the concept of sovereign immunity operates pursuant to the critical "ministerial" versus "discretionary" act legal distinction.


A review of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions ruling on these important issues will be conducted. These cases, together with some selected "lower" federal court decisions, clearly indicate that government officials, public administrators, their subordinates, and certain government entities have been held liable in lawsuits for money damages for Section 1983 "constitutional tort" violations. Consequently, the astute and concerned public administrator must be cognizant of this important legal area and particularly the potential personal liability aspect thereto. Thus, in concluding, the article will provide certain recommendations regarding what policies, actions, and "best practices" the public administrator should incorporate into his or her daily profession, individually and in the capacity of a manager and supervisor, in order to avoid personal liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

 

No, it should not be simply based on probable cause. Probable cause is too vague. Warrants can be based on things like medical neglect, telephone harassment, etc.. There's no reason to have a law that technically gives the police to the right too bust into a home where there's possibly children and perfectly innocent people who will be traumatized and frightened by such drastic measures.
And you KNOW that power will be misused. You can't hand that much power to a group of people and expect that nobody will misuse it. Just the fact that it got put into law shows the bad things that happen when power is abused.

 

Gina,

1. Any law can and will be abused because mankind is totally depraved.

2. The possiblity of a child being traumitzed is outweighed by the prospects of the child who is saved far worse trauma by the police who bust in and save their lives.

3. It was not put into law by the Supreme Court. It was upheld as constitutional.

4. It is a good law and I, for one, am glad that the police don't have to give the drug dealers advanced warning so they can flush their stash down the toilet. I, for one, am glad that the police don't have to give the pedophile advance warning so they can destroy the evidence of what they have done. You might not like it, but I do. I understand there is potential for abuse and mistakes. This is true of any law, however, and the good far outweighs the bad on this issue.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Because finally, in at least one case, they did exactly that. They upheld the constitution. Why are you against that? Other than your general demeanor of being cantankerous about everything right now. (At least until you switch sides again.)

If you don't share the values of constitutional authority and law, then you certainly should vote Republican. Republicans very often are on the wrong side of these issues, but here they got it right. Your complaints and responses make no sense. And when you are agreeing with Terry and Daisy, you should be seriously rethinking your position. That, in and of itself, gives probable cause to doubt anything you say and bust down the walls of your head to find out what you are smoking.

Seriously, this isn't that big of a deal. Typically, I think they do knock when serving a search warrant. There are cases when they don't, and they shouldn't have to. What this ruling does is give you the hope that you can live in a community where laws will be upheld, and criminals will not get off on a technicality and return to your street to deal drugs to your children.

This is the problem of living in a sincursed world. People do crime, and their sinful deception necessitates authorities to do some things that they otherwise would not have to. At the same time, the authorities are vulnerable to abuse of their God-given, constitutional obligation to protect this country, its law abiding citizens from those who would do them harm.

So there is no easy solution. As a whole, the Supreme Court clearly got this one right. They may never do so again, and this ruling is not without difficulties, but they got it right. Be glad that it wasn't Al Gore or John Kerry. Their appointees would have been far worse.

 

The civil liberties that too many Americans are willing to just hand over to a police state were bought by the blood of patriots. I am very concerned about the future of our liberty.

 

It depends on the judge. What is considered legal probable cause might vary according to state and local laws and does vary with the individual judge's inclinations.

There was a case about a year ago in NYC where the police busted the door of an old lady and threw shock bomb into her apartment which gave her a heart attack which killed her. Turns out, her apartment was targetted on the sayso of an informant - the police had not staked it out to see if there was any traffic in and out of her apartment, they just relied on his word - which was either mistaken or vengeful, I forget which.

 

Me too, especially when comments like this are used in an effort to "defend" it. The very idea that civil liberties were handed over in this is absurd, unless there is more to the story than is currently available. The blood of the patriots did not buy you the right to engage in illegal activity without fear of reprisal. The blood of the patriots did not buy you the right to be absolved of your criminal activity becasue someone overstepped their bounds in gathering evidence against. The blood of the patriots did not but you the right to live outside the constitution.

If the future of our liberty depends on your argument, then we are indeed in trouble. Fortunately, we have the liberty to educate ourselves about the real issues. We have the liberty to know what is actually going on. You should avail yourself of it.

 

Exceptions don't make good law. There are literally thousands of cases each day where search warrants are properly executed, and investigations are properly carried out. The tiny minority of failures is no case to do away with the system. I would be willing to bet that this little incident was costly, was it not?

 

Larry, you are showing your ignorance. No, I don't have liberty to engage in criminal activity. However, I do have liberty to be secure in my home from unreasonable search and seizure. The point is that no-knock raids are dangerous to police, dangerous to the occupants, and the occupants have not been convicted of engaging in criminal activity. If you can't see the difference, you are part of the problem.