Conservative Justices To Rule Against 4th Amendment?

[John Galt]

So the officer would be crooked if he/she decided to do something that was well within the law (depending on the Court's decision) but that you didn't personally agree with?

Isn't this why a lot of the Constitution and Bill of Rights revolved around Natural Law (common sense)? The way things have gotten, with all of the unnatural interpretatons of the Constitution, the "law" as it can now be applied by any Liberal attornet/court has drifted from what can be a common assumption of what is right to whatever they say is right. This flies squarely in the face of the 4th Amendment (and others), which is stated about as plainly and absolute as it could be regarding these issues.

PS - Please don't kick in my door ......

 

[INGunGuy]

S

PS - Please don't kick in my door ......

Ditto, and if you dont then you dont have to worry about me opening fire on you.

INGunGuy

 

[rambone]

I guess a good rule of thumb is that if someone kicks down your door unannounced, they are officially not arriving for friendly purposes and are fitting the definition of a home-invader quite nicely.

No-knock warrants are crazy & dangerous enough. Kicking down civilians doors without a warrant...? I can't even believe that we are having this discussion.

 

[jsharmon7]

Let me ask this, how hard it this to interpret:

"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."

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me, no interpretations necessary.

As I have stated very clearly, my family and I dont break the law, we dont smoke marijuana, we dont do ANYTHING that would warrant a LEO to kick in my door for ANY reason whatsoever. So with that being said, the ONLY reasons a LEO were to kick in my door are as follows:

1. Crooked LEO who doesnt care about the Constitution or the 4th Amendment and it kicking in my door for no reason at all.
2. LEO kicking in my door illegally because they supposedly smelled what they thought was the smell of marijuana <which would be bullspit>.

In both of those scenarios YES, I would open fire. Should I wait to verify that the BG that kicks in my front door who wants to rob, rape and murder my wife or children or I before opening fire? I dont think so.

Now lets go ahead and change the scenario slightly, and one night there is a knock on the door, and someone claiming to be LEO, needs to speak with me, not kicking in the door, but going about it legally, then no, the requirement for me opening fire is gone.

As for living in a world of unicorns and candy, nope, I dont live anywhere like that. Maybe you do, but I live in a world where there are plenty of people out there that want to kill or do harm to my family or I, and I dont have the pleasure of being able to verify who someone is that is breaking into my home thru my front door, back door, window, etc...

INGunGuy

Apparently I struck a nerve with you, eh? I was just asking you questions based on YOUR statements. 99.9% of law-abiding citizens don't have to worry about this stuff, but I'm glad you've got it all figured it out. It's easy to sit in your computer chair and say what you will or won't do in that situation. I'm glad you know though.

Isn't this why a lot of the Constitution and Bill of Rights revolved around Natural Law (common sense)? The way things have gotten, with all of the unnatural interpretatons of the Constitution, the "law" as it can now be applied by any Liberal attornet/court has drifted from what can be a common assumption of what is right to whatever they say is right. This flies squarely in the face of the 4th Amendment (and others), which is stated about as plainly and absolute as it could be regarding these issues.

PS - Please don't kick in my door ......

Ideally the law would be about common sense, but that isn't so much the case anymore. Again, we're not living in the land of candy and unicorns, things don't always happen perfectly. My point is that as a civilized society we live in a land of laws. We have bestowed the power of judicial review upon the Justices of our most Supreme Court. We can't capriciously decide when we will or won't follow their decisions. I think you've brought up an excellent point though about the current state of our laws in this country. Dross brought up a similar question, and I didn't have an answer for him. I also don't have an answer to the question of what we do about it.

I guess a good rule of thumb is that if someone kicks down your door unannounced, they are officially not arriving for friendly purposes and are fitting the definition of a home-invader quite nicely.

No-knock warrants are crazy & dangerous enough. Kicking down civilians doors without a warrant...? I can't even believe that we are having this discussion.

I haven't seen anyone discussing whether this potential decision is a good idea or not, everyone so far agrees that it is not. I am simply asking questions of those who have replied so far.

 

[rambone]

My point is that as a civilized society we live in a land of laws. We have bestowed the power of judicial review upon the Justices of our most Supreme Court. We can't capriciously decide when we will or won't follow their decisions. I think you've brought up an excellent point though about the current state of our laws in this country. Dross brought up a similar question, and I didn't have an answer for him. I also don't have an answer to the question of what we do about it.

The solution is for more LEOs to take a stand against bad laws and bad practices. Refuse to be a part of them, denounce those who do.

We have checks and balances in government, three independent branches that can all provide a unique safeguard against tyranny. When lawmakers pass bad law, and justices give their blessing on bad laws, it is up to LEOs to ignore that bad laws.

Refuse to be a part of the blood-draw checkpoints. refuse to kick down people's doors. Refuse to disarm innocent civilians. Listen to your conscience -- we cannot be robots. If the law seems immoral, don't go along with it. Pretend its a jaywalking violation, forget about it.

 

[INGunGuy]

Apparently I struck a nerve with you, eh? I was just asking you questions based on YOUR statements. 99.9% of law-abiding citizens don't have to worry about this stuff, but I'm glad you've got it all figured it out. It's easy to sit in your computer chair and say what you will or won't do in that situation. I'm glad you know though.



Ideally the law would be about common sense, but that isn't so much the case anymore. Again, we're not living in the land of candy and unicorns, things don't always happen perfectly. My point is that as a civilized society we live in a land of laws. We have bestowed the power of judicial review upon the Justices of our most Supreme Court. We can't capriciously decide when we will or won't follow their decisions. I think you've brought up an excellent point though about the current state of our laws in this country. Dross brought up a similar question, and I didn't have an answer for him. I also don't have an answer to the question of what we do about it.



I haven't seen anyone discussing whether this potential decision is a good idea or not, everyone so far agrees that it is not. I am simply asking questions of those who have replied so far.

As for hitting a nerve, yes, I take my personal privacy and liberty VERY serious. The problem with the police being able to willy-nilly kick in a door because they thought they smelled marijuana, or because they were issued a no-knock warrant that was served on 310 Maple Street INSTEAD of 310 Maple Drive. These things happen, and we read about them happening more and more often. As I have stated my family and I are law abiding hard working people, we live in a nice middle class neighborhood, there is very little crime to speak of, we are friends with our neighbors and have an open-door policy with some of them. We dont break the law, not that I was saying ANYONE said we were, we dont smoke marijuana, we pay our bills, pay our taxes and live a normal life. There would not be a reason in the world as to why a LEO would kick in my front door. No matter what, if someone is kicking in my door, then they are doing this to cause me or my family harm in some way. I stay armed from the time I wake up until the time I go to sleep. I keep my shotgun and my S/W 4046 carry weapon within arms reach while I am asleep. I have a 125lb dog that is VERY formidable, my youngest daughter has been taught how to fire her rifle and any of my pistols. Our children respect firearms and all have some form of firearms training. Because of this why would I have to EVER worry about a LEO kicking in my door? I NEVER should, never in a million years, so as I have stated before, someone is kicking in my door, then I am going to open fire the MOMENT they get in. If it happens to be a LEO who kicked in my door because of what he thought he smelled was marijuana, well I am sorry, but he ILLEGALLY kicked in the door of someone who was NOT breaking any laws, and was doing nothing more than defending his property from someone coming in to do him harm.


INGunGuy

 

[moischmoe]

We have checks and balances in government, three independent branches that can all provide a unique safeguard against tyranny. When lawmakers pass bad law, and justices give their blessing on bad laws, it is up to LEOs to ignore that bad laws.

When lawmakers pass bad law, and justices give their blessing on bad laws, it is up to ALL OF US to vote them out.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Sometimes no knock warrants are absolutely 100% necessary for officer safety. I could explain away but few of you guys on here read for comprehension. Bottom line no knocks are indeed dangerous for everyone and should be a last resort.

Press the simple button. Wait for bad guys to leave house. Execute warrant.

 

[Love the 1911]

The solution is for more LEOs to take a stand against bad laws and bad practices. Refuse to be a part of them, denounce those who do.

We have checks and balances in government, three independent branches that can all provide a unique safeguard against tyranny. When lawmakers pass bad law, and justices give their blessing on bad laws, it is up to LEOs to ignore that bad laws.

Refuse to be a part of the blood-draw checkpoints. refuse to kick down people's doors. Refuse to disarm innocent civilians. Listen to your conscience -- we cannot be robots. If the law seems immoral, don't go along with it. Pretend its a jaywalking violation, forget about it.

I agree completely and thankfully, still have officer discretion available to me to do just this. That being said, it would be insubordination for me to ignore a direct order from a supervisor that is not illegal (sorry for the double negative but I think it defines my viewpoint on this situation better than considering it legal). I hope it doesn't come to this and I don't believe it will in the jurisdiction that I serve.

 

[John Galt]

"Again, we're not living in the land of candy and unicorns, things don't always happen perfectly." - jsharmon7

Agreed, that is why it is imperative that an officer use their heads when making decisions regarding the consequences of kicking in someones door, based on a "hunch" and without the benefit of doing a little research. You see, I agree 100% that we're not living in the land of candy and unicorns, and, as a law abiding citizen that has nothing to fear, that is why I will be assuming the worst if someone kicks in my front door and will be unloading with everything I have at my immediate disposal until the "threat" (non-unicorn) is neutralized.

Again, please don't kick in my door ...

 

[INGunGuy]

I agree completely and thankfully, still have officer discretion available to me to do just this. That being said, it would be insubordination for me to ignore a direct order from a supervisor that is not illegal (sorry for the double negative but I think it defines my viewpoint on this situation better than considering it legal). I hope it doesn't come to this and I don't believe it will in the jurisdiction that I serve.

So then what you are saying is that your JOB, is more important than the Constitution. Ok, yea that makes lots of sense. Just like if you were told tomorrow to go and start confiscating guns, you would do as you were told because well if you didnt, it would be insubordination, and may get you fired. Just like Lemmings...

INGunGuy

 

[Denny347]

I was not aware that LEO's were part of the "checks and balances" built into our system of government. The checks come from one of the 3 branches of government. Legislative (who we voted in) create the law, judicial (who are appointed by those we voted in) OK's the law, but YOU say it is an illegal law. LEO's do have some discretion but in no way should we making our own laws (that is what we would be doing). Because the reverse would apply just as easily...I decide ALL DUI laws illegal and stop a drunk driver only to let him drive away and he/she crashes and kills/maims someone. I decide that domestic battery laws are illegal and do nothing when I arrive on a domestic call. Later, the victim ends up in the hospital. Where does it end? You do not want LEO's doing the job of Judges. You have a problem with what the USSC decides, address it through one of the three branches. That is how our system was designed.

 

[lumpy39us]

The Police and LEO agencies need to make a stand and Police their own! Too much Federal influence has warped many minds!

 

[hornadylnl]

I was not aware that LEO's were part of the "checks and balances" built into our system of government. The checks come from one of the 3 branches of government. Legislative (who we voted in) create the law, judicial (who are appointed by those we voted in) OK's the law, but YOU say it is an illegal law. LEO's do have some discretion but in no way should we making our own laws (that is what we would be doing). Because the reverse would apply just as easily...I decide ALL DUI laws illegal and stop a drunk driver only to let him drive away and he/she crashes and kills/maims someone. I decide that domestic battery laws are illegal and do nothing when I arrive on a domestic call. Later, the victim ends up in the hospital. Where does it end? You do not want LEO's doing the job of Judges. You have a problem with what the USSC decides, address it through one of the three branches. That is how our system was designed.

A king can make all the edicts he wants but it won't do him much good if he's the only one left to enforce them.

 

[Denny347]

A king can make all the edicts he wants but it won't do him much good if he's the only one left to enforce them.

Yes, I understand that. However, that is not the system we currently have. Who is the "king"? Our Congress? Our USSC? Our State Supreme Courts? Our President? For law enforcement to ignore laws to such a degree is outside the framework of our system.

 

[hornadylnl]

1 king... 536 kings + countless federal judges... What's the difference?

 

[singlestacksig]

and just what smells would it be OK to act on?
If I'm cleaning my oven with ammonia can they kick in the door looking for meth ?

 

[serpicostraight]

and just what smells would it be OK to act on?
If I'm cleaning my oven with ammonia can they kick in the door looking for meth ?

from the way some of them are talking any smell or any noise is good enough to kick door in. dont open a box of doughnuts that smell and sound will qualify everytime.

 

[rambone]

I was not aware that LEO's were part of the "checks and balances" built into our system of government. The checks come from one of the 3 branches of government. Legislative (who we voted in) create the law, judicial (who are appointed by those we voted in) OK's the law, but YOU say it is an illegal law. LEO's do have some discretion but in no way should we making our own laws (that is what we would be doing). Because the reverse would apply just as easily...I decide ALL DUI laws illegal and stop a drunk driver only to let him drive away and he/she crashes and kills/maims someone. I decide that domestic battery laws are illegal and do nothing when I arrive on a domestic call. Later, the victim ends up in the hospital. Where does it end? You do not want LEO's doing the job of Judges. You have a problem with what the USSC decides, address it through one of the three branches. That is how our system was designed.

The 3rd branch is the Executive Branch - which is what LEOs are a part of. They are an essential part of the checks and balances. If they refuse to enforce bad laws, the people can't be oppressed. But there is strong resistance to this idea since the enforcers want to defer their power of discretion -- which is the most important power they possess. The system will break if one branch turns into robots who enforce all laws no matter how wrong they are. Why bother taking an oath to uphold the constitution at all?

None of this translates even remotely to police creating brand new laws of their own. They've got millions of laws on the books, and laws get ignored all the time. Don't enforce the ones that are outrageously oppressive. Don't arrest people for smoking a cigarette on the sidewalk... Don't arrest people for having brown grass in their yard... Use your conscience and see that our country's liberty depends on cops having the courage to stand against oppressive laws. Or just brush it off and pretend like the crooks in Congress are going to protect our rights.

 

[Love the 1911]

So then what you are saying is that your JOB, is more important than the Constitution. Ok, yea that makes lots of sense. Just like if you were told tomorrow to go and start confiscating guns, you would do as you were told because well if you didnt, it would be insubordination, and may get you fired. Just like Lemmings...

INGunGuy

My JOB is to protect the Constitution. Without my JOB, I am not able to do that as effectively as I am with my JOB. Does that make a lot of sense? I will not leave another officer to enter a residence by themselves if I am told to assist, even if I disagree with the reason they are there. If my supervisor tells me to start confiscating guns, I would not comply as that would not be a lawful order. Read my post before posting another rambling reply. You know nothing about me so referring to me as a Lemming shows a lot more about your character than it does mine.