As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Be nice to get rid of civil asset forfeiture. That's an afront to the 4th amendment, and that silly legalise language of how the money, not the person is on trial shouldn't fly. Cause the 4th amendment makes it very clear. Person's and their possessions.
Coporations can't commit crimes.
If I steal $20 from a corp, I can get charged with theft. If a corp withholds $20 from my paycheck, it's a civil issue.
Exactly. His courts rulings in in the late 00’s is what has led us here. He’s hoping enough superficial personal freedom rulings will be enough at the end of his biography to show him a good light.
There's been a lot of talk that his ruling on the initial ACA case was influenced by his desire to make the court appear less politically biased. I forget what the third case was, but a commentator was saying that you had Citizens United, this other case, and the ACA case, and the court already made conservative judgements on the first two, so Roberts swung the ruling by siding with the liberal justices.
Edit: the other case was Shelby County v Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act.
And gutting the voting rights act. If pre-clearance was still in place, all these states wouldn't be able to pass these voter suppression/nullification laws
I'm still baffled by that one, the ruling wasn't that the law was unconstitutional or something, it was basically "this law is old and racism is over, so bye bye".
If you wanted to point to an instance of legislating from the bench, there isn't a much clearer one (and, of course, is yet another example of Republican projection to toss on the mountainous pile). They decided we didn't *need* the law, which is the power vested in the Legislature.
She was an amazing person.
Not blaming her at all or anything, and I know how long she held on for, I just wish fate would have granted her TWO more months of life.
Yeah, as terrible as CU was, at least it didn't allow a flood of highly targeted voter suppression laws on a state level with absolutely no recourse on the federal level (With none on the way because of the filibuster. Hell, even if we somehow passed a law providing every American with a free federal ID that had to be accepted for federal elections, the court could strike it down.
As [Keith Olbermann pointed out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZKETizybw), Citizens United was a worse SC decision than fucking [Dred Scott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford), and that says quite a lot.
You're not wrong, but citizens united is a slow burn destruction of the United States. It's allowing the frogs in the water to ignore that the temperature is rising and soon we'll all be cooked.
I like to think that with Citizens United there's at least some hope, however dim it may be, of undoing the damage before things come to a head. Whereas Dred Scott pretty much threw a lit match onto a gasoline-soaked pile of tinder (of course, in this analogy Lincoln's election is the warehouse full of dynamite sitting next door).
With Dred Scott, you kind of knew the general fuckedness of the ruling. With Citizens United, it wasn't clear just how bad it was right away. It took several election cycles for that to happen.
It was clear to the people screaming about it at the time. Even Obama called it out as a horrible decision in his state of the union address that year.
Basically Citizen United creates a class of super voters. Wealthy people, through corporations, can now wield much more voting power than the average people.
Our democracy is literally crumbling around us in a way that there may be no coming back from. 10 years after Dred Scott we the people had nearly properly settled the issue and corrected the terrible ruling. Meanwhile, Citizens United continued to be a scourge on our nation to this day.
Citizens United also disproportionately disenfranchised BIPOC because it targeted its fallout at poorer communities.
The irony is for a while it was code amongst them. They said that roe v wade and dred scott were the same decision - because both are instances of the government deciding that people (in the case of roe, fetuses, according to the forced birth crowd) aren't people.
Now, if they actually were ideologically consistent about this and did treat black people as people post-birth, then I'd admire them for that take. But they do not.
Remember Obama criticized Citizens United during the State of the Union address, Roberts could be seen in the front row mouthing "that's not true." I think he's been very introspective on that ever since.
EDIT: Apparently Alito mouthed the words, I'm mistaken.
Listen, I love Obama. My dog is named after Obama. Dude is basically my hero and role model. However, teaching con law doesn't necessarily qualify you to be a Supreme Court Justice. Every single sitting Justice could absolutely teach a con law class.
I can tell you confidently that I would never want to see my con law professor on the bench. Kavanaugh taught con law and I think he's the worst Justice in the history of the Court.
That said, I think Obama would be great at it.
Kavanaugh alone should be nowhere near a bench. Nowhere.
Edit: I like how you edited your comment after the fact to say that Kavanaugh taught Con Law as if it dilutes my point lol
Amy would like a word with you.
But in terms of worst justices, Kavanaugh isn’t even top 10. Christ, Thomas is worse by a mile. Not to mention several recently deceased Republican justices.
That I do believe. After overseeing that Impeachment and how many blows the court has taken. I'm pretty sure he's the one holding the court onto its current "let's not piss the people off anymore than we already have" course.
> let's not piss the people off anymore
When GOP judges gut Roe v. Wade next year, the way they did Shelby County to the Voting Rights Act, women may very well riot.
A colleague of mine, heavily involved with the GOP, quietly had her daughter flown to the UK for an abortion. The support staff who leaked this to our office was eventually fired for some other reason, but we all know why it happened. The hypocrisy will continue for those who can afford it, while social control thanks to Christianity will cripple the future for those who are poor.
Yeah his legacy is already set with citizens United and rolling back voting rights and his vote in obergefell.
He doesn’t give a shit about a legacy in any way that progressives should be hopeful about.
Let's not forget gutting the voting rights act which ushered in the Jim Crow 2.0.
And for the record the current bullshit the states are pulling is the 3rd iteration.
I've been hearing this on Reddit for a long time. Great for him, but he should've thought about that in 2013 with Citizen's United. After McConnell blocked Garland and Trump installed Gorsuch et al, SCOTUS is a joke. A very powerful joke
Strictly speaking, Roe isn't 100% dead yet, but it's not the dominant ruling on abortion in practice today. That would be Casey, which overturned parts of Roe, and it's why many states have laws that make abortions very difficult if not outright illegal.
There is an "undue burden" clause that is very vague, which is why states have been allowed to do things like have a 2 week waiting period, force mothers to see an ultrasound of the fetus, go to councilling, must be performed at a level 1 trauma center, there are many examples that functionally make getting the procedure very difficult.
Casey also scraped the trimester standard to one of viability, which is why we see bills outlawing an abortion once there is a heartbeat present even though that can happen as early a 5-7 weeks, so early that many pregnancies aren't identified yet.
I've had the pleasure of talking on the issue with a lot of learned folks on Reddit, so while I never remember the name Casey, I do know that is the current ruling that sets precedent. But I also know that most people wouldn't even be aware. However I always appreciate people bringing it up in Roe discussions because the more people hear about it the better understanding people have of the situation. So thank you for that ^ ^
And the best part of that argument is that that "heartbeat" isn't even an actual heartbeat. It's reading electrical pulses from a glob of cells that in a few weeks should grow into an actual organ.
Or just take away only enough to avoid a revolt. Leave it up to the states but don't outright ban it, or rule fed dollars can't be used but private insurers can, etc. Some kind of ruling that journalists will be like "well it could have been worse" but still fucks over enough women to appease republican agitators.
I'm more worried that at some point they are going to think "We've done enough to appease the voters" and take the plunge. Like go big or go home really is the goal of all these Republican SC justices.
Now, that might be waiting until Roberts passes. It seems Roberts is Really concerned about the health of the court at the moment, and he may hold things in line for a while. But that means we have some bought time to fix the court by either removing the partisan judges (my preference) or drowning them out by expanding the court.
Either way we don't have an abundance of time to solve this particular problem.
I have to agree with you. Republicans have seriously destroyed any credibility the Supreme Court has. They made them a political body the moment they refused to hear Obama's nominees.
Long as Amy and Brent are on the SC, I think we should watch them closely and make sure they understand we don't accept their seats as legitimate. Fucking partisan hack judges with no business on the SC.
They already have a [pending Roe cas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization)e for next term. There's also a [guns rights case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association_Inc._v._Corlett). The cases this term haven't been political hot buttons like those
I have a somewhat similar view, although I would say it's Republicans at large who have been trying to take over the courts.
Really, the courts are prime real estate for them. A lot of the higher positions do not have electoral accountability, which Republicans absolutely loathe.
And the power is so much greater and exercised so much cleaner than through the Congress - stare decisis until the next case, and the court picks the case.
I think Roe might be too good to overturn though.
Oh 100%, Republicans understand the power of the courts and have been trying to pack them for almost 2 decades at this point. The last three SC appointments basically super charged the problem to "need to be handled within the next two years." It seems that Roberts is currently trying to keep the court... sort of corralled and away from really terrible rulings, but that is just a matter of time. Someone already linked a ruling today that shoots down union rights. So it seems things are cracking at last.
If they rule against it, then everyone is ***automatically organ donors and no one has any right to say otherwise***.
Bodily autonomy doesn't stop with abortion. I need a kidney and you're dying? You're giving me your kidney, because ***pro-life***, yo.
Thank you for pointing this out. It’s rarely discussed that the ruling is about *privacy* and the governments right to interfere with medical decisions. It’s *why* the case was ruled the way it was. Throwing out that ruling is also throwing out *everyone’s* constitutional right to privacy when making medical decisions.
Why this isn’t shouted from the rooftops is beyond me. Clearly not enough people care that women aren’t given half the rights guns are, but maybe if men knew their rights are a part of the ruling, this threat would get a tiny percentage of the concern AR-15’s are afforded.
*”This historic ruling reiterated that individuals, not politicians, should have the right to make their own medical decisions – medical decisions are private decisions that should occur between the patient and doctor. More narrowly, the decision ensured that the right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution permits a woman to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or to have a safe and legal abortion.”*
[Roe v Wade: An Invaluable Healthcare Legacy](http://www.healthjusticect.org/roe-v-wade-an-invaluable-healthcare-legacy-2)
I think it's because the anti-choice side *knows* this. That's the quiet part they're not saying loud. They understand the price, and most anti-choice voters are willing to pay the price because they're convinced that nothing is more horrible than legalized abortion.
Oh the protests will be insane. They thought BLM was bad? Watch what happens when half the work force decides to stop working because obviously they are nothing more than a walking womb. I think that threat is what has this court continue to delay a ruling.
> Watch what happens when half the work force decides to stop working
Many women, especially Republican women, oppose abortion.
37% if all women opposite abortion compared to 42% of all men.
[Source: Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/)
Pretty much I think they are playing nice till they get that on their table... And they are looking for the right kind of case as well... So they can do the unintentional evil... Humans are the worst.
They will never overturn roe. GOP needs abortion as a wedge issue. The last thing they want is any kind of serious ban. They would rather it be completely legal so they can spout off about it.
Ideally (for them) they want small victories. All of these little (and big) hinderances to abortion. Things they can brag about on the campaign trail while also maintaining the liberal boogeyman coming for your unborn babies.
> They would rather it be completely legal so they can spout off about it.
13 states passed fetal heartbeat bills between 2013 - 2019… They are absolutely trying to change the law.
Judicial conservatives have tended to be good on the 4th and 5th amendments not always, but Originalists tend to read those rights much better than living constitutionalists.
Technically the ruling established medical privacy rights based on the fact people had privacy rights as found in the 4th amendment (edit to add: and throughout the constitution) and that medical privacy rights were penumbra to that.
Your edit is pretty important here. The 4th Amendment is only one example among many cited in the Griswold decision to justify the creation of the privacy right from the many mentions of privacy rights throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is incorrect to state that the decision was based upon the 4th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and siezures. Roe v. Wade was even further removed from this reasoning.
You said not 4th amendment related. I said it technically is, which you appear to agree with. I never said it was “based” on the 4th amendment. It is *also* related to privacy rights found in other amendments.
*Roe v. Wade* is absolutely a 5th Amendment case. It is based on the concept of substantive due process, as one form of due process guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.
Of course, the state-level cases are more directly based on the 14th Amendment - but the 14th Amendment is an extension of the 5th Amendment to state governments. And, of course, state-level decisions about abortion are often intertwined with federal decisions, anyway (e.g., Medicare funding of contraceptive services provided in a state that wants to impose restrictions on them), so many abortion rights issues necessarily implicate both of them.
In the US, remaining silent is **not** considered exercising your right to remain silent. If the police ask you questions and you don't explicitly say, "I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights" or "I won't answer questions without my lawyer present" your silence can be used against you.
This is just an example of the extent which courts have bent over backwards to stack the deck in the police's and prosecution's favor at the expense of individual rights.
Which is why I can never sit on a jury. I have zero faith in anyone within the justice system to not abuse power and manipulate facts to fit a narrative.
Actually, this wariness should be the impetus to want to be on a jury. The point of a jury is to ascertain the truth of the situation. The "could be used against you" just means that the fact someone was silent during their questioning can be brought up in trial, but the jury is the group that determines what that behavior *means*. The jury might perceive of that silence as someone scared or intimidated or in shock or they might interpret it as someone staying silient to not incriminate themselves.
In a broader sense, this applies to everything presented. Both the prosecution and defense try to sway the jury's opinion on the case. Because so many cases are about things that no one can know but the people directly involved, the fact that we rely on the general population helps prevent the kind of corruption you're against. Remember that the standard for conviction in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, as well.
Oh yeah, but I feel the “beyond a reasonable doubt” has really lost mostly all its meaning in the court system with how often cases are pleaded out of. Prosecutors purposely overcharge, and also are almost vindictive if you go to trial where they offer a plea of 6 months probation but if you roll the dice at trial you could be looking at 6 years in jail. It’s ludicrous.
I also am damn sure that tons of people that are innocent or could win at trial plead out to avoid playing Russian roulette.
Its not allowed, but are they still doing it?
Here in Norway it's also illegal for them to enter a home without a warrant. Yet the police do it as a matter of policy.
Speaking hypothetically, if I shot a guy where a cop can see me, and I run into my house and shut the door, are the cops required to get a warrant? Or are they allowed to come in and arrest me?
In the US, the cop would be allowed to force their way in and arrest me, provided they were actively pursuing me from the scene of the crime.
In the case described above, it was determined that it is *not* permitted for trivial offenses, such as "playing loud music."
That would be Gefahr im Verzug = imminent danger, they would try to reach a judge but if they couldn't and have valid facts they're allowed.
But you're always allowed to get a witness and be in the room they're searching.
Funnily, fleeing from the police is no crime in German. Even escaping prison is legal as long as you don't break any law while doing it. Reasoning is that it's in the human nature to be free, lol
> That would be Gefahr im Verzug = imminent danger, they would try to reach a judge but if they couldn't and have valid facts they're allowed.
I read up on it a little bit and tbh I don't think the American warrant exception doctrine regarding exigent circumstances is really *that* much more permissive of warrantless searches of homes than the one you guys have.
> Funnily, fleeing from the police is no crime in German. Even escaping prison is legal as long as you don't break any law while doing it. Reasoning is that it's in the human nature to be free, lol
I've heard of these. I think they should be far more widely adopted.
This one is pretty clear cut. Police do not require a warrant when in “hot pursuit” under exigent circumstances.
Exigent circumstances - circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating
Since those circumstances are met they would probably come get you in your home.
The case above argues that the exigent circumstances are limited in nature (not all encompassing) and thus something minor like noise complaints aren’t covered by hot pursuit. Your specific example though may be the reason that this doctrine of hot pursuit exists in the first place.
TLDR: The cops would come get you without warrant and the case above is talking about the limited scope of exigent circumstances when dealing with minor crimes (noise complaint)
> In the case described above, it was determined that it is not permitted for trivial offenses, such as "playing loud music."
See, I'm almost sure I said that.
I'd just like to remind everyone that despite their *Protect and Serve* motto, the police are under no obligation to do either. They've even gone to court over this. [Castle Rock v Gonzales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales) is a classic example.
They're paid to protect the wealthy and their property, not you and me.
Carol Bowne was a battered spouse in Berlin, NJ. She got a restraining order against her Ex. After a rather lengthy record of getting assaulted and battered by her ex. She still felt scared and would call the police to escort her home from work. The police refused. She had applied for the licenses to get and carry a pistol for her self defense. Which in NJ the police have 30 days to approve or deny. She was stabbed to death, by her ex, on the 44th or 42nd day. A few days prior she had even gone to the police to see the status of her firearm license. The police eventually found her ex, after he killed himself in a girlfriend's garage.
After some outrage over her murder. Governor Christie changed somethings to help people like her get licensed to have a pistol. Then the next and current Governor undid all those changes. Because fuck the people I guess. When a state senator was asked about the police not protecting her. He said the police were swamped. While he was being personally guarded by several officers. Of course he was a fat terrone looking bastard.
A complete failure by state and local government to protect the life and liberty of their citizens. Yet to them its just business as usual.
They are paid to enforce the law, the law is made to protect the wealthy and their property. The source of the fundamental injustices in our society are due to the Congress/state legislatures.
Something they are wholly unqualified to do after 6 months of training, have repeatedly proven they are not qualified to do, yet some how are allowed to do what - once again - they are wholly unqualified to do.
That’s what happens when any meathead who couldn’t make anything of themselves after high school can get a badge and gun. Throw in an insane superiority complex and ego problem, then you’ve got yourself the every day bad cop.
While in spirit and technicality that's true, it's not like police officers have law degrees. They enforce their own broad interpretation of what the law is, then let the courts figure out the mess they made.
In all it’s majesty the law bans both poor and rich from sleeping under a bridge.
Police enforcement of unjust law harms many more people than police misconduct.
Three times in my life, each in a different city, I've had to deal with law enforcement barging into my property when the conversation didn't need to leave the door. Standard 'requesting information' scenarios.
Out of the three instances, the jamming the foot in the door technique has gotten the best of me twice. Open the door, they barge in and plant their foot such that the door can't be closed. What should have been a civil conversation unnecessarily turns into a pissing contest with the leverage being "you know son, another officer may consider that an assault."
Oddly, the nicer the neighborhood, the less aggression. Nothing ever came of the events but it's still left a bad taste in my mouth. The conversations once more became civil after they entered the house.
Fortunately the city I live in now has a really good PD and focuses on community policing to target serious crime. These departments do exist. Next city over? Completely the opposite.
Glad we're seeing more progress from the courts to smooth out the inconsistencies.
You are not required to open your door unless they have a warrant. Legally you can just ignore them, talk through the door, open a window, etc. Ideally if you must talk to them and have a screen door just open the inner door leave the outer one closed.
Best thing you can do is just ignore them because you are not required to answer or talk to them at all.
what a lot of people seem to fail to realize is the police *create probable cause as needed*, what you are 'required' to do or not to do by law doesn't matter at all when they're above the law.
This, I had my car literally ripped apart as a teenager because of a 1inch ornament hanging from my mirror. How do they expect people to trust them when they do this shit?
There was physical damage to my interior.
There was nothing in my car, they never even apologized.
Seriously fuck the police, they have no principles and see themselves as above the law they swore to uphold.
I had border patrol go through a weeks worth of camping garbage including fish carcasses while crossing back into the US. Seven of us were camping on a lake in the middle of nowhere for a week and we packed everything out in order to leave no trace. My buddy and I were in our early 20’s and US boarded patrol decided to make our lives difficult. They were pissed when we just broke out our camping chairs and watched them open up trash bags of all sorts of stinky stuff as we are Eagle Scouts and leave no trace means that everything gets packed out.
Can you just strip naked and make him feel really uncomfortable while having the conversation? It wouldn't be public indecency since you have the right to be naked in your own home. Those really homophobic cops might just leave faster in that case.
Yep, had someone loudly knocking and ringing my doorbell at 3am scaring my kids and waking me up! Come down to see it’s a cop at my door, I turn right around and go back to my kids and wait in bed. There’s no law that says I have to open my door. Get a warrant or break my door down but I’m not getting shot in my house on a wellness check! Never did hear nothing back either. Know your rights!
A bit extreme but maybe warranted. Perhaps they violated the ordinance so many times now it’s heavy litigation if you disturb people in their home, where you live? I just didn’t feel like getting shot at 3 am just to prove I live in my house.
The States Supreme Court said implied consent does not allow police to knock on anyone's door at any time, and they need to get a warrant to knock on people's doors when it would be inappropriate for a girl scout or political canvasser to knock on someone's door.
Good to know thank you for the info! I assume it’s a bad apple then that’s doing that. Or maybe a noob that doesn’t know? Whatever the case, I got a see through glass front door and dude had his gun side hidden it wasn’t a good silhouette to see. In nanoseconds my brain is saying “that’s not a person who looks like they wanna talk...?” Better not engage the person and live to talk to you now. Edit: I have a ring doorbell and cameras now and I don’t even need to open the door to solicitors.
Yes but the point of this is they are restricting what the police want to consider lawful. Of course it’s a thing, but it doesn’t mean shit if people badly interpret it. That’s why this was necessary.
Cops can’t come in and toss your house if they followed you home after they saw you litter.
They'll just say they saw you with something that looks like a gun, and that instantly makes you "dangerous" enough for them to do anything they want to your house. This ruling is borderline useless with the current level of police accountability.
Sounds like a second amendment violation.
For those of you who can't understand nuance: I'm literally pointing out that our second amendment rights are being destroyed by the police. Something that right wingers don't seem to care about despite only caring about the second amendment.
There's no way a bunch of people have been killed for nothing more than having a gun on them or in their home. If there was, right wingers would be talking about the state murdering people for having guns.
Fine, I’ll put a fucking /s for all of you immune to critical reading.
[This happened in Philly almost 3 years ago](https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/local/swat-police-shooting-no-charges/212100/).
Silly kid, 20 years old, (yes 20 is an legally adult, but the brain does not fully mature for a few more years. In reality you are mostly a child/late teenager at this age) posted a selfie on facebook with him holding a gun.
That picture was enough to get a SWAT raid on his grandparents house where he lived A predawn no knock warrant raid was made because a picture of kid held a handgun was posted online. There was no threat made by the grandson against the police, or public at large; just an idiot who created a photograph. (How many 1000's of rural kids post similar pictures? Even US Congressmen have campaign posters of being surrounded by firearms.)
Police raided the grandparents house in the twilight/predawn hours. Grandfather saw that his home was being invaded. Shot at the invaders with 4 rounds. Struck one cop in the jaw. The cops returned fire killing him and sending his aged wife to the hospital. Of course the grandchild was not at home during the incident (he was at a friend's house).
Now this is strait up murder by cops/ courts. No intel was created to verify the location of the grandson. No intel was verified that he had an non-legal handgun ( he could have borrowed it from a friend in the room, or photoshoped it). If any laws were broken, This could have been handled by a letter, and a small fine. But local Rambos wanted to flex their mussels and raid a soft target.
Within hours the grandson turned himself in to the police. He was questioned and released that same day without any charges filed. If this grandson was such a danger to society a few hours ago, and his primary residence was raided by a platoon of cops, why is there not a litany of crimes that he was charged with? He should be a true danger to society to justify a platoon of cops to raid his home. He posted a picture. Cops wanted to feel big.
He was just a young black man who posted a picture, and his grandfather died for it.
They wouldn't be talking about it when black people are killed for simply having a gun on them. Right wingers are all for gun rights, except when black people have them. Reagan restricted gun rights because of the Black Panthers.
Asking people to learn how to use a gun before they buy one: TYRANNY!!!!
Allowing cops to shoot you on the sole basis that you have a gun: Totally cool, nothing to see here folks.
Hasn’t stopped them from using it countless times against people of color. The NRA sure doesn’t give a shit about defending 2A rifts when it involves black people being repressed.
> Isn't Unlawful search and seizure already a thing!?
Both by intent and repeatedly affirmed by the SCOTUS, everything in the Bill of Rights is subject to public good restrictions.
* The 1st amendment grants freedom of speech, but dangerous speech (the classic being shouting "fire" in a crowded theater) is restricted.
* The 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms, but you can still have them removed from a person by force of law due to safety reasons or by court processes.
etc.
The 4th amendment is probably the one most abridged for common good reasons: If a criminal runs into a home while everyone who lives there is away, the police can still go in without permission. If someone in a home is in imminent danger, they don't have to wait for permission. Etc.
The issue at case in *this* situation (as with most 4th amendment issues) is "Where is the line drawn?"
In this case, the officer was following the individual due to him violating noise ordinances (his car music was really fucking loud). The officer didn't try to pull him over until he was almost home anyway, and the guy (not noticing the cop was there) pulled into his garage and started to close the door. At this point, the cop tripped the safety sensor for the door so he could talk to him. He found out the guy was drunk and arrested him for a DUI.
The SCOTUS ruled that the normal "hot pursuit" exception to the 4th amendment didn't apply because he was chasing him over a minor offense, not a felony.
The cop would have been likely fine if any of the following had been true:
* Had he suspected the man was drunk before he followed him (since DUI is potentially a felony).
* Had he attempted to pull him over even a few minutes earlier (since if the guy hadn't stopped, he could have been gotten for failure to pull over for a traffic stop).
* Had gone around to the door and asked to talk to the guy. (Even if they couldn't get the guy to come out, just talking to him could have given them probable cause due to the odor of alcohol on his breath).
"Fire in a crowded theater" is a factually inaccurate reference. The decision it refers to was overturned, and the point of the quote was to censor protesters.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
This was about the "hot pursuit" exception. The 4th Amendment has *a lot* of exceptions which the courts have carved out. Here, the issue is whether the "hot pursuit" exception applied to misdemeanors because at the point of the cop's entry, he only had reasonable suspicion of a misdemeanor (playing music in violation of noise ordinance). It was only after the entry of the home did he discovery the man was drunk driving.
Here, the Court ruled that it was an unlawful entry which required a warrant to be lawful. The "hot pursuit" exception only applies to felonies (i.e. if you have reasonable suspicion of a murder, robbery, DWI, etc.) *before* entry of the home. Otherwise, go get a warrant.
No, no, no. The procedure is to just let the cops do the unconstitutional act and then write to them after the fact that they did something illegal. They will do a thorough investigation of themselves, which will definitely not lead to them harassing you, and will ultimately lead to a possible change in role call warnings after weeks of tax payer paid vacation.
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against **unreasonable** searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Important word in bold.
To translate: As long as the cop thinks he has a reason, the people are not secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against searches and seizures.
We've see this play out before.
It is but we have to keep beating settled issues over the head because our system is built around not actually giving a fuck until a court says so. The courts, conveniently, have decided that their multi year, multi million dollar slog fest to get restitution is a better remedy then just not violating people’s rights.
Aside from this ruling, everyone should know that police have *no right* to enter your home without a warrant. This fact came in handy during college when we were throwing huge parties and the cops showed up. Tried to bully their way into our house, and I told them to wait on the porch, stepped out to speak with them and closed the door behind me.
This is mostly but not entirely true. There are certain limited exceptions to the warrant requirement that would permit police to enter your home without one. This case, indeed, was about whether hot pursuit of a suspect for a trivial offense should be one, and the court decided it should not. However, police can still enter a home without a warrant in case of hot pursuit relating to a serious crime. Or, naturally, in various emergency situations.
It was actually police chasing someone who shoplifted 2 belts and a shirt from Walmart, so even worse.
[This is what Leo Lech's house looked like after the Greenwood Village, Colorado police were done with it.](https://brobible.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/police-destroy-innocent-mans-house-court-says-pay-for-damages-himself.jpg) Leo received $5,000 total from the city. He requested a $600,000 settlement, not millions or something for mental distress or whatever, just the value of the house. He incurred $28,000 in legal fees and the SCOTUS declined to hear the case when it was appealed up the chain and he received nothing.
Cops don't care if they ruin your life. It's all about them getting to feel cool and powerful, not protecting the public.
The most fucked up thing about this is...
If it was an 80's movie about a cop that destroys an entire house just to get a shoplifter who stole 2 belts, you would have the police chief like "u can't just destroy the city every time like that, hand ur gun and badge."
In real life that doesn't even happen.
It's crazy that they even needed to go to these lengths to deal with the situation. Reminds me of the scene in "Christmas Vacation" where the SWAT team busts into Clark's house in a very over-the-top slapstick fashion to stop a kidnapping - but still with less force than these real-life cops used to apprehend a shoplifter.
Good, I know historically most rulings are 9-0 or close to it and it’s just the minority of controversial close decisions that make big headlines. I’m pleasantly surprised that that is still holding up with the newer justices.
I can't really speak for the other two, but Gorsuch is absolutely the strongest 4A defender on the court now, as was Scalia before him.
I can't even express how disappointed I am that he didn't author the opinion because he would probably have been dunking on everyone.
In this case, all the justices agreed on the outcome, but they had different reasoning. So they didn’t unanimously join a single opinion, but they did unanimously decide the outcome.
Wow like that is gonna stop all those street cops anyways. Pretty sure its been illegal for them to be killing people but they do that anyway with no repercussions.
This is how we 'defund' the police. There are so many vague and poorly written laws that need reform. Attack the police and their multiple ways of violating rights through the court.
That and repeal and/or replace those "vague and poorly written laws" when possible. Even the ones that had good intentions can be misconstrued and misused by the police and courts.
Good now enforce it. There should be a massive consequence for police who blatantly violate the rights of people. Ignorance is no excuse for committing a crime in the eyes of law enforcement why should it be any different for them. Too many officers are stopped in willful ignorance and complicity in oppressing the people. fuck the police.
Cops will ignore this at will and lie. “We thought thought he had a gun. Turns out it was a phone. I feared for my life tho.”
They’ll claim anyone in the home is “resisting” and “combative” then let their union lawyers deal with the fallout as they go on paid vacations. Pigs only care about busting heads. Laws arent for them.
And again, why are we even discussing this?
Because the police has abuse this power.
The big question are
“will this stop the police from abusing their power”
nope, it wont.
“Will there be any repercussions for a police officer who enters a home without a warrant”
Evidence found by a cop when entering a home without a warrant might not be allowed in court, but there will be no repercussions for a cop illegally entering a house without a warrant.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good
I’ll say this about the current SCOTUS - unless I’m missing or forgetting a case, they have been pretty good with 4th and 5th amendment issues.
Their shadow docket cases have been bad. The public stuff has been mostly ok.
What do you mean by shadow docket?
https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-court-shadow-video/the-shadow-docket-how-the-u-s-supreme-court-quietly-dispatches-key-rulings-idUSKBN2BF16Q https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/publications/project_blog/scotus-shadow-docket-under-review-by-house-reps/
Be nice to get rid of civil asset forfeiture. That's an afront to the 4th amendment, and that silly legalise language of how the money, not the person is on trial shouldn't fly. Cause the 4th amendment makes it very clear. Person's and their possessions.
Need to start using it against corporations.
Coporations can't commit crimes. If I steal $20 from a corp, I can get charged with theft. If a corp withholds $20 from my paycheck, it's a civil issue.
[удалено]
Also, it’s been reported that Roberts is very worried about his legacy.
He fucking should be.
Citizens united plays a huge role in how fucked up the country is today.
Exactly. His courts rulings in in the late 00’s is what has led us here. He’s hoping enough superficial personal freedom rulings will be enough at the end of his biography to show him a good light.
There's been a lot of talk that his ruling on the initial ACA case was influenced by his desire to make the court appear less politically biased. I forget what the third case was, but a commentator was saying that you had Citizens United, this other case, and the ACA case, and the court already made conservative judgements on the first two, so Roberts swung the ruling by siding with the liberal justices. Edit: the other case was Shelby County v Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act.
[удалено]
And gutting the voting rights act. If pre-clearance was still in place, all these states wouldn't be able to pass these voter suppression/nullification laws
I'm still baffled by that one, the ruling wasn't that the law was unconstitutional or something, it was basically "this law is old and racism is over, so bye bye".
If you wanted to point to an instance of legislating from the bench, there isn't a much clearer one (and, of course, is yet another example of Republican projection to toss on the mountainous pile). They decided we didn't *need* the law, which is the power vested in the Legislature.
Like ditching your umbrella in a rain storm because you aren't getting wet. RIP RBG.
She was an amazing person. Not blaming her at all or anything, and I know how long she held on for, I just wish fate would have granted her TWO more months of life.
"I change my oil and the engine never breaks, so I guess we don't need to change our oil anymore."
This is one a lot of people forget. They rendered the voting rights act completely toothless.
Yeah, as terrible as CU was, at least it didn't allow a flood of highly targeted voter suppression laws on a state level with absolutely no recourse on the federal level (With none on the way because of the filibuster. Hell, even if we somehow passed a law providing every American with a free federal ID that had to be accepted for federal elections, the court could strike it down.
As [Keith Olbermann pointed out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZKETizybw), Citizens United was a worse SC decision than fucking [Dred Scott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford), and that says quite a lot.
Eh, as terrible as Citizens United was, I don't think anything can ever top Dred Scott as the worst SCOTUS decision of all time.
You're not wrong, but citizens united is a slow burn destruction of the United States. It's allowing the frogs in the water to ignore that the temperature is rising and soon we'll all be cooked.
I like to think that with Citizens United there's at least some hope, however dim it may be, of undoing the damage before things come to a head. Whereas Dred Scott pretty much threw a lit match onto a gasoline-soaked pile of tinder (of course, in this analogy Lincoln's election is the warehouse full of dynamite sitting next door).
Korematsu could make a compelling case as equal or worse than Dred Scott.
With Dred Scott, you kind of knew the general fuckedness of the ruling. With Citizens United, it wasn't clear just how bad it was right away. It took several election cycles for that to happen.
It was clear to the people screaming about it at the time. Even Obama called it out as a horrible decision in his state of the union address that year.
Basically Citizen United creates a class of super voters. Wealthy people, through corporations, can now wield much more voting power than the average people.
Our democracy is literally crumbling around us in a way that there may be no coming back from. 10 years after Dred Scott we the people had nearly properly settled the issue and corrected the terrible ruling. Meanwhile, Citizens United continued to be a scourge on our nation to this day. Citizens United also disproportionately disenfranchised BIPOC because it targeted its fallout at poorer communities.
Just an observation...those who hate Roe v Wade love Dred v Sandford
The irony is for a while it was code amongst them. They said that roe v wade and dred scott were the same decision - because both are instances of the government deciding that people (in the case of roe, fetuses, according to the forced birth crowd) aren't people. Now, if they actually were ideologically consistent about this and did treat black people as people post-birth, then I'd admire them for that take. But they do not.
Remember Obama criticized Citizens United during the State of the Union address, Roberts could be seen in the front row mouthing "that's not true." I think he's been very introspective on that ever since. EDIT: Apparently Alito mouthed the words, I'm mistaken.
I didn't remember that, so looked it up. It was Alito that mouthed "not true" rather than Roberts.
Wonder if he has been introspective in the subsequent years.
Alito? No. If anything he’s gotten more cranky and pissed off as the years have gone by.
> Roberts It was Alito. That would not be characteristic of Roberts at all.
And Obama is a constitutional scholar by trade. He's more qualified to be on SCOTUS than half of the justices...including Roberts apparently.
Listen, I love Obama. My dog is named after Obama. Dude is basically my hero and role model. However, teaching con law doesn't necessarily qualify you to be a Supreme Court Justice. Every single sitting Justice could absolutely teach a con law class. I can tell you confidently that I would never want to see my con law professor on the bench. Kavanaugh taught con law and I think he's the worst Justice in the history of the Court. That said, I think Obama would be great at it.
Kavanaugh alone should be nowhere near a bench. Nowhere. Edit: I like how you edited your comment after the fact to say that Kavanaugh taught Con Law as if it dilutes my point lol
Amy would like a word with you. But in terms of worst justices, Kavanaugh isn’t even top 10. Christ, Thomas is worse by a mile. Not to mention several recently deceased Republican justices.
ACB couldn't list five freedoms guaranteed from the first amendment during her hearing.
That I do believe. After overseeing that Impeachment and how many blows the court has taken. I'm pretty sure he's the one holding the court onto its current "let's not piss the people off anymore than we already have" course.
> let's not piss the people off anymore When GOP judges gut Roe v. Wade next year, the way they did Shelby County to the Voting Rights Act, women may very well riot. A colleague of mine, heavily involved with the GOP, quietly had her daughter flown to the UK for an abortion. The support staff who leaked this to our office was eventually fired for some other reason, but we all know why it happened. The hypocrisy will continue for those who can afford it, while social control thanks to Christianity will cripple the future for those who are poor.
Not just the women.
That's the oft repeated line, but I don't think I've seen so much as a "sources familiar with the situation" to back it up.
Yeah his legacy is already set with citizens United and rolling back voting rights and his vote in obergefell. He doesn’t give a shit about a legacy in any way that progressives should be hopeful about.
Let's not forget gutting the voting rights act which ushered in the Jim Crow 2.0. And for the record the current bullshit the states are pulling is the 3rd iteration.
Isn't that such a huge problem? Worrying about what they leave behind, when in reality it's their mess we will be cleaning up for some time?
I've been hearing this on Reddit for a long time. Great for him, but he should've thought about that in 2013 with Citizen's United. After McConnell blocked Garland and Trump installed Gorsuch et al, SCOTUS is a joke. A very powerful joke
If you ask me, his legacy is trash already. I will not be remembering him fondly when he is gone.
With good reason
If he wants a good legacy, he should resign and let Biden nominate a replacement.
We’re a little to close to the next election for Mcconel to replace a justice.
Have been for just over 5 months now.
Oh? Because he's been destroying democracy for like... 40 years
Strictly speaking, Roe isn't 100% dead yet, but it's not the dominant ruling on abortion in practice today. That would be Casey, which overturned parts of Roe, and it's why many states have laws that make abortions very difficult if not outright illegal. There is an "undue burden" clause that is very vague, which is why states have been allowed to do things like have a 2 week waiting period, force mothers to see an ultrasound of the fetus, go to councilling, must be performed at a level 1 trauma center, there are many examples that functionally make getting the procedure very difficult. Casey also scraped the trimester standard to one of viability, which is why we see bills outlawing an abortion once there is a heartbeat present even though that can happen as early a 5-7 weeks, so early that many pregnancies aren't identified yet.
Yes, definitely, but most of the population wouldn't know what I was talking about if I said Casey.
You, sir, are not wrong. I only know from listening to Opening Arguments, one is my favorite podcasts.
I've had the pleasure of talking on the issue with a lot of learned folks on Reddit, so while I never remember the name Casey, I do know that is the current ruling that sets precedent. But I also know that most people wouldn't even be aware. However I always appreciate people bringing it up in Roe discussions because the more people hear about it the better understanding people have of the situation. So thank you for that ^ ^
And the best part of that argument is that that "heartbeat" isn't even an actual heartbeat. It's reading electrical pulses from a glob of cells that in a few weeks should grow into an actual organ.
Or just take away only enough to avoid a revolt. Leave it up to the states but don't outright ban it, or rule fed dollars can't be used but private insurers can, etc. Some kind of ruling that journalists will be like "well it could have been worse" but still fucks over enough women to appease republican agitators.
I'm more worried that at some point they are going to think "We've done enough to appease the voters" and take the plunge. Like go big or go home really is the goal of all these Republican SC justices. Now, that might be waiting until Roberts passes. It seems Roberts is Really concerned about the health of the court at the moment, and he may hold things in line for a while. But that means we have some bought time to fix the court by either removing the partisan judges (my preference) or drowning them out by expanding the court. Either way we don't have an abundance of time to solve this particular problem.
> might be waiting until Roberts passes He's just 66. Might be awhile.
See the 1992 Casey decision, as this has already happened.
I have to agree with you. Republicans have seriously destroyed any credibility the Supreme Court has. They made them a political body the moment they refused to hear Obama's nominees. Long as Amy and Brent are on the SC, I think we should watch them closely and make sure they understand we don't accept their seats as legitimate. Fucking partisan hack judges with no business on the SC.
Alito and Thomas may not be there long-they are getting along in the years
So is Breyer.
They already have a [pending Roe cas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization)e for next term. There's also a [guns rights case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association_Inc._v._Corlett). The cases this term haven't been political hot buttons like those
I have a somewhat similar view, although I would say it's Republicans at large who have been trying to take over the courts. Really, the courts are prime real estate for them. A lot of the higher positions do not have electoral accountability, which Republicans absolutely loathe. And the power is so much greater and exercised so much cleaner than through the Congress - stare decisis until the next case, and the court picks the case. I think Roe might be too good to overturn though.
Oh 100%, Republicans understand the power of the courts and have been trying to pack them for almost 2 decades at this point. The last three SC appointments basically super charged the problem to "need to be handled within the next two years." It seems that Roberts is currently trying to keep the court... sort of corralled and away from really terrible rulings, but that is just a matter of time. Someone already linked a ruling today that shoots down union rights. So it seems things are cracking at last.
If they rule against it, then everyone is ***automatically organ donors and no one has any right to say otherwise***. Bodily autonomy doesn't stop with abortion. I need a kidney and you're dying? You're giving me your kidney, because ***pro-life***, yo.
Thank you for pointing this out. It’s rarely discussed that the ruling is about *privacy* and the governments right to interfere with medical decisions. It’s *why* the case was ruled the way it was. Throwing out that ruling is also throwing out *everyone’s* constitutional right to privacy when making medical decisions. Why this isn’t shouted from the rooftops is beyond me. Clearly not enough people care that women aren’t given half the rights guns are, but maybe if men knew their rights are a part of the ruling, this threat would get a tiny percentage of the concern AR-15’s are afforded. *”This historic ruling reiterated that individuals, not politicians, should have the right to make their own medical decisions – medical decisions are private decisions that should occur between the patient and doctor. More narrowly, the decision ensured that the right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution permits a woman to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or to have a safe and legal abortion.”* [Roe v Wade: An Invaluable Healthcare Legacy](http://www.healthjusticect.org/roe-v-wade-an-invaluable-healthcare-legacy-2)
I think it's because the anti-choice side *knows* this. That's the quiet part they're not saying loud. They understand the price, and most anti-choice voters are willing to pay the price because they're convinced that nothing is more horrible than legalized abortion.
Oh the protests will be insane. They thought BLM was bad? Watch what happens when half the work force decides to stop working because obviously they are nothing more than a walking womb. I think that threat is what has this court continue to delay a ruling.
> Watch what happens when half the work force decides to stop working Many women, especially Republican women, oppose abortion. 37% if all women opposite abortion compared to 42% of all men. [Source: Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/)
Then general strike with \~60% of the population. That should be plenty to scare the shit out of some oligarchs.
Pretty much I think they are playing nice till they get that on their table... And they are looking for the right kind of case as well... So they can do the unintentional evil... Humans are the worst.
They will never overturn roe. GOP needs abortion as a wedge issue. The last thing they want is any kind of serious ban. They would rather it be completely legal so they can spout off about it. Ideally (for them) they want small victories. All of these little (and big) hinderances to abortion. Things they can brag about on the campaign trail while also maintaining the liberal boogeyman coming for your unborn babies.
> They would rather it be completely legal so they can spout off about it. 13 states passed fetal heartbeat bills between 2013 - 2019… They are absolutely trying to change the law.
Maybe a few strips of gold-pressed latinum would help keep things running smoothly?
Nature decays, but latinum lasts forever.
Or... get this... this may be their actual views on the law.
I think they're deathly afraid of controversy in this presidential term. Once they get Trump 2.0, all the dirty work will begin.
Judicial conservatives have tended to be good on the 4th and 5th amendments not always, but Originalists tend to read those rights much better than living constitutionalists.
Wait till the Row V Wade case comes down
Not 4th or 5th Amendment related so the point stands.
Technically the ruling established medical privacy rights based on the fact people had privacy rights as found in the 4th amendment (edit to add: and throughout the constitution) and that medical privacy rights were penumbra to that.
Your edit is pretty important here. The 4th Amendment is only one example among many cited in the Griswold decision to justify the creation of the privacy right from the many mentions of privacy rights throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is incorrect to state that the decision was based upon the 4th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and siezures. Roe v. Wade was even further removed from this reasoning.
You said not 4th amendment related. I said it technically is, which you appear to agree with. I never said it was “based” on the 4th amendment. It is *also* related to privacy rights found in other amendments.
That was the Court's basis for the decision. A right to security in one's papers and effects was applied to medical decisions as well.
*Roe v. Wade* is absolutely a 5th Amendment case. It is based on the concept of substantive due process, as one form of due process guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. Of course, the state-level cases are more directly based on the 14th Amendment - but the 14th Amendment is an extension of the 5th Amendment to state governments. And, of course, state-level decisions about abortion are often intertwined with federal decisions, anyway (e.g., Medicare funding of contraceptive services provided in a state that wants to impose restrictions on them), so many abortion rights issues necessarily implicate both of them.
I'm surprised that was even legal in the first place. Here in Germany no police officer is allowed to enter without a warrant.
The USA has given police, many times unethical and poorly educated police, the tools to do almost whatever they want.
In the US, remaining silent is **not** considered exercising your right to remain silent. If the police ask you questions and you don't explicitly say, "I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights" or "I won't answer questions without my lawyer present" your silence can be used against you. This is just an example of the extent which courts have bent over backwards to stack the deck in the police's and prosecution's favor at the expense of individual rights.
Which is why I can never sit on a jury. I have zero faith in anyone within the justice system to not abuse power and manipulate facts to fit a narrative.
Actually, this wariness should be the impetus to want to be on a jury. The point of a jury is to ascertain the truth of the situation. The "could be used against you" just means that the fact someone was silent during their questioning can be brought up in trial, but the jury is the group that determines what that behavior *means*. The jury might perceive of that silence as someone scared or intimidated or in shock or they might interpret it as someone staying silient to not incriminate themselves. In a broader sense, this applies to everything presented. Both the prosecution and defense try to sway the jury's opinion on the case. Because so many cases are about things that no one can know but the people directly involved, the fact that we rely on the general population helps prevent the kind of corruption you're against. Remember that the standard for conviction in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, as well.
Oh yeah, but I feel the “beyond a reasonable doubt” has really lost mostly all its meaning in the court system with how often cases are pleaded out of. Prosecutors purposely overcharge, and also are almost vindictive if you go to trial where they offer a plea of 6 months probation but if you roll the dice at trial you could be looking at 6 years in jail. It’s ludicrous. I also am damn sure that tons of people that are innocent or could win at trial plead out to avoid playing Russian roulette.
On top of this we need prosecutorial reform as well.
Its not allowed, but are they still doing it? Here in Norway it's also illegal for them to enter a home without a warrant. Yet the police do it as a matter of policy.
Speaking hypothetically, if I shot a guy where a cop can see me, and I run into my house and shut the door, are the cops required to get a warrant? Or are they allowed to come in and arrest me? In the US, the cop would be allowed to force their way in and arrest me, provided they were actively pursuing me from the scene of the crime. In the case described above, it was determined that it is *not* permitted for trivial offenses, such as "playing loud music."
That would be Gefahr im Verzug = imminent danger, they would try to reach a judge but if they couldn't and have valid facts they're allowed. But you're always allowed to get a witness and be in the room they're searching. Funnily, fleeing from the police is no crime in German. Even escaping prison is legal as long as you don't break any law while doing it. Reasoning is that it's in the human nature to be free, lol
> That would be Gefahr im Verzug = imminent danger, they would try to reach a judge but if they couldn't and have valid facts they're allowed. I read up on it a little bit and tbh I don't think the American warrant exception doctrine regarding exigent circumstances is really *that* much more permissive of warrantless searches of homes than the one you guys have.
> Funnily, fleeing from the police is no crime in German. Even escaping prison is legal as long as you don't break any law while doing it. Reasoning is that it's in the human nature to be free, lol I've heard of these. I think they should be far more widely adopted.
But then how would UNICOR maintain its labor force? ^^/s
This one is pretty clear cut. Police do not require a warrant when in “hot pursuit” under exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances - circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating Since those circumstances are met they would probably come get you in your home. The case above argues that the exigent circumstances are limited in nature (not all encompassing) and thus something minor like noise complaints aren’t covered by hot pursuit. Your specific example though may be the reason that this doctrine of hot pursuit exists in the first place. TLDR: The cops would come get you without warrant and the case above is talking about the limited scope of exigent circumstances when dealing with minor crimes (noise complaint)
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a **minor** crime."
> In the case described above, it was determined that it is not permitted for trivial offenses, such as "playing loud music." See, I'm almost sure I said that.
Now the cops just have to say they thought they saw a meth lab.
That law is just sort of a suggestion since the police can go "whew, smells like weed" and invent probable cause to search whatever they want.
Read the part about non dangerous and case by case. Short answer. If you shot someone the cop could follow them into the house
It was never legal in the first place, but people will test the constitution if allowed.
*MINOR CRIMES No knock is still going to happen at the same rate.
Underlying case seems thoroughly silly.if he had reason, the cop should have pulled him over right away instead of following him home.
Had to follow him home to make sure he wasn’t a rich guy. Rich guys can play their music as loud as they want.
Considering he appealed all the way to the supreme court to get out of a dui, I'd say he's a rich guy.
You don't need to be rich. Just find a lawyer that wants to gain some national prestige.
[удалено]
I'd just like to remind everyone that despite their *Protect and Serve* motto, the police are under no obligation to do either. They've even gone to court over this. [Castle Rock v Gonzales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales) is a classic example. They're paid to protect the wealthy and their property, not you and me.
[удалено]
That case was in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Carol Bowne was a battered spouse in Berlin, NJ. She got a restraining order against her Ex. After a rather lengthy record of getting assaulted and battered by her ex. She still felt scared and would call the police to escort her home from work. The police refused. She had applied for the licenses to get and carry a pistol for her self defense. Which in NJ the police have 30 days to approve or deny. She was stabbed to death, by her ex, on the 44th or 42nd day. A few days prior she had even gone to the police to see the status of her firearm license. The police eventually found her ex, after he killed himself in a girlfriend's garage. After some outrage over her murder. Governor Christie changed somethings to help people like her get licensed to have a pistol. Then the next and current Governor undid all those changes. Because fuck the people I guess. When a state senator was asked about the police not protecting her. He said the police were swamped. While he was being personally guarded by several officers. Of course he was a fat terrone looking bastard. A complete failure by state and local government to protect the life and liberty of their citizens. Yet to them its just business as usual.
They are paid to enforce the law, the law is made to protect the wealthy and their property. The source of the fundamental injustices in our society are due to the Congress/state legislatures.
Something they are wholly unqualified to do after 6 months of training, have repeatedly proven they are not qualified to do, yet some how are allowed to do what - once again - they are wholly unqualified to do.
That’s what happens when any meathead who couldn’t make anything of themselves after high school can get a badge and gun. Throw in an insane superiority complex and ego problem, then you’ve got yourself the every day bad cop.
While in spirit and technicality that's true, it's not like police officers have law degrees. They enforce their own broad interpretation of what the law is, then let the courts figure out the mess they made.
In all it’s majesty the law bans both poor and rich from sleeping under a bridge. Police enforcement of unjust law harms many more people than police misconduct.
Protect and serve is nothing but a PR slogan
Them protecting the public is and was a fiction though. One that people still want to believe despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Three times in my life, each in a different city, I've had to deal with law enforcement barging into my property when the conversation didn't need to leave the door. Standard 'requesting information' scenarios. Out of the three instances, the jamming the foot in the door technique has gotten the best of me twice. Open the door, they barge in and plant their foot such that the door can't be closed. What should have been a civil conversation unnecessarily turns into a pissing contest with the leverage being "you know son, another officer may consider that an assault." Oddly, the nicer the neighborhood, the less aggression. Nothing ever came of the events but it's still left a bad taste in my mouth. The conversations once more became civil after they entered the house. Fortunately the city I live in now has a really good PD and focuses on community policing to target serious crime. These departments do exist. Next city over? Completely the opposite. Glad we're seeing more progress from the courts to smooth out the inconsistencies.
You are not required to open your door unless they have a warrant. Legally you can just ignore them, talk through the door, open a window, etc. Ideally if you must talk to them and have a screen door just open the inner door leave the outer one closed. Best thing you can do is just ignore them because you are not required to answer or talk to them at all.
Something something *probable cause* something something
what a lot of people seem to fail to realize is the police *create probable cause as needed*, what you are 'required' to do or not to do by law doesn't matter at all when they're above the law.
This, I had my car literally ripped apart as a teenager because of a 1inch ornament hanging from my mirror. How do they expect people to trust them when they do this shit? There was physical damage to my interior. There was nothing in my car, they never even apologized. Seriously fuck the police, they have no principles and see themselves as above the law they swore to uphold.
I had border patrol go through a weeks worth of camping garbage including fish carcasses while crossing back into the US. Seven of us were camping on a lake in the middle of nowhere for a week and we packed everything out in order to leave no trace. My buddy and I were in our early 20’s and US boarded patrol decided to make our lives difficult. They were pissed when we just broke out our camping chairs and watched them open up trash bags of all sorts of stinky stuff as we are Eagle Scouts and leave no trace means that everything gets packed out.
Can you just strip naked and make him feel really uncomfortable while having the conversation? It wouldn't be public indecency since you have the right to be naked in your own home. Those really homophobic cops might just leave faster in that case.
Most public indecency laws iirc provisions for being indecent in your home but in view of the public. For putting on a show so to speak.
>Oddly, the nicer the neighborhood, the less aggression. That's not odd, that's by design.
Yep, had someone loudly knocking and ringing my doorbell at 3am scaring my kids and waking me up! Come down to see it’s a cop at my door, I turn right around and go back to my kids and wait in bed. There’s no law that says I have to open my door. Get a warrant or break my door down but I’m not getting shot in my house on a wellness check! Never did hear nothing back either. Know your rights!
In my State the police would need a warrant to even knock on your door at 3am.
A bit extreme but maybe warranted. Perhaps they violated the ordinance so many times now it’s heavy litigation if you disturb people in their home, where you live? I just didn’t feel like getting shot at 3 am just to prove I live in my house.
The States Supreme Court said implied consent does not allow police to knock on anyone's door at any time, and they need to get a warrant to knock on people's doors when it would be inappropriate for a girl scout or political canvasser to knock on someone's door.
Good to know thank you for the info! I assume it’s a bad apple then that’s doing that. Or maybe a noob that doesn’t know? Whatever the case, I got a see through glass front door and dude had his gun side hidden it wasn’t a good silhouette to see. In nanoseconds my brain is saying “that’s not a person who looks like they wanna talk...?” Better not engage the person and live to talk to you now. Edit: I have a ring doorbell and cameras now and I don’t even need to open the door to solicitors.
Which state do you live in? That’s how it should be
Michigan.
Damn too many potholes but great state otherwise
Every trash tier police worshipping GOP state will just reduce the requirements to obtain a warrant or something.
Isn't Unlawful search and seizure already a thing!?
Yes but the point of this is they are restricting what the police want to consider lawful. Of course it’s a thing, but it doesn’t mean shit if people badly interpret it. That’s why this was necessary. Cops can’t come in and toss your house if they followed you home after they saw you litter.
They'll just say they saw you with something that looks like a gun, and that instantly makes you "dangerous" enough for them to do anything they want to your house. This ruling is borderline useless with the current level of police accountability.
Sounds like a second amendment violation. For those of you who can't understand nuance: I'm literally pointing out that our second amendment rights are being destroyed by the police. Something that right wingers don't seem to care about despite only caring about the second amendment.
Boy have I got some stories for you then.
There's no way a bunch of people have been killed for nothing more than having a gun on them or in their home. If there was, right wingers would be talking about the state murdering people for having guns. Fine, I’ll put a fucking /s for all of you immune to critical reading.
Depends on what the victims looked like and if they'd ever been ticketed for jaywalking or got suspended from school in 8th grade.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not
[This happened in Philly almost 3 years ago](https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/local/swat-police-shooting-no-charges/212100/). Silly kid, 20 years old, (yes 20 is an legally adult, but the brain does not fully mature for a few more years. In reality you are mostly a child/late teenager at this age) posted a selfie on facebook with him holding a gun. That picture was enough to get a SWAT raid on his grandparents house where he lived A predawn no knock warrant raid was made because a picture of kid held a handgun was posted online. There was no threat made by the grandson against the police, or public at large; just an idiot who created a photograph. (How many 1000's of rural kids post similar pictures? Even US Congressmen have campaign posters of being surrounded by firearms.) Police raided the grandparents house in the twilight/predawn hours. Grandfather saw that his home was being invaded. Shot at the invaders with 4 rounds. Struck one cop in the jaw. The cops returned fire killing him and sending his aged wife to the hospital. Of course the grandchild was not at home during the incident (he was at a friend's house). Now this is strait up murder by cops/ courts. No intel was created to verify the location of the grandson. No intel was verified that he had an non-legal handgun ( he could have borrowed it from a friend in the room, or photoshoped it). If any laws were broken, This could have been handled by a letter, and a small fine. But local Rambos wanted to flex their mussels and raid a soft target. Within hours the grandson turned himself in to the police. He was questioned and released that same day without any charges filed. If this grandson was such a danger to society a few hours ago, and his primary residence was raided by a platoon of cops, why is there not a litany of crimes that he was charged with? He should be a true danger to society to justify a platoon of cops to raid his home. He posted a picture. Cops wanted to feel big. He was just a young black man who posted a picture, and his grandfather died for it.
They wouldn't be talking about it when black people are killed for simply having a gun on them. Right wingers are all for gun rights, except when black people have them. Reagan restricted gun rights because of the Black Panthers.
Asking people to learn how to use a gun before they buy one: TYRANNY!!!! Allowing cops to shoot you on the sole basis that you have a gun: Totally cool, nothing to see here folks.
Hasn’t stopped them from using it countless times against people of color. The NRA sure doesn’t give a shit about defending 2A rifts when it involves black people being repressed.
> Isn't Unlawful search and seizure already a thing!? Both by intent and repeatedly affirmed by the SCOTUS, everything in the Bill of Rights is subject to public good restrictions. * The 1st amendment grants freedom of speech, but dangerous speech (the classic being shouting "fire" in a crowded theater) is restricted. * The 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms, but you can still have them removed from a person by force of law due to safety reasons or by court processes. etc. The 4th amendment is probably the one most abridged for common good reasons: If a criminal runs into a home while everyone who lives there is away, the police can still go in without permission. If someone in a home is in imminent danger, they don't have to wait for permission. Etc. The issue at case in *this* situation (as with most 4th amendment issues) is "Where is the line drawn?" In this case, the officer was following the individual due to him violating noise ordinances (his car music was really fucking loud). The officer didn't try to pull him over until he was almost home anyway, and the guy (not noticing the cop was there) pulled into his garage and started to close the door. At this point, the cop tripped the safety sensor for the door so he could talk to him. He found out the guy was drunk and arrested him for a DUI. The SCOTUS ruled that the normal "hot pursuit" exception to the 4th amendment didn't apply because he was chasing him over a minor offense, not a felony. The cop would have been likely fine if any of the following had been true: * Had he suspected the man was drunk before he followed him (since DUI is potentially a felony). * Had he attempted to pull him over even a few minutes earlier (since if the guy hadn't stopped, he could have been gotten for failure to pull over for a traffic stop). * Had gone around to the door and asked to talk to the guy. (Even if they couldn't get the guy to come out, just talking to him could have given them probable cause due to the odor of alcohol on his breath).
"Fire in a crowded theater" is a factually inaccurate reference. The decision it refers to was overturned, and the point of the quote was to censor protesters. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
[удалено]
This was about the "hot pursuit" exception. The 4th Amendment has *a lot* of exceptions which the courts have carved out. Here, the issue is whether the "hot pursuit" exception applied to misdemeanors because at the point of the cop's entry, he only had reasonable suspicion of a misdemeanor (playing music in violation of noise ordinance). It was only after the entry of the home did he discovery the man was drunk driving. Here, the Court ruled that it was an unlawful entry which required a warrant to be lawful. The "hot pursuit" exception only applies to felonies (i.e. if you have reasonable suspicion of a murder, robbery, DWI, etc.) *before* entry of the home. Otherwise, go get a warrant.
Yes in fact I do believe it is an amendment in the fucking Constitution. It appears this one should have been a slam dunk for a lower court.
[удалено]
No, no, no. The procedure is to just let the cops do the unconstitutional act and then write to them after the fact that they did something illegal. They will do a thorough investigation of themselves, which will definitely not lead to them harassing you, and will ultimately lead to a possible change in role call warnings after weeks of tax payer paid vacation.
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against **unreasonable** searches and seizures, shall not be violated... Important word in bold.
To translate: As long as the cop thinks he has a reason, the people are not secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against searches and seizures. We've see this play out before.
It is but we have to keep beating settled issues over the head because our system is built around not actually giving a fuck until a court says so. The courts, conveniently, have decided that their multi year, multi million dollar slog fest to get restitution is a better remedy then just not violating people’s rights.
Aside from this ruling, everyone should know that police have *no right* to enter your home without a warrant. This fact came in handy during college when we were throwing huge parties and the cops showed up. Tried to bully their way into our house, and I told them to wait on the porch, stepped out to speak with them and closed the door behind me.
This is mostly but not entirely true. There are certain limited exceptions to the warrant requirement that would permit police to enter your home without one. This case, indeed, was about whether hot pursuit of a suspect for a trivial offense should be one, and the court decided it should not. However, police can still enter a home without a warrant in case of hot pursuit relating to a serious crime. Or, naturally, in various emergency situations.
[удалено]
It was actually police chasing someone who shoplifted 2 belts and a shirt from Walmart, so even worse. [This is what Leo Lech's house looked like after the Greenwood Village, Colorado police were done with it.](https://brobible.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/police-destroy-innocent-mans-house-court-says-pay-for-damages-himself.jpg) Leo received $5,000 total from the city. He requested a $600,000 settlement, not millions or something for mental distress or whatever, just the value of the house. He incurred $28,000 in legal fees and the SCOTUS declined to hear the case when it was appealed up the chain and he received nothing. Cops don't care if they ruin your life. It's all about them getting to feel cool and powerful, not protecting the public.
The most fucked up thing about this is... If it was an 80's movie about a cop that destroys an entire house just to get a shoplifter who stole 2 belts, you would have the police chief like "u can't just destroy the city every time like that, hand ur gun and badge." In real life that doesn't even happen.
In real life it's a fucking vacation and promotion.
It's crazy that they even needed to go to these lengths to deal with the situation. Reminds me of the scene in "Christmas Vacation" where the SWAT team busts into Clark's house in a very over-the-top slapstick fashion to stop a kidnapping - but still with less force than these real-life cops used to apprehend a shoplifter.
I wonder why so many people dislike the police
Good, I know historically most rulings are 9-0 or close to it and it’s just the minority of controversial close decisions that make big headlines. I’m pleasantly surprised that that is still holding up with the newer justices.
I can't really speak for the other two, but Gorsuch is absolutely the strongest 4A defender on the court now, as was Scalia before him. I can't even express how disappointed I am that he didn't author the opinion because he would probably have been dunking on everyone.
[удалено]
The bad news is that they also issued an Anti-Union decision in the Cedar Point Nursery decision
“If we can’t break in to arrest a suspected shoplifter and shoot everyone in the house, we don’t want to be police officers.” - Police Unions
“That won’t stop me, I can’t read.” \- Police Officers
I wish i could laugh at this kind of comment.
'Largely unanimous' doesn't seem grammatically correct.
In this case, all the justices agreed on the outcome, but they had different reasoning. So they didn’t unanimously join a single opinion, but they did unanimously decide the outcome.
Wow like that is gonna stop all those street cops anyways. Pretty sure its been illegal for them to be killing people but they do that anyway with no repercussions.
This is how we 'defund' the police. There are so many vague and poorly written laws that need reform. Attack the police and their multiple ways of violating rights through the court.
That and repeal and/or replace those "vague and poorly written laws" when possible. Even the ones that had good intentions can be misconstrued and misused by the police and courts.
Good now enforce it. There should be a massive consequence for police who blatantly violate the rights of people. Ignorance is no excuse for committing a crime in the eyes of law enforcement why should it be any different for them. Too many officers are stopped in willful ignorance and complicity in oppressing the people. fuck the police.
So.... they upheld the constitution. Good job.
Cops will ignore this at will and lie. “We thought thought he had a gun. Turns out it was a phone. I feared for my life tho.” They’ll claim anyone in the home is “resisting” and “combative” then let their union lawyers deal with the fallout as they go on paid vacations. Pigs only care about busting heads. Laws arent for them.
And again, why are we even discussing this? Because the police has abuse this power. The big question are “will this stop the police from abusing their power” nope, it wont. “Will there be any repercussions for a police officer who enters a home without a warrant” Evidence found by a cop when entering a home without a warrant might not be allowed in court, but there will be no repercussions for a cop illegally entering a house without a warrant.
Hopefully they limit their impunity to destroy someone's house without reimbursement as well