1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Erosion of the Bill of Rights continues...

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Mutah, Jun 15, 2006.

  1. Mutah

    Mutah Member

  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I don't agree. Frankly, there is nothing in the constitution covering this. The fourth amendment is meant to protect you from cops barging in and harrassing you. It's why they can't search your home without obtaining a search warrant, for which the issuing criteria is "probable cause." That layer of them having to go to an impartial judge to get the warrant hasn't been eroded, so really, I don't see how anyone can say the Bill of Rights has been crapped on.

    I can think of lots of reasons why the cops wouldn't want to announce their arrival with a Western Union telegram... Let's say they know there is a meth lab behind the door. Why should they knock? To give the guy a chance to flush everything? Or so he can get his gun aimed at the door? I don't have a problem with this. As long as they followed the fourth amendment and got the search warrant, I don't see how them not knocking on the door violates the constitution in any way.
  3. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    I think probable cause covers this one. When you have credible reason to believe the evidence is in the home in question, the method of obtaining it should be secondary, particularly in cases where the potential for violent reaction exists, as in Ragu's meth lab example. I just don't see how anyone's rights are violated or eroded by this ruling.
  4. And I can think of circumstances in which the cops should just be allowed to stop everyone on the street and search them, but they wouldn't be constitutional, either.
    Thanks to all those Democrats who helped put Roberts and Strip-Search Sammy Alito on the court, guaranteeing the current political blight sticks around for 40 years.
    Bad decision and, as zeke points out, scary logic.
  5. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Well... the NSA going in front of a judge has been eroded.

    This is a step toward that for the cops.
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You can think of circumstances in which cops should be allowed to stop everyone on the street--indiscriminately--and search them all without probable cause? What are those circumstances?
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    What the administration has been doing with its NSA wiretaps has clearly violated the fourth amendment--whether they ever have to face the consequences or not. How can you compare this to that? This ruling says that cops--who went before a judge, showed probable cause and got a search warrant--don't have to announce their arrival by knocking on the door. How is this a step toward them doing something illegal?
  8. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    I think that, even if you are suspected of a crime, cops shouldn't be able to quietly come in on you banging your wife.

    Maybe I'm wrong.
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Still doesn't explain how this compares to a warrantless wiretap.
  10. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Less right to privacy.

  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Sure. And a vault full of gold bars is like a vault full of copper bars. Just a whole lotta metal.
  12. Mutah

    Mutah Member

    You should have a problem with this. The purpose and thought behind a warrant is that it is to be provided to you before any search is attempted. It's a privacy issue. The cops want to breech that wall? Fine. Where's your warrant? Save that, your individual rights have been violated. If someone gets away with something because of a knock at the door, well... tough shit. The law should protect the rights of all, not make sure every guilty party is caught. You err on the side of rights. Or you should.

    Looking at it from another side -- someone comes bum-rushing into a house unannounced, and eventually someone's going to get shot. How do you charge the guy, then?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page