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. You mean like a road blocks searching for drunk drivers? Everyone is stopped and everyone is searched (breath - glance into the car for alcohol, license and registration) all without probable cause.

    Of course you would have a hard time blaming John Ashcroft or George W for that - so I guess you'll just move on.

    Or is that a "greater good" deal where the state has the right to "stop everyone on the street and search them"?
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I agree that you err on the side of rights, Mutah--but the rights spelled out in the constitution. Beyond that, f you are going to make up new criteria, where do you draw the line?

    A cop pulls me over and asks for my license. Taking your argument to an extreme, I may as well not comply and drive off, and then claim a violation of my rights.
  3. Mutah

    Mutah Member

    That's a reasonable search. Has been for decades. By practice, since we're got not Constitutionally written word to go on, presenting a warrant before a search has been in place since the early 1900's in most of the country and certainly since Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 nationwide.

    It may be a slippery slope to say this, but you've got to be a maddog about individual rights. Otherwise, TPTB keep chip, chip, chipping away at them. Vigilence.
  4. Ragu --
    The point in this context is, if the cop pulls you over without cause, you had a remedy at law for what might or might not ensue. In this case, the point is not the actions of the police, but the admissability of the evidence subsequently acquired.
  5. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    So the cops didn't knock first. They barged in, shouted "police" and said they had a warrant. And they did. Because they didn't knock first all the evidence should be tossed? Only if you want more criminals on the street.
  6. flaming_mo

    flaming_mo Guest

    This is a good explanation of some of the background of the case. This article was actually referenced in today's dissent.

  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    FB, Not following. If the cops have a warrant, and searched the way they said they would in the warrant, what's the problem?
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I stand educated... After reading that Cato article. Apparently, , if the police believe knocking will put them at risk or evidence will be destroyed, there already was the precedent for them obtaining a warrant spelling that out allowing them to enter without knocking (even though the argument in that Cato piece is that even those kinds of warrants shoudn't be allowed).
  9. Ragu--
    This passage from the piece Mo posted is critical.

    "These raids are often launched on tips from notoriously unreliable confidential informants. Rubber-stamp judges, dicey informants, and aggressive policing have thus given rise to the countless examples of "wrong door" raids we read about in the news. In fact, there's a disturbingly long list of completely innocent people who've been killed in "wrong door" raids, including New York City worker Alberta Spruill, Boston minister Accelyne Williams, and a Mexican immigrant in Denver named Ismael Mena. "

    This just loosens the reins further.

    And, it won;t be long before this court dispenses with warrants altogether in most cases.
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    FB, Just seems to me that if you want to remedy a rubber-stamp judge or warrants being issued based on flimsy informants, you should deal with the root causes. Doesn't make sense to me to say "We should hamstring the cops, because there are too many judges not doing their jobs well." Why not deal with problems directly, rather than coming up with back door ways that may or may not fix those problems, but create new problems of their own?
  11. I was talking with a constitutional lawyer today who brought up a pragmatic point in re: this decision.
    If a cop fails to ID himself, and kicks down my door, can I shoot him?
    After all, as far as I know, he's a guy kicking in my door.
  12. flaming_mo

    flaming_mo Guest

    I think you could certainly use that as a defense, even if they had a legitimate reason to knock down your door. (And I think that has been used as a defense in the past). Now, you'd probably be so riddled with bullets that it wouldn't matter...
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page