Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 31

Thread: If a criminal runs into your house, does the 4th amendment apply??

  1. #1

    Default If a criminal runs into your house, does the 4th amendment apply??

    Just curious...hypothetical scenario here. If a criminal runs into your house (even if you don't know the guy/gal) and the police see it, do the police have the authority to barge in and search your house? I know if you refuse you could probably be charged with "harboring a criminal" or whatever law is on the books concerning that...


    I know the Supreme Court has ruled on things like "hot pursuit", but can or should they be able to bust down your door at night if they happen to see a criminal go in your house and begin to search for him??



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    No.
    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington

  4. #3

    Default

    Why don't they just get a warrant and watch the house until then in case he comes out

  5. #4

    Default

    What reason could you possibly have which would justify not giving the criminal to the police?

    If the criminal runs in, is recognized by the police, and you are unable to control him, I believe the police are justified in invading you privacy to save your property from an imminent threat.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    What reason could you possibly have which would justify not giving the criminal to the police?

    If the criminal runs in, is recognized by the police, and you are unable to control him, I believe the police are justified in invading you privacy to save your property from an imminent threat.
    Like if he's your friend or something I guess

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stormcommander View Post
    Why don't they just get a warrant and watch the house until then in case he comes out
    Because then I'm sure someone here would bitch about that creating a "police state" scenario where city police forces begin to occupy a city block with patrol while waiting to obtain a warrant from a judge that just got done smacking his monkey to Elton John.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stormcommander View Post
    Like if he's your friend or something I guess
    You forfeit your right to privacy when you chose to willfully harbor the criminal.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    What reason could you possibly have which would justify not giving the criminal to the police?

    If the criminal runs in, is recognized by the police, and you are unable to control him, I believe the police are justified in invading you privacy to save your property from an imminent threat.
    So we suspend the Constitution in the case of an "imminent threat" because that's what you believe??

    Well fuck your beliefs, buddy! Because with that logic, George Bush justifies wiretapping your ass or seizing you in an airport without providing legal counsel because you are an "imminent threat" that cannot wait for the basic legal protections of the Constitution.

    If you think it's right to violate the Constitution to snag a criminal, what makes you different from Bush?? You're both breaking the 4th amendment either way...I guess it just seems Bush's way of doing it appears to be more unjustified. Again, who gives a shit?? The Constitution gets shredded either way just because of your personal opinion.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    What reason could you possibly have which would justify not giving the criminal to the police?

    If the criminal runs in, is recognized by the police, and you are unable to control him, I believe the police are justified in invading you privacy to save your property from an imminent threat.
    With what you are saying, it sounds like the property owner's consent. I don't think that is what the socialist_is_me is saying.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    You forfeit your right to privacy when you chose to willfully harbor the criminal.
    Again, who said I willfully harbored him?? Say he sneaks in and I don't know, but the police do. Doesn't that put you in a situation where the police may be lying to you (imagine that)?? So the police could lie to you anytime they wanted to search the house saying they saw someone run in but really didn't just so they could fuck with yah...so we are in the business of believing the State because we all know the Police NEVER lie..

    Would you be happy if you walked downstairs with your boxers on only to find flashlights and cops carelessly opening up doors and walking into your kids' bedrooms??

    Also, how do you forfeit rights?? I never understood that...I guess inalienable rights are forfeitable...kinda contradictory dontcha think?? Oh, that's right, I'm supposed to somehow know that because some sort of implied law that isn't written down, but that I somehow agreed to, suddenly applies because I happened to be born in a place of the world where that's how things work.
    Last edited by socialize_me; 01-07-2009 at 11:33 PM.

  12. #11

  13. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    North Muskegon, MI
    Posts
    6,929

    Default

    Here is my take:

    The police may enter the house in pursuit of the criminal, however they must fully disregard the 6' tall grove of 'Trees' growing under florescent lights they run through are completely not available for any prosecution EVER. Any charges brought now, or in the future would be tainted by a breech in the 4th amendment.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahApocalypse View Post
    Here is my take:

    The police may enter the house in pursuit of the criminal, however they must fully disregard the 6' tall grove of 'Trees' growing under florescent lights they run through are completely not available for any prosecution EVER. Any charges brought now, or in the future would be tainted by a breech in the 4th amendment.
    That is how the law works under the exclusionary rule.
    Last edited by Kludge; 01-07-2009 at 11:47 PM. Reason: Didn't was SIM to rant about deriving ethics from positivism.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    My ass hurts
    Just one of those days...

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahApocalypse View Post
    Here is my take:

    The police may enter the house in pursuit of the criminal, however they must fully disregard the 6' tall grove of 'Trees' growing under florescent lights they run through are completely not available for any prosecution EVER. Any charges brought now, or in the future would be tainted by a breech in the 4th amendment.
    I like this idea. Why can't you all be as useful as UtahApocalypse is??

    So would I be able to post a sign on my door saying "criminals enter through here"??

    In this situation, how would a murder be handled?? Say the criminal breaks into your home, runs through while you're committing murder, and the cops see it but have entered into your house thus violating the 4th amendment. From Supreme Court precedent, the cops cannot use evidence it obtained without a warrant to charge you with murder since they broke in without a warrant, correct??

    very interesting scenario..

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by socialize_me View Post
    I like this idea. Why can't you all be as useful as UtahApocalypse is??

    So would I be able to post a sign on my door saying "criminals enter through here"??

    In this situation, how would a murder be handled?? Say the criminal breaks into your home, runs through while you're committing murder, and the cops see it but have entered into your house thus violating the 4th amendment. From Supreme Court precedent, the cops cannot use evidence it obtained without a warrant to charge you with murder since they broke in without a warrant, correct??

    very interesting scenario..
    Lol, I forgot who you were for a few weeks. That scenario is about as ridiculous as your idealism and naivety. Cops could kill you if you hadn't pulled the trigger yet as it's an imminent threat on the other person's life. If you had already killed her, I imagine they'd detain you on their testimony until they could get a search warrant and formally prosecute you.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    Lol, I forgot who you were for a few weeks. That scenario is about as ridiculous as your idealism and naivety. Cops could kill you if you hadn't pulled the trigger yet as it's an imminent threat on the other person's life. If you had already killed her, I imagine they'd detain you on their testimony until they could get a search warrant and formally prosecute you.
    Apparently my idealism and naivety isn't as ridiculous as yours. You apparently lack the ability to understand sarcasm.

    Twat.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by socialize_me View Post
    Apparently my idealism and naivety isn't as ridiculous as yours. You apparently lack the ability to understand sarcasm.

    Twat.
    My dad can beat up your dad, anyway, AND your dad takes steroids.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    That is how the law works under the exclusionary rule.
    Are you defining the Constitution by using Supreme Court rulings via judicial review??

    Apparently I am an idealist if I oppose the ability of a simply majority of 5 unelected individuals cloaked in robes to determine what is and isn't Constitutional for all 3 bodies of government. It is then that the Judicial Branch becomes every branch.

    But of course I'm a dumbass and you're a guy sanctioning Supreme Court rulings.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by socialize_me View Post
    Are you defining the Constitution by using Supreme Court rulings via judicial review??

    Apparently I am an idealist if I oppose the ability of a simply majority of 5 unelected individuals cloaked in robes to determine what is and isn't Constitutional for all 3 bodies of government. It is then that the Judicial Branch becomes every branch.

    But of course I'm a dumbass and you're a guy sanctioning Supreme Court rulings.
    I'm telling you how a court would handle the evidence in the scenario given. Evidence obtained unconstitutionally is inadmissible.

    http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=Exclusionary+Rule

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    My dad can beat up your dad, anyway, AND your dad takes steroids.
    Weak..very weak. Almost as weak as your mom's scoliosis.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by socialize_me View Post
    Weak..very weak. Almost as weak as your mom's scoliosis.
    My mother doesn't have scoliosis.

  23. #22

    Default

    Stop spamming or I'll ban you both and Cowlesy.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stormcommander View Post
    Stop spamming or I'll ban you both and Cowlesy.
    You can't ban Cowlesy. He can beat you, your dad, EMI, EMI's dad, AND your uncle up at once even if Cowlesy had his arms cut off prior.

  25. #24

  26. #25

    Default

    nt
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 11-19-2009 at 05:17 AM.

  27. #26

    Default

    It's called pursuit. The police are fully justified in following a suspect onto and into private property.

    Now, if they follow a suspect onto private property, then stop, search the property, and find something not relevant to the original pursuit, that should be protected under the 4th.

    It's analagous to the only time a roadblock/checkpoint is Constitutional -- when a dangerous suspect is on the loose in the area of that checkpoint.
    "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." -- Ronald Reagan, 1964



  28. #27

    Default

    If a criminal is wanted by law and the police see that person and the police have reasonable suspicion that person is the criminal the police may pursue that person where ever they go, even if it is in your house because they don't need an official search warrant for the wanted criminal. However while the police are in your house they may only search the immediate area of where that person went and not anywhere else. However if you have marijuana sitting out and the police see it, that is probable cause, and because the officer was within legal limits to go where the criminal went they can arrest you because it was in plane sight. However they can't go out of their way to look at your things such as serial numbers on objects that may or may not appear to be stolen, they would need a search warrant for that.

    So to answer your question, yes police can go into your house with out your permission to follow the criminal. The police may also enter to search where the subject went if they have reason to believe he left valuable evidence behind.

    Example, if a person was wanted for murder the police might be less likely to have the area the murderer occupied in your house searched. But someone who was seen holding a bag of marijuana and is caught with out it they may feel the need to search where they went in your house for evidence.

    (I took constitutional law [aka supreme court rulings])

    If your asking opinion I'd say sure go in my house and get a "true" criminal but what ever you find in there should not be used against me in any way under any circumstance unless you had a warrant to search my house.
    Last edited by hotbrownsauce; 01-08-2009 at 12:21 PM.
    Rules to gain ground for our efforts. Remember we are the role models for liberty don't abuse it.
    Constructive criticism
    No condescending tones
    Allow room for disagreement
    Be respectful
    It takes time
    Don't flip out when "bad" things happen
    Be forward looking and be part of the solution not just the reaction
    There is no perfect candidate
    Support freedom locally as well as nationally
    Don't worry about negatives said against us but instead worry about giving something positive to say.

  29. #28

    Default

    well hopefully you would be home so that you can fully exercise your 2nd amendment and don't even have to worry about the 4th

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Young Paleocon View Post
    well hopefully you would be home so that you can fully exercise your 2nd amendment and don't even have to worry about the 4th
    And do what? Go cop hunting??? Yyyyeah no thank you.

  31. #30

    Default

    If they have a warrant to arrest the person you are holding then they should be able to....I think that is reasonable.
    No more IRS.
    I am now old enough to vote.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •