Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: SC deciding if warrantless misdemeanors constitutional

  1. #1

    SC deciding if warrantless misdemeanors constitutional

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...cid=uxbndlbing

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court grappled Wednesday with whether an officer pursuing a misdemeanor suspect can follow that person into their home without a warrant in a case civil liberty groups say could vastly expand police powers.

    Several of the justices were skeptical of the argument that the high court could draw a clear line between felonies – in which such warrantless searches are often permitted – and misdemeanors, given the difference between the two classes of crime are usually difficult for a police officer to determine in the heat of a chase.

    The suit emerged from the case of a California man who pulled into his garage and closed the door rather than stopping when an officer activated his police lights about 100 feet from the man's driveway. As the garage door closed, the police officer tripped a sensor, causing it to reopen, and ultimately charged the man with DUI.
    Last edited by Pauls' Revere; 02-25-2021 at 07:11 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Does the Officer have proof that this man was in fact driving the car? The garage going down would have surely obstructed his view for a significant amount of seconds.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...cid=uxbndlbing

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court grappled Wednesday with whether an officer pursuing a misdemeanor suspect can follow that person into their home without a warrant in a case civil liberty groups say could vastly expand police powers.

    Several of the justices were skeptical of the argument that the high court could draw a clear line between felonies – in which such warrantless searches are often permitted – and misdemeanors, given the difference between the two classes of crime are usually difficult for a police officer to determine in the heat of a chase.

    The suit emerged from the case of a California man who pulled into his garage and closed the door rather than stopping when an officer activated his police lights about 100 feet from the man's driveway. As the garage door closed, the police officer tripped a sensor, causing it to reopen, and ultimately charged the man with DUI.
    It may be wrong. But it's not unconstitutional. I see nothing in the Constitution that says that warrants are constitutionally required for anything whatsoever. The only mention of warrants in the Constitution is in the 4th Amendment, which stipulates requirements that must be met for warrants to issue, but says nothing about when warrants are required.

    The question then comes down to whether or not following a misdemeanor suspect into their home is "unreasonable." But the question of whether or not its unreasonable is determined by other factors apart from whether or not they have a warrant. They could have a warrant and it still be unreasonable, or they could not have a warrant and it would still be reasonable. It can't be unreasonable without a warrant and then somehow if they have a warrant under the otherwise exact same circumstances that would make it reasonable.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...cid=uxbndlbing

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court grappled Wednesday with whether an officer pursuing a misdemeanor suspect can follow that person into their home without a warrant in a case civil liberty groups say could vastly expand police powers.
    This'll be an interesting one. I'm sure most of us in here will be siding with the liberal wing of the Court on this one. The right side of the Court has historically been extremely deferential to law enforcement. With a few interesting exceptions. But Scalia is gone.

    I fear where this may lead (and why they chose to take up this case). Think of all the "crimes" that would fit this definition.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  6. #5
    Seems very likely that police powers are going to be expanded.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    The question then comes down to whether or not following a misdemeanor suspect into their home is "unreasonable." But the question of whether or not its unreasonable is determined by other factors apart from whether or not they have a warrant. They could have a warrant and it still be unreasonable, or they could not have a warrant and it would still be reasonable. It can't be unreasonable without a warrant and then somehow if they have a warrant under the otherwise exact same circumstances that would make it reasonable.
    Situation for you...

    You're out mowing your lawn and run out of gas. A cop driving by notices you fill your tank with an "unapproved" container. A misdemeanor. He approaches you to cite you. Of course you don't hear him because you're wearing hearing protection. You decide to get a glass of water before you continue your mowing. He assumes you're trying to flee and follows you in. At this point, he sees the "illegal" firearm on your table being cleaned, or whatever other myriad of crimes you're currently committing. This is what is becoming "reasonable" in this world.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Situation for you...

    You're out mowing your lawn and run out of gas. A cop driving by notices you fill your tank with an "unapproved" container. A misdemeanor. He approaches you to cite you. Of course you don't hear him because you're wearing hearing protection. You decide to get a glass of water before you continue your mowing. He assumes you're trying to flee and follows you in. At this point, he sees the "illegal" firearm on your table being cleaned, or whatever other myriad of crimes you're currently committing. This is what is becoming "reasonable" in this world.
    That's definitely unreasonable. But if he had a warrant, that wouldn't make it any more reasonable. I meant to focus the point I was making on the issue of whether or not warrants should make a difference.

    But yes, we all break laws virtually every day without even knowing it. There are so many laws we can't reasonably be expected to keep track of them all. And their existence gives the state the power to do things like what you described. Any time they want to violate someone's rights, all they need to do is find a law they break and use that as their pretext. This is grossly unjust, whether constitutional or not.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    That's definitely unreasonable. But if he had a warrant, that wouldn't make it any more reasonable. I meant to focus the point I was making on the issue of whether or not warrants should make a difference.
    The point being that the cop couldn't get a warrant if he had to present it to a judge.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    The point being that the cop couldn't get a warrant if he had to present it to a judge.
    OK, then constitutionally, those criteria of what he would need to do in order to get a warrant are what this comes down to, and not whether or not he actually had a warrant.

    He would certainly have probable cause, having actually seen me use the illegal gas can, and he would certainly be able to describe the person and place to be searched, that being the same house where he saw me use the illegal gas can.

    It would again come down to what constitutes an unreasonable search. Lacking a warrant wouldn't be what made it unreasonable. The inability to get a warrant would result from the same unreasonableness as the unreasonableness that a judge after the fact would be able to identify. But if the judge after the fact rules it unreasonable, then (if that judge interprets the Constitution literally) it should be on the basis of the same facts that a judge who would have refused to issue the warrant would and not by counting the lack of warrant as the one fact that makes it unreasonable.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    OK, then constitutionally, those criteria of what he would need to do in order to get a warrant are what this comes down to, and not whether or not he actually had a warrant.

    He would certainly have probable cause, having actually seen me use the illegal gas can, and he would certainly be able to describe the person and place to be searched, that being the same house where he saw me use the illegal gas can.

    It would again come down to what constitutes an unreasonable search. Lacking a warrant wouldn't be what made it unreasonable. The inability to get a warrant would result from the same unreasonableness as the unreasonableness that a judge after the fact would be able to identify. But if the judge after the fact rules it unreasonable, then (if that judge interprets the Constitution literally) it should be on the basis of the same facts that a judge who would have refused to issue the warrant would and not by counting the lack of warrant as the one fact that makes it unreasonable.
    Are you intentionally being obtuse?? Or does this just come naturally??

    The issue at hand is whether that officer would need to stop what he's doing to go to a judge and ask for permission. Forget whether he ultimately gets the warrant or if this situation is justified... The question of obtaining a warrant is not merely to determine the reasonableness of the search, but WHO decides if it's reasonable.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  13. #11
    A person is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

    So is it proper for law enforcement to search the home of an innocent person, without a warrant?

  14. #12
    Last edited by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged; 02-25-2021 at 10:28 AM.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    A person is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

    So is it proper for law enforcement to search the home of an innocent person, without a warrant?

    That is a good question.

    But notice that the stipulation "without a warrant" is superfluous there. If it's improper without a warrant, then it's improper with one as well. Similarly, the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is also beside the point.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    The issue at hand is whether that officer would need to stop what he's doing to go to a judge and ask for permission. Forget whether he ultimately gets the warrant or if this situation is justified... The question of obtaining a warrant is not merely to determine the reasonableness of the search, but WHO decides if it's reasonable.
    I disagree. It's to decide if it's reasonable, at least if done within the framework of the Constitution taken literally. Otherwise, warrants would always be required, not just for misdemeanors, but also for felonies.

    Just as with deciding reasonableness before the fact, so also after the fact, the judges, in this case the Supreme Court, may decide if this particular search was reasonable or unreasonable. And that can and should be decided without regard for whether or not the officer had a warrant.

    In the case at hand, the argument against requiring a warrant would be that by the time he got a warrant, the blood alcohol level that he would be able to test the suspect for would no longer be indicative of what it was when the suspect was driving on public roads, and thus if the search was reasonable at all then it would need to be performed without waiting for a warrant. But that is what the question really should boil down to for SCOTUS--whether or not it was reasonable at all.

    If a search is reasonable, then neither the 4th Amendment nor anything else in the Constitution requires that a warrant be gotten prior to performing it. There may be statutes that require that. And there may be court rulings that were made by judges who view the Constitution as a living document that require that through reading into the Constitution things that aren't there. But the Constitution does not. And the title of this thread says that SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of it.
    Last edited by Invisible Man; 02-25-2021 at 10:44 AM.

  17. #15
    Another point that hasn't been brought up here (understandably, since it's not what the OP is directly about), is what should happen *if* the search performed was improper.

    The status quo is that the evidence obtained that way would not be admissible in court, via the exclusionary rule.

    This exclusionary rule is another innovative reading into the Constitution of something that isn't there by judges who view it as a living document.

    But the exclusionary rule is now so ingrained in our legal system that I highly doubt that SCOTUS would even question its applicability even if they do rule that the search in this case was unconstitutional.

    Evidence for actual crimes (i.e. the kind of crimes that have victims and violate natural law and not just statutes made up by politicians) should always be usable in prosecuting the guilty party, no matter how the evidence was found. But if it was found in some unjust way, then the police officer, or whoever performed the unjust acts that resulted in finding that evidence, should be help accountable for the crimes they committed in finding that evidence as a matter that's kept separate from the prosecution of the criminal the evidence implicates.

    I bring this up because I think it gets down to an approach to the Constitution that underlies my other comments about this case.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    A person is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

    So is it proper for law enforcement to search the home of an innocent person, without a warrant?
    +rep.


    Although in today's world your innocence is being questioned.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Imagine this, cop pulls you over and can obtain an temporary warrant under suspicion through a web app.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Are you intentionally being obtuse?? Or does this just come naturally??
    Yes, and no.

    Yes, he's being intentionally obtuse, in order to throw up clouds of FUD.

    Naturally, no, it's a great deal of work to appear sincere while being InSiNcEre.

    The talking head pundit class, especially those that are part of the Conservative Inc® wing, get paid extremely well to do that year after year after year, causing doubt, uncertainty and frigid apathy in the face of blatant tyranny.
    Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings. - Heinrich Heine 1823

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I disagree. It's to decide if it's reasonable, at least if done within the framework of the Constitution taken literally. Otherwise, warrants would always be required, not just for misdemeanors, but also for felonies.

    Just as with deciding reasonableness before the fact, so also after the fact, the judges, in this case the Supreme Court, may decide if this particular search was reasonable or unreasonable. And that can and should be decided without regard for whether or not the officer had a warrant.

    In the case at hand, the argument against requiring a warrant would be that by the time he got a warrant, the blood alcohol level that he would be able to test the suspect for would no longer be indicative of what it was when the suspect was driving on public roads, and thus if the search was reasonable at all then it would need to be performed without waiting for a warrant. But that is what the question really should boil down to for SCOTUS--whether or not it was reasonable at all.

    If a search is reasonable, then neither the 4th Amendment nor anything else in the Constitution requires that a warrant be gotten prior to performing it. There may be statutes that require that. And there may be court rulings that were made by judges who view the Constitution as a living document that require that through reading into the Constitution things that aren't there. But the Constitution does not. And the title of this thread says that SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of it.
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    seems to me that the use of a comma after violated and the subsequent clarification of necessary conditions for the issuance of a warrant indicates, rather, that this is intended to protect the right of the people to be secure in the persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures. Ergo, until a warrant is issued no searches should occur. As a matter of law. As a matter of sophistry I think you're on to something.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    Another point that hasn't been brought up here (understandably, since it's not what the OP is directly about), is what should happen *if* the search performed was improper.

    The status quo is that the evidence obtained that way would not be admissible in court, via the exclusionary rule.

    This exclusionary rule is another innovative reading into the Constitution of something that isn't there by judges who view it as a living document.

    But the exclusionary rule is now so ingrained in our legal system that I highly doubt that SCOTUS would even question its applicability even if they do rule that the search in this case was unconstitutional.

    Evidence for actual crimes (i.e. the kind of crimes that have victims and violate natural law and not just statutes made up by politicians) should always be usable in prosecuting the guilty party, no matter how the evidence was found. But if it was found in some unjust way, then the police officer, or whoever performed the unjust acts that resulted in finding that evidence, should be help accountable for the crimes they committed in finding that evidence as a matter that's kept separate from the prosecution of the criminal the evidence implicates.

    I bring this up because I think it gets down to an approach to the Constitution that underlies my other comments about this case.
    Yeah, yet attribution isn't so ingrained. Its almost like there is a variable of expedience in what is allowed to become, "ingrained."

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by bv3 View Post
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    seems to me that the use of a comma after violated and the subsequent clarification of necessary conditions for the issuance of a warrant indicates, rather, that this is intended to protect the right of the people to be secure in the persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures. Ergo, until a warrant is issued no searches should occur. As a matter of law. As a matter of sophistry I think you're on to something.
    Sophistry or not, it has never been the case in this nation's history that the government has ever held that the 4th Amendment absolutely prohibited searches without warrants.

    I agree with you that the clause in question is intended to protect the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. But the conclusion you try to draw from that doesn't follow logically from it, and is neither what the text actually says, nor what it was originally intended to say.
    Last edited by Invisible Man; 02-28-2021 at 03:39 PM.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Yes, and no.

    Yes, he's being intentionally obtuse, in order to throw up clouds of FUD.

    Naturally, no, it's a great deal of work to appear sincere while being InSiNcEre.
    Another possibility that you guys should consider is that somebody actually can consider the issue and sincerely reach a different conclusion than you do.

  26. #23
    Of course bothering me in any way is unreasonable and there would never be any probable cause so there could never be a warrant . Which is the case with most warrants issued . There is no probable cause and your judges need removed .
    Do something Danke

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    Another possibility that you guys should consider is that somebody actually can consider the issue and sincerely reach a different conclusion than you do.
    Very possible, and I'm always willing to give the benefit of doubt, I've vacillated and changed my mind on a number of issues over the years.

    But your worldview, correct me if I'm wrong, is that of a Christian One Worlder, you maintain that Christ will soon re-appear, set us all right, sort it all out, and there will be no king but Christ, throughout the world, glory hallelujah, for the next thousand years.

    Therefore it makes no sense to get overly worked up, to get heated and agitated, and certainly would not do to get people wound up to the point of fighting or worse yet, you having to take life, personally, and possibly have quite a bit of 'splainin' to do at the judgement that is soon coming.

    So, from that standpoint, it makes perfect sense to consistently take the position: "Well, it's not that bad" and "You're reading it all wrong" and "It's more nuanced than that".

    And so on in that vein, planting the seeds of FUD.

    FUD equals inaction.

    Which is what a Christian One Worlder wants, at least from the unsaved.

    And that outlook drives hotheads like me into fits of boiling rage.
    Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings. - Heinrich Heine 1823



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Very possible, and I'm always willing to give the benefit of doubt, I've vacillated and changed my mind on a number of issues over the years.

    But your worldview, correct me if I'm wrong, is that of a Christian One Worlder, you maintain that Christ will soon re-appear, set us all right, sort it all out, and there will be no king but Christ, throughout the world, glory hallelujah, for the next thousand years.

    Therefore it makes no sense to get overly worked up, to get heated and agitated, and certainly would not do to get people wound up to the point of fighting or worse yet, you having to take life, personally, and possibly have quite a bit of 'splainin' to do at the judgement that is soon coming.
    I don't accept the "one worlder" label. And I make no claims about how soon Christ will return. But the rest of what you said is a pretty good summary of my worldview. And I would add that it is also a pretty good summary of the worldview of the New Testament.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    So, from that standpoint, it makes perfect sense to consistently take the position: "Well, it's not that bad" and "You're reading it all wrong" and "It's more nuanced than that".
    Now on this part, you have it backwards. I am the one in this thread who is pointing out just how bad the DC regime is in its very essence, to the point that the US Constitution itself enables that regime's tyranny by design.

    It's the rest of you who I think have the overly rosy view of the Constitution that it's a more libertarian document than it really is.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I don't accept the "one worlder" label.
    That's strange, will not every nation bow, and will not Christ have control of all of them?

    Sounds like "one world government" to me.

    And I make no claims about how soon Christ will return
    A wise move.

    What's not so wise is basing a life or death response to tyranny based on the idea that maybe you don't know how soon, exactly, but you're thinking it's right around the corner.

    But the rest of what you said is a pretty good summary of my worldview.
    Appreciate the honesty.

    And I would add that it is also a pretty good summary of the worldview of the New Testament.
    And to that I say, thank Christ I'm not a Christian, or at least not a Dispensationalist.

    Now on this part, you have it backwards. I am the one in this thread who is pointing out just how bad the DC regime is in its very essence, to the point that the US Constitution itself enables that regime's tyranny by design.

    It's the rest of you who I think have the overly rosy view of the Constitution that it's a more libertarian document than it really is.
    But yet you use the language of the regime top make that point, which comes off as a defense and also confusing, thus the accusation of FUD slinging.
    Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings. - Heinrich Heine 1823

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    That's strange, will not every nation bow, and will not Christ have control of all of them?
    Yes. In that sense, Jesus is the king of all creation. All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to him. And one day every knew will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord.

    But his kingdom is not of this world. This is not something he will bring about by way of the kinds of governments that now exist on this earth. The term "one worlder" has connotations of support for global government initiatives that are rooted in the kinds of human governments that now rule us. My view is a repudiation of those. Nor do I support any kind of attempt to take over the world in the name of Jesus to rule it by the sword, just shifting control from the existing regimes to new "Christian" ones.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    What's not so wise is basing a life or death response to tyranny based on the idea that maybe you don't know how soon, exactly, but you're thinking it's right around the corner.
    I'm not sure where you get this "right around the corner" line. I just said that I make no claims about how soon Christ will return.

    My role in this world is the same as what the role of followers of Jesus in the generation of the apostles was. The fact that Christ's return was at that time at least 2,000 years off into the future (though they didn't know that) didn't make it unwise for them when they took up their crosses and followed him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    And to that I say, thank Christ I'm not a Christian, or at least not a Dispensationalist.
    Forget dispensationalism. Is there any kind of Christianity out there that doesn't hold that Jesus Christ has rightful authority over the whole world? Is there any kind of Christianity out there that doesn't hold that he will one day, in one way or another, actualize that and bring justice to the whole world? If these things make one a one-worlder, then I don't see how anyone can be any kind of Christian and not be guilty of that. But this kind of one worlder is not what that label usually indicates.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    But yet you use the language of the regime top make that point, which comes off as a defense and also confusing, thus the accusation of FUD slinging.
    I had to look up FUD. "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt." I honestly don't see how that relates to anything I said.

    But if you read my actual words, and take me literally. I think you can see that I was not defending the regime or the Constitution in any of these posts.



Similar Threads

  1. Bloomberg Wants A Gun Ban For Alcohol-Related Misdemeanors
    By Origanalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-19-2019, 07:41 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-22-2013, 06:00 PM
  3. Barack Obama Will A Sitting President Finally Be Held Accountable For High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
    By John F Kennedy III in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-13-2012, 02:57 AM
  4. Obama's Job Offers: Misdemeanors—or Crimes? by Pat Buchanan
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2010, 04:54 AM
  5. Maryland Bill Would Ban SWAT Teams for Misdemeanors
    By disorderlyvision in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 01:59 PM

Posting Permissions

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