|
|
5th Circuit Ruling On Searches
|
|
T O P I C
|
Discussion Started: 03-29-2004, 12:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Do you agree with the 5th Circuit ruling that police officers who think they're in danger should be allowed to briefly search homes or businesses without a warrant?
|
|
View Messages: [newest first] | [oldest first]
|
1latham
|
11-08-2004, 10:20 PM
|
|
|
Anyone know where I can get help when crooked officials violate the rights of citizens.... ?
for the record ? I'm not a felon. Never been accused or arrested for drugs of any kind. I have been forced to move because of illegal searches when I wasn't home but I left because I was told if they come back months later and they find something in the house that I didn't know about that I could be put away for life.
They probably broke in to plant something.
I've been stopped over 10 times for driving without a seatbelt. The only driving without a seatbelt ticket was the one I recieved while getting out of my car in my own driveway with groceries in my hands as I was getting out.
I've been held for over 45 minutes while the officer wait for the warrant to be issued on traffic tickets I was fighting.
I've been detained in jail for not showing up for a court case that has been thrown out 3 times.
Anyone out there to help this desperate citizen who is constantly being harrassed and treatened by crooked officials ?
Only @ 1Latham.com BABY ! ! ! !
|
|
amanuse
|
05-14-2004, 1:57 PM
|
|
|
Folks, if we allow this ruling to stand, then America is already a Police State. It's getting awfully close to the time where we need to stand up peacefully as a body to stop this tyranny. If that burden rests on us, so be it, but we cannot allow the world's Last Best Hope, as Thomas Jefferson said, to become its largest disappointment and problem. If we are really going to win this war against terrorists, then we need to protect our freedoms more than anything else. Our freedoms, our way of life, this is what the terrorists seek to destroy. Let us not make them the winners by defeating ourselves. Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." James Madison said, "If tyranny or oppression ever come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." Let's not let our forefathers warnings go without notice. Please, stand up down there in New Orleans. I'm doing my best up here in Boston. Please keep it peaceful folks, we can't do this with violence and we certainly wouldn't want our cause to be classified as terrorism. Remember, we're fighting the terrorists who want to kill us and the tyrants who want to control us. The best way to do that is by using our inalienable rights, to organize peacefully and address the government for grievances. Let's get the ball rolling people, and let less important partisan issues rest for now so we can get our country back. Peace be with you.
Andrew J. Manuse Reporter Boston Herald
|
|
1iv3_1337
|
04-27-2004, 1:22 PM
|
|
|
How can we sit around and watch our rights crumble beneath our feet. The System has desensitized the population, and now theyu are testing us to see how bad it really is. If we allow this to happen, it will only increase in severity.
*.Jonathan
|
|
nancyregan
|
04-05-2004, 1:15 PM
|
|
|
dear max, the laws are up to interpertation... doing wrong is up to interpertation...cooperating with the police is up to interpertation....i am not hoarding a crack pipe in my house, i have never murdered anybody. i am hoarding information, i have spoke my opinion....and the police don't work for you and me. they work for the powers that be.
and the guy who says i won't be prosectued for thought crimes. i don't think it's such a far strech to connect this ruling to authority figures seizing books and computer files, calling me a threat to the state, locking me up, and forgetting about me. if you call that paranoia, oh well. it is my reality. i've been here, i've been arrested for SPEAKING...i've had a false police report and trumped up charges just to scare me.... just to make me paranoid enough to keep my mouth shut.
smashing division since 1995
|
|
NOgator
|
04-02-2004, 9:25 PM
|
|
|
I believe the officers acted improperly during their initial entry into Gould's home. Granted, an occupant of Gould's home gave the officers verbal permission to "take a look" based on the officers' request. However, the officers did not explicity request from the occupant to "search" any part of the home, which is what they did by looking in the bedroom closet. If the officers truly "feared for their safety" (remember, they were aware of the "alleged threats" prior to arriving at Gould's home which was their motivation for going there in the first place) they should have planned to obtain a search warrant before arriving at the home, or request the occupant who answered the door to sign a "waiver of search warrant" to enable the officers the flexibility to conduct a "search", brief or otherwise, to protect their safety. Instead, the officers obtained a signed "waiver of search warrant" (from Gould himself) as an after thought. It seems they realized their initial peek in the closet was improper and so to justify their improper behavior, they stood behind an excuse that they "feared for their safety". If they already had Mr. Gould in custody, why did they need a "waiver of search warrant" to go back and look in the same closet, which they already looked in? Doesn't that seem strange to anyone? It seems to be contradictory behavior for a law enforcement officer to shun the very laws they are required to enforce, including those of illegal search and seizure. It seems that incidents of this kind reinforce the public's mistrust of law enforcement. I truly believe the officers involved in this case could have acted differently prior to and during their visit to Mr. Gould's home. It seems there's a real bias of the courts to give law enforcement officers flexibility they don't deserve. There are proven laws and procedures already in place to enable law enforcement to effectively do it's job. In Mr. Gould's case, I think the officers failed to properly plan their visit to Mr. Gould's home. I hope there is a way the 5th Circuit's ruling can be overturned. By the way, I wonder if there was any credibility or merit to the accuser's allegations?
|
|
countryboy39
|
04-01-2004, 11:48 PM
|
|
|
D'Tripper .... Yes in this case the original judge (circuit court) was right and thru out the 3 rifles that were found in an illegal search. But then the full federal court (5th circuit) later are the ones that overturned the ruling and said the warrantless search was ok. Now they don't need "reasonable suspicion" to do a search. And no I don't intend on leaving the country, I've been here 54 yrs. What I will do is vote the ones out that are ruining our country and turning it into a police state.
|
|
nobara
|
03-31-2004, 10:55 PM
|
|
|
Well 1st, as everyone has said, the ruling is unconstitutional. 2nd, most ppl have nothing to hide, it?s just the fact that in this post 9/11 time ppl are more paranoid. Especially since crooked cops DO exist. Not every cop is a good police officer even though most protect us. What is to stop a crooked cop with a grudge against someone for whatever reason to search their property and plant something? It does happen, even though many deny it. People want safety, but also privacy, that?s all there is to it.
|
|
D'Tripper
|
03-31-2004, 5:34 PM
|
|
|
You people are paranoid. The courts did not ignore,throw out or change the constitution or any of the amendments. The police did not go into the residence illegally,they had permission. They did not bust into the mans bedroom,they merely looked into the room through the open door and when they observed a known convicted violent criminal who had made threats to go on a killing spree which included killing cops was no longer in the room they performed a brief protectice sweep to ensure their safety. After they found the man they asked if they could search his room and he gave them permission. Nothing illegal was done by the police. People are so quick to blame police when crimes are committed or when crimes aren't solved fast enough. Excuse the pun but if we handcuff the police and the courts how can we honestly expect them to do their jobs? Some of you people need to learn what the word "unreasonable" means. For those comparing this ruling to the Nazi's and to those saying we are losing our freedoms get a grip on reality. The fact is people have taken their freedoms for granted for to long and for some reason think they can do whatever they please whenever they please. And of course if you don't like how things are being done or how this country is being run then leave.
|
|
MsMarty
|
03-31-2004, 3:01 PM
|
|
|
I definitely do NOT agree! We are getting closer by the day to living in a police state...
Freedom for All! MsMarty
|
|
bobo78
|
03-31-2004, 6:59 AM
|
|
|
If you value your material comfort and security above freedom,eventually you will lose your freedom,and then your comfort and security. FIGHT THE GLOBAL TYRRANY
|
|
Top
News