Justices to Say When Police Can Enter Private Home

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to try to define, more precisely than in the past, the emergencies that can justify a warrantless police entry into a private home.

The case is an appeal filed by the State of Utah from a Utah Supreme Court decision early last year that four Brigham City police officers violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure by entering a home to break up a fight.

The police, who went to the home in response to a neighbor's complaint about a loud party, did not have a warrant and did not announce their presence before walking through an open back door. They arrested three occupants for disorderly conduct, intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor by allowing a teenager to drink.

The Utah trial court, appeals court and Supreme Court all ruled that the evidence of alcohol consumption could not be introduced at trial because of the illegal police entry.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/politicsspecial1/07scotus.html?ex=1294290000&en=8825b04c5bd8bf94&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Great. The answer will probably be: When the homeowner's party affiliation is Democratic.

[HuffleClaw]

1. eep

with this court? the court that routinely sides with any authority? they'll be having the gestapo marching through people's door because they heard a dog bark. this cannot bode well.

[Hotler]

2. Sad, sad, sad, eom.

[Turbineguy]

3. I'll mention this to my wife.

No more homemade donuts.

[salin]

4. and they will find that, by searching the IRS databases.

[ixion]

5. what justifies warrantless entry? NOTHING

in my opinion. :grr:

[Robb]

6. Well

There was a case here only last Friday, where a neighbor called 911 because she hadn't heard from the woman next door, and she didn't answer her doorbell, and she knew she had a medical condition. Ambulance was dispatched out, cops were first on scene and kicked the door open. Marshal was an EMT-B and started medical care until the paramedic arrived and took over.

Woman gets transported to the hospital, undoubtedly her life was saved ... meanwhile Marshal finds a bunch of pot and a stolen prescription book on the coffee table, as well as a handgun that comes back stolen.

What's a cop to do? :shrug:

[ixion]

9. and somehow they expect to be thanked for 'saving' her life

although that's arguably a fate worse than death, because her life was saved only so she could spend it in a box.

Gee, what a great society we have. I'm not making excuses for her, mind you, but I can't help but see hypocrisy in that.

[baby_mouse]

10. mf

I guess there are two positions

1. Cop books sick perp

2. Cop says to perp: "Look, you aren't causing trouble for me, but you got THIS close. Ditch this stolen crap. Get off the dizzy smoke."

Neither are ideal...

[Boomer]

7. That was the excuse used in Katrina rescue

Without a warrant, there was no legal way to enter homes and search for dead bodies (and unconscious survivors who could not respond to a knock).

So you're saying you agree with the decision to keep rescue workers out of the homes of hurricane victims, even at the cost of lives?

[ixion]

11. well, gee, you'd think in that case someone

would have granted a warrant, rather than let those people die.

That's why it's called 'checks and balances'. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to enter. I'm saying there should be checks and balances to the power of authority to enter private property.

[Boomer]

13. Completely unfeasible in a disaster area

Warrants require paperwork, and they need to go before a judge. Rescuers would not know which homes required a warrant until they arrived on the premises of a particular house, and that's assuming they could even determine the address of the house when it was destroyed or still half under water, much less the owner of the property.

When all personnel are working until exhaustion just to check wreckage for bodies or survivors, who has time to fill out paperwork? How are they supposed to access records in city without electricity? And what are they going to do with the paperwork once it's filled out? There was no operating judicial system in NOLA since the city had been evacuated.

So your contention that there is NO circumstance in which a home should be entered without a warrant bars rescue workers in disaster zone where warrants and simply not feasible to process.

[ixion]

15. the problem is that it's always a slippery slope

you start with one instance, and in a decade you've got a dozen.

Nope, you're not going to convince me that it's a good idea. However, I could see creating something like a blanket warrent that included a reigon or township under extreme duress. I mean, there's paperwork to call in the National Guard, no? Wasn't that a point of contention during Katrina?

I'm saying there is NO circumstance where a warrantless entry is justified, but I could see the creation of some process to handle the situation you mention above. :hi:

[Boomer]

19. Got it !

>> I'm saying there is NO circumstance where a warrantless entry is justified, but I could see the creation of some process to handle the situation you mention above. <<

Yup, that makes sense. If climate-related disasters continue to escalate (which I think they will), this may well be the only solution to the delicate balancing of civil liberties vs. emergency response. :toast:

[AngryAmish]

21. Cop walks past house

Looks in window and sees woman being raped.

He cannot enter the house?

[High Plains]

24. If he sees that, he has probable cause to believe a crime is

being committed and no longer needs a warrant.

[AngryAmish]

27. Nope

The term is exigent circumstances. If cop A sees rapist B who immediately runs into homeowner C's house, cop A can run into house C under exigent circumstance rule. Anything else is madness.

[depakid]

30. Key word= EXCUSE

I seriously doubt it had any reasonable basis in law under those circumstances... although evidence of criminal activity might have to be suppressed if they tried to charge the homeowner.

Big fucking deal.

[AngryAmish]

17. exigent circumstances

[AX10]

8. There is no case in which law enforcement should be allowed...

into private homes on their own accord. Either the owner must volunteer entry or a court ordered warrant must be obtained in order to enter.

[Wise Doubter]

12. I better tell the wife....

to keep it down tonight. (nudge,nudge - wink,wink):spank:

[pfitz59]

14. "Help, its the police!"

Line from an old Firesign Theater skit! It will come to this. The police are not your friends when they act as oppressors.

[Charlie Brown]

16. No good will come of this ruling

The five fascists (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Kennedy) will side w/law enforcement, thus paving the way for prosecutions on GLBTs and other ostracized individuals for "sex solicitation" and other made up charges.

It was wrong for the cops to barge into the home w/o evidence of wrongdoing and without announcing their presence.

"Disorderly conduct?" In someone's own home? Pleeeeease. Decency laws do not apply in private residences.

[1620rock]

18. Betcha Ass the police are not your friends...

...From the Feds (that's me) to the local rural cop they have quotas to fill, career ladders to climb, and stats to generate. Their business is to snoop, hassle, fine, and just generally erode your freedoms and privacy. Thank God that I will retire soon from this nightmare. :grr:

[William Bloode]

20. So sad...

I hope for the best from this ruling, and i wait on baited breath.

All i can say is if a law enforcement officers tries to enter my home without a warrant i will have to remove him the hard way.

[High Plains]

25. And then his buddies will shoot you dead

and a whole bunch of people on DU will line up to tell us they were right to do so.

[William Bloode]

26. Thats alright.

Because i'm gonna take one of them with me. I ain't afraid to die, so they can bring it on. :thumbsup:

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

22. It will be simple enough:

"Any time they bloody well want to."

[WinkyDink]

23. RESCUE isn't the same as ARREST!!

Rape, assault, flooding, fire, whatever: If a policeman sees through a window a HUMAN BEING IN PERIL, that policeman ought to be allowed, warrant or no, immediately to enter the premises and RESCUE the victim!

Do firemen have to have a WARRANT to enter a burning building? NO. And if they happen upon an arsonist therein, they can summon a cop!

[depakid]

28. On those facts

expect an anti-4th Amendment decision.

[zann725]

29. After-the-fact.. In the future, in different district, home? What then?

Too many loop-holes. To little 'good ol' democracy.

[michiganbuckeye1970]

31. 4th being whittled down to nothing

The 4th Amnd. has been practically rendered, a process started by Reagan and his start of the war on drugs. Due to the pressure to be tough on crime, no Dem has taken the position that protection for the 4th needed to be increased. The problem is that members of law enforcement have been held in such high esteem that the average white american is willing to defer these matters to the judgement of law enforcement. "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to protect," they would say.

The shrill screamers at the NRA would never allow the 2nd amendment to be so systematically chipped away.

I'm sure this case will be overturned by the SC. They will say that the fight inside the house created an exigent circumstance that out-weighed any 4th amendment protection. Why else would they take a case where in all of the previous courts, the 4th amend right was upheld. This is just another opportunity to knock it down another notch.

And so it goes.

[madmark]

32. The SC has been neutering the 4th amendment for the past 20 yrs or more