Supreme Court Backs Police in Emergencies !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BillyC]

  Good lord
Why do we even have doors.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060522/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_search_1

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court reaffirmed Monday that police can enter homes in emergencies without knocking or announcing their presence.
Justices said four Brigham City, Utah, police officers were justified in entering a home after peeking through a window and seeing a fight between a teenager and adults.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the unanimous court, said that officers had a reasonable basis for going inside to stop violence.

The decision overturned a ruling by Utah's Supreme Court that said a trial judge was correct to throw out charges stemming from the police search. The trial judge had ruled that police had violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches by failing to knock before entering the house.

[fourthgeek]

Aye. It's been determined that if a policeman "hears a scream" he has the authority to go anywhere the scream might have come from.

[Pat McCotter]

Home Invasion -- Supreme Court opens a door for police

May 24,2006
The Monitor View

It is said that hard cases make bad law, and that seems to be the case with Brigham City v. Stuart, in which a 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court made it a little easier for police officers to enter a home without a warrant or without knocking and announcing themselves.

In July 2000, police in Brigham City, Utah, responded to a call about a loud party, arriving at about 3 a.m. They heard shouting and looked in the back yard, where they saw two juveniles drinking beer. They peered through a screen door and windows and saw four adults restraining a juvenile, who still managed to punch one of them. At that point they rushed in.

The police arrested four people and charged them with offenses such as disorderly conduct, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and intoxication. They didn?t go to the aid of the person who had been slugged. As attorney Michael Studebaker, who handled the case at the appellate level, explained, the defendants sought to have the evidence suppressed because the police entry was illegal under the Fourth Amendment, which forbids search and seizure without a warrant.

The trial court, Utah appellate courts and the Utah Supreme Court all agreed and ruled the police action was not justified, even though these courts also noted there were certain circumstances under which the police would have been justified in entering without a warrant and without knocking ? to render emergency aid, hot pursuit or other exigencies where ?a reasonable person would believe that the entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons.? They didn?t think the standard had been met in this case.

The state of Utah appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was unanimous in reversing the lower courts.

In a concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court?s opinion was simply ?restating well-settled rules of federal law.? Michael Studebaker said that ?if it were really all that settled they wouldn?t have taken the case.? He believes the ruling expands police power to enter homes without warrants.

Chief Justice John Roberts quoted a previous decision to the effect that an entry by police is ?reasonable? under the Fourth Amendment ?as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify (the) action.? But in a case like this, where reasonable people can disagree and where different courts have disagreed, calling one point of view ?objective? doesn?t make it so. The court took a subjective opinion and redefined it as objective.

This decision expands police power to enter homes without a warrant. That is unfortunate. The realm in which people can expect government to leave them alone keeps shrinking. More than ever, it doesn?t seem to include private homes.

[aries]

Okay but prepare to be shot.

Cory Maye is still on death row for this..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

[KBCraig]

It's really not an expansion of police powers. Police have always had the power to act on crime they see. If you're breaking the law, don't do it in plain sight (unless it's civil disobedience), and don't attract the negative attention of the neighbors so that they call the police.

There exists what is called the "sidewalk rule". If someone can see you while they're standing on the sidewalk, then you have no expectation of privacy in what you're doing. Draw your blinds! However, they cannot use a ladder, mirror or telescopic lens to gain an advantage beyond ordinary view; if such is required, you do have an expectation of privacy.

Kevin

[ravelkinbow]

The world just keeps getting more frightenning.

[aries]

It's really not an expansion of police powers. Police have always had the power to act on crime they see. If you're breaking the law, don't do it in plain sight (unless it's civil disobedience), and don't attract the negative attention of the neighbors so that they call the police.

There exists what is called the "sidewalk rule". If someone can see you while they're standing on the sidewalk, then you have no expectation of privacy in what you're doing. Draw your blinds! However, they cannot use a ladder, mirror or telescopic lens to gain an advantage beyond ordinary view; if such is required, you do have an expectation of privacy.

Kevin

Perhaps the police will start using heat sensing goggles to check inside the houses in the neighborhood for lawbreaking.

[ravelkinbow]

We could make it easier for them and just put RFID chips into all our firearms and such..hey how about my kitchen knives too.

[aries]

We could make it easier for them and just put RFID chips into all our firearms and such..hey how about my kitchen knives too.

Everything of value you own! Then they could tax it just a little every time you used it, too.

I have a feeling that they will start demanding human implants of microchips within my lifetime. Maybe when I'm old. I also have a feeling that I will either have to seriously lower my quality of life to avoid that, or die resisting it.

[ravelkinbow]

We could make it easier for them and just put RFID chips into all our firearms and such..hey how about my kitchen knives too.

Everything of value you own! Then they could tax it just a little every time you used it, too.

I have a feeling that they will start demanding human implants of microchips within my lifetime. Maybe when I'm old. I also have a feeling that I will either have to seriously lower my quality of life to avoid that, or die resisting it.

You're not alone in feeling that way, many of us do.