From the Washington Post: The Supreme Court decided today to permit the police to keep a suspect out of his house while law enforcement is waiting for a warrant to search the premises. In the search case, Illinois v. McArthur, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for an eight-member majority that the police acted reasonably when they prevented a man they believed had mar1juana inside his house from going back inside while they waited for a search warrant. The police, Breyer wrote, "imposed a restraint that was both limited and tailored reasonably to secure law enforcement needs while protecting privacy interests." The court ruled that the brief seizure of the premises was permissible under the Constitution, given the nature of the intrusion and the law enforcement interests at stake. The ruling was a victory for Illinois prosecutors, who argued that the police needed to keep a drug suspect from destroying mar1juana inside his trailer home. The case began April 2, 1997, when Tera McArthur asked two police officers in Sullivan, Illinois, to accompany her to the trailer where she lived with her husband, Charles McArthur, so they could keep the peace while she removed her belongings. When she came outside after getting her possessions, she told one officer her husband had mar1juana under the couch. An officer knocked on the door, and McArthur came outside. The officer asked permission to search the trailer, but McArthur refused. The other officer went to get a search warrant. The remaining officer told McArthur he could not reenter the trailer unless he accompanied him. McArthur went inside several times to get cigarettes and to make telephone calls, and the officer stood just inside the door to observe what he did. It took about two hours to get a warrant. The officers then conducted a search and found mar1juana and drug paraphernalia. McArthur was charged with possessing less than 2.5 grams of mar1juana and possessing drug paraphernalia, both misdemeanors. Writing for the court majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the police had probable cause to believe that McArthur's home contained evidence of a crime and unlawful drugs. Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He said the case involved a balancing of privacy interests against law enforcement concerns. I'm not a fan of this decision. It's not that I have anything to hide, but I just see the potential for abuse. The decision talked about how the police could "briefly" keep a suspect out of his premisis while they wait for a warrant, but this warrant took two hours. At what point does waiting for a warrant to arrive stop being "brief"? I could easily see officers taking a suspect from his home and while one takes his time going to try to get a warrant, the other officer gives one of those "We'd be out of here in a few minutes if you'd just give us consent. Who knows how long the other officer will take getting the warrant." Or the police could simply use this decision to harrass someone. They could keep someone outside for hours under the guise that they were going to get a warrant only to never get said warrant (and they could even claim good faith if someone goes to a judge and asks even if they know they have no basis for a warrant). We do live in a society that sometimes arrests (and convicts) people of things that are specifically not against the law (things like Failure to ID. The DPD brags that they have a high conviction rate for Failure to ID, despite the fact that it is not against the law. How they could convict thousands of people for something that isn't even against the law is beyond me). Opening up a new avenue that allows police to potentially abuse their power is a bad thing, in my opinion. Yes, not allowing the poice to keep a suspect out of his home while they get a warrant may mean that some people with mar1juana might go free, but I'd rather the law come down on the side of freedom and see a few criminals get away with some things than to see the law fall on the side of narrowing the civil rights of its citizens. But maybe that's just me. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
I guess I'm missing something. How in the world is this constitutional? Isn't this one of the reasons the United States was founded? No illegal search or seizure, right? Un-freaking-believable. -Turbo [This message has been edited by Turbo (edited February 20, 2001).]
This is not illegal search or seizure. All they are doing is preventing the guy from going into his own house to destroy the evidence. If you have nothing to hide, then you should not be worried about being locked out of your house. If they really wanted to, they could arrest the guy till the got the search warrent. Which would you prefer? ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
If you think I have done something illegal, arrest me. If you have to search me, arrest me. But don't take hours out of my free time to go and get a search warrant. Which brings up another point, the police can detain you for a certain length of time, without formally arresting you - but how long should they be able to detain you? Two hours seems a bit long. -Turbo
On what grounds? Until they find something, they have no basis on which to arrest him. ------------------
I HATE this. I can't count the number of times I was stopped late at night on my way home from gigs only to have some idiot cop search my truck for something that wasn't there. One guy actually attempted to pull my seats out, pulled all of my guitars out and dropped them on the ground to search the cases, took all of my speakers out of the back of my truck and pulled everything out of my glove compartment and left it lying on the floor of my passenger side. I could've b****ed but I learned long ago never to **** with a copy at 3am after a long gig when you have long hair. You end up UNDER the jail. After I was done being search and they, of course, found NADA, I was left there to pick everything up on my own on the side of the road as they sped away. ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! The worst part was that I was TOTALLY nice to both cops who stopped me. Ugh! Anyway, I hate stuff like this. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards
2 hours for a warrant that produced 2.5 grams of mar1juana...... **** the police!! Man, this **** is getting out of hand!! There is no way that what those cops did was consititutional. They basically seized the mans house for 2 friggin hours before they had the LEGAL right to enter the damn place! Sorry ya'll, but the police commited an illegal act in this case. Now before anyone tried to come back, unless you've actually been harrassed by a cop, you should just shut your trap. I remember once when I was about 17-18 and was going home to my parents house from a friends place at about 330-400 AM. I was pulled over by a Bellaire cop OUT OF HIS JURISDICTION because, and these were his words, because I was out driving late at night and there had been burglaries in the area in recent days. He couldn't confirm that I had fit any description, so all I could assume was that I was pulled over by this PIG because I was wearing a rag on my head. I them told him point blank, "Either look through my car quickly or let me go home". He proceeded to look through my car and my trunk where I had a hair dryer that was in there for only God knows how long. He even had the cojones to ask my why I had a hair dryer in there. Needless to say I gave him a stupid answer and said" I'm going home. If you're going to give me a ticket do it now and expect to hear from my laywer when you get home and you are ready to go to bed." Anyway, the fugger let me leave and that was that. Oh, this all reminds me, I saw a story in another newspaper about a law, passed or proposed I can't remember, that had to do with police no longer being allowed to search your car without probable cause. If someone could dig that up, I'd really appreciate it....SIRHANGOVER!! ------------------ "Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is." -- Barbara Bush
Police are never allowed to search your car without probable cause or permission from you. What constitutes probable cause has grown more broad over the years as the courts have expanded some police powers, but as long as I've been driving, the police haven't been able to just search your car because they feel like it. They must have probable cause or your permission. Not that some police officers care, and there have been ways around it. (For one thing, if an officer doesn't have probable cause to search a vehicle and no permission, he may decide to arrest the driver on some trumped up charge and impound the car. Once the car is impounded, the police are allowed to essentially search the vehicle. Courts have actually not looked on these types of searches as well as the police would often like. But they still go on.) When I was a teenager back in Amarillo, the police were a constant struggle. Not a Friday night went by that I didn't get pulled over. Not for speeding. Not for any license tag violation. It was always something along the lines of "We want to check your window tinting", or "We want to see if you're drinking", or "We want to check and see if you have eggs in your car or are up to no good". I was once pulled over for having dealer tags on my car. The officer even wrote me a ticket saying it was illegal for me to have dealer tags (even though my Dad has a dealer's license and the car was registered to him. If Car Dealers can't have dealer's plates, why do they have dealer's plates at all?) It was massively annoying to never be doing anything wrong but to still be pulled over and have to deal with the police. Once I got out of high school, it didn't happen as much, but even since then, I've had run-ins with the Amarillo police. Pulled over because I left a bar parking lot (I hadn't been drinking, but I was targeted all the same. The officer even started to write me a ticket for speeding, even though he pulled me over less than 100 feet from the parking lot. I couldn't possibly have gotten the car up to a speed faster than the speed limit in that amount of time. I asked to see the radar, and then he changed his tune.) Pulled over because I drove through a neighborhood at night (When I get bored and ca't sleep, I sometimes go driving around). The officer asked what I was doing out at night. My reaction was that I didn't realize that being out at night was against the law (there was a teen curfew at the time. Speaking of the teen curfew law expired, but the police still issue tickets for violations and the city still collects fines, even though there is no curfew anymore. Why do the police have such an obsession with enforcing laws that don't exist?) and that I didn't have to account for where I was going regardless of what time it was. He wanted to know what was in the bag on the floorboard (while I was out, I went to Wal-Mart and bought some sodas and some light bulbs) and kept me sitting in the parking lot for about a half-hour even though he didn't even have any reason at all to stop me in the first place. Since I moved to the D/FW area, I have only been pulled over once - for a field sobriety test (again, I hadn't been drinking.) I easily passed and I was let on my way. In three years, that's the only incident I've had in the Big City. Maybe I've just been lucky so far (Personally, I figure the DPD is too busy finding non-motorists to arrest for Failure to ID, going to comic book stores to find dirty comics, going to Swingers' clubs to arrest dirty dancers and taking bribes from strip club owners to pay any attention to the drivers, but I'm just guessing on that). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Good Morning Rocket Fans!!! This kind of stuff has been going on for years! Not to say that its right or anything. But the case I'm really following is the one that's before the Supreme Court right now that involves that guy in Oregon and the cops using a heat sensing device to detect heat coming from his house. Without a warrent, cops trained this device on his house and busted him for growing pot. Who's to say the guy just likes to be really warm? Now that is scary! It will be a sad day in America if the SC sides with law enforcement. Can you say goodbye to any kind of right to privacy? I bet you can! ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is. [This message has been edited by mc mark (edited February 21, 2001).]
Here's the CNN link if anyone is interested. http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/20/scotus.heatdetector.01.ap/index.html ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
I'll never forget being on Veteran's Memorial Drive in Houston on Christmas night about 11 or 12 years ago and this cop pulled up next to my friend and I at a traffic light. He looked into the car, saw the long hair and immediately backed up, got behind us and pulled us over. Ugh. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards
Correct me if im wrong, but don't the cops have up to 48 hours to charge you once you are arrested? Secondly, If you legal, what do you have to worry about? I much rather get haggled and searched each time i saw a cop than some murder get off because a piece of evidence was mishandle or in this case, he destroyed it before it could be confinscated. Ive had bad run in with cops and good ones. But I also realize with out them, the streets would be in anarchy. ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
"Those who would give up personal freedoms for a little security deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
Back in my long hair days while sitting in the airport to catch a plane, two undercover customs agents approached me. Asked where I was from, I snickered a bit and told them United States. Well, they weren't looking for an illegal alien, rather drugs of which I had none on me, I only fit the longhair stereotype. They asked ,"Would you mind coming downstairs with us to our office?" So I did. They made ME, take every article out of my luggage completely, asked me if I'd ever been to prison (NO!) etc... I almost missed my damn plane and was the last one on board. All the people already seated looking at me as if... Turns out if you are in an airport you don't have to go with anyone anywhere. If you indeed have nothing to hide, make them search you right there in the waiting area! Next time I will! ------------------ Whatever you want to do, you have to do something else first.
First of all, I don't see how either of the cases here helps catch murderers. Keeping a suspect from entering his home while a warrant is obtained isn't going to make any difference as to whether murderers are caught. And if the situation is that a murder or assault is taking place, the police don't have to have a warrant to enter. I appreciate the police, too. I'm glad they are there as long as they follow the rules. We have a Constitution that protects basic freedoms. I am not willing to give those freedoms up even if it makes the streets a little safer. I don't do things wrong. I've never been involved with drugs in any way. I never drink. I don't murder people. I don't tint my windows too dark. But instead of going out and actually catching criminals, the police sometimes see fit to harrass me. You point out that I shouldn't worry about the police illegally searching my car if I've got nothing to hide. But the better point should be, the police shouldn't have any reason to search my car because I've got nothing to hide. They should go out and actually catch criminals instead of bothering me. And, let's not forget that the DPD (and the APD) does make a concerted effort to arrest people for things that aren't even against the law. They do this to put people (minorities in nearly all the cases) who they feel have an attitude "in their place". Expanding police powers just gives the police more leeway to harrass people who really aren't doing anything wrong. In Dallas, if I am a minority, there's a good chance of being arrested and having to go to jail and later have to defend myself for something that is specifically not against the law. The police sometimes abuse their power. If we do away with the limits and protections that the Constitution provides us, we'll just see more police abuse of our Civil Rights. You may think you'd like to live in a police state, but you'd tire of it very quickly. If we're going to do away with our Consitutional protections, why not also take away our right to protest. Why not take away the right to bear arms (some would say doing so would make the streets a lot safer)? Why not take away our right to trial? It'd sure be easier for the police to lock criminals up if they didn't have to prove to 12 citizens that the person committed the crime. Why not take away the right to vote? It's obvious that many people don't know what the hell they're doing when they go vote. And the politicians are forced to spend all their time either lying ot us or trying to raise money. It would sure make the country run smoother if we ended elections. If you're willing to do away with one part of the Constitution, why not do away with all the protections of the Constitution? (And also, yes, a suspect does have to be arraigned within a certain time period after being arrested, but the arrest itself still needs to be legal. That's the theory, of course. In practice, the police can arrest you for whatever they want to, even if what they arrest you for isn't against the law.) ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
I'm the last guy to defend the police, and the first guy in favor of protecting the 4th amendment, but this still didn't make me too angry. The guy's wife told the police he had dope inside the house. If your wife is telling the police about illicit drugs in your house, you've probably got bigger problems than a 2.5g mar1juana bust. The guy was allowed to enter his house (accompanied by a cop) to get his telephone and cigarettes while they were waiting for a warrant. Sounds like the cops were being pretty nice to him. If the guy stays inside his house, instead of leaving it, the situation never arises. If the cops come to your house, crack the door open and ask them for a warrant, but don't step outside. If they don't have a warrant, close and lock the door, dispose of your illicit stuff, then you can get in your car and take off. At least now we know the rules. Not that I'd ever have anything illicit in my house, but now I know how to handle the situation. I'm a lot more upset about the case where they used infrared imaging to catch a guy growing mar1juana in his attic. That case is yet to be decided. [This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited February 21, 2001).]
Actually, the Court's decision says that the police can "seize" your house while waiting for a search warrant. That would mean that they could order you to leave the house and not let you re-enter for several hours while they awaited a search warrant. I'll admit that this particular instance is not all that upsetting. To me, it's more the fact that we're giving police yet another tool in which to potentially harrass citizens and erode our civil rights. This decision makes me mad because it's another step down the slippery slope. If that makes any sense at all. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
