[Drew]

bull****!
http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

[Bobboau]

this is a bit distressing, it's hard to make a solid jugement based on the limited description of the ruleing. it doesn't say what changes are made, doesn't give details on the suet that this stemed from, only the sensational title that cops can search your home without a warent.

why would a cop want to search a house if he felt threatened already.

[Drew]

argh well.....

Amendment IV

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.

[Rictor]

Well, it is distressing. I personally don't care about the circumstances, the result is what bothers me.

Until the day that Earth is invaded by shape-shifting aliens, I want my civil liberties left alone damnit. This includes laws such as this. I know that Bush and Ashcroft make the case that this is for national security, but thats utter bull****.

[Taristin]

Completely. Wait until they bring the stuff outside their homes, then nab them.  That's what steakouts are for.

[Bobboau]

well what I was saying is it's hard to tell what the hell is going on here based on that half page article, if what this amounts to is; cops can at any time come to your house breake in and take your stuff without anyone's approveal but there own than this is nothing more than a breach of the fourth amendment, hard to think what this could be other than a breach of the fourth amendment, but it's hard to tell what's going on period based on the article. is there a more detailed acount of this?
odds are it'll be over turned buy the end of the week.

[SadisticSid]

What does this have to do with Bush or Ashcroft?

[Bobboau]

it's something Ashcroft would have a wet dream about, Bush is to stupid to understand the implications of what this seems to be.

[Grey Wolf]

Anyone find anything suspicious about the poor spelling in the article? The police chief quoted as saying "manor" in place of "manner", for instance.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Bobboau
it's something Ashcroft would have a wet dream about, Bush is to stupid to understand the implications of what this seems to be.

well this is a state law so bush and ashcroft have no jurisdiction or effect on what happens. the only way to stop it is through the courts or if the US congress passes a law. So stop *****ing on bush doing this and go ***** down in lousiana.

[Liberator]

badbadbadbadbadbBADBADBADBADBAD!

I love how some of you make the DOJ sound like Hitler's Gestapo and SS rolled into one.

[mikhael]

You mean under Ashcroft, they're not? You might want to tell that to our concentration camp internees in Guantanamo.*

Of course the Ashcroft's DOJ isn't like the SS. The regime that employed the SS was legally elected into power by a majority of the citizens of Germany.


* Yes. Its an exaggeration. Its for effect. Its okay. We all know its an exaggeration.

[Bobboau]

did I *****/blame bush?
I was simply pointing out the connection others were makeing.

this whole thing seems weird, you'd think the abolition of one of our central rights would have made more news. so I'm thinking as of now, either this is total bull****, or it's misleading/sensationalized.

[mikhael]

I'm thinking that someone has misunderstood the law and done some bad reporting, Bob. I cannot believe that there's any way a state could abrogate the Constitution so directly and blatantly.

[Drew]

Originally posted by mikhael
You mean under Ashcroft, they're not? You might want to tell that to our concentration camp internees in Guantanamo.*

bull**** there not american citizens. There treated just like every other pows the americans have captured since ww1 and 2. None of the germans in ww2 had some sort of US rights given to them

ahh well....

EDIT: liberator, u have the annoying tendancy to change the topic of topics

[Drew]

Originally posted by mikhael
I'm thinking that someone has misunderstood the law and done some bad reporting, Bob. I cannot believe that there's any way a state could abrogate the Constitution so directly and blatantly.

its a state court descision. Hypothetically, the state courts can do just about anything even if its against the US constitution. Thats why there these things call appeals courts. IF this get challenged at any higher level itl get shot to hell.

[Bobboau]

we haven't classified the gitmo prisoners as POWs though, I do think it's about time we started processing some of them, 3 years is quite long enough for us to determine who's a threat.

anyway, I did some looking and found a better acount of the story in question
http://www.ddtonline.com/articles/2004/03/28/news/editorials/edit1.txt

The ruling came from a Baton Rouge case which was heard first in U.S. District Court then appealed to the 5th Circuit Court.

The Associated Press reported on Friday that the decision came in the case of a Denham Springs, La. man, Kelly Donald Gould, who was arrested in October 2000 on federal gun charges. He allegedly threatened to kill unidentified judges and police officers.

East Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's deputies went to Gould's trailer without a search or arrest warrant, but were invited into the trailer by another resident. Gould, authorities were told, was asleep in a bedroom at the time the deputies arrived.

Because of the Gould's threats and criminal history, the deputies said they looked for him under the bed and in two closets, where they found three rifles. They later found Gould hiding in the woods and seized the weapons after they got him to sign a permission for the search.

U.S. District Judge James Brady ruled that the guns could not be used as evidence because they were obtained illegally. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, but encouraged prosecutors to request a hearing before the court to reconsider the legal precedent on which it was based.

Dissenting justices argued the ruling establishes another exception to constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure.

The AP story goes on to report that Judges Harold DeMoss Jr. and Carl E. Stewart writing for the court, said "I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions. But the old adage warns us that ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions."'

Any evidence discovered during that search is now admissible in court as long as the search is a "cursory inspection," and if police entered the site for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and believed it might be dangerous.

seems that some cops found evedence while looking for the guy and later tried to use it in a case, they got permission from him, but I don't think that's a very good excuse. in this particular case I'd say I agree with the ruleing, but the constitutional implications are a bit precarius.
this brings into question a more general situation, rules of evedence, I don't like how our current system rewards criminals for cops screwing up. I don't see how it helps the rest of us, I'd rather see the cops punished (fines, suspentions (without pay), getting fired, maybe even jail time if the violations are severe enough) for bad work rather than evedence being ignored becase of a tecnicality.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Drew


its a state court descision. Hypothetically, the state courts can do just about anything even if its against the US constitution. Thats why there these things call appeals courts. IF this get challenged at any higher level itl get shot to hell.

Yes, HYPOTHETICALLY.

In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is a difference.

Its rather odd for a state court to blatantly go against the Constitution. They state judiciary knows the contents of the instrument as well as a federal judiciary. Knowing that something like that invites a trip to a state appeals court, a circuit appelate court and possibly a trip to DC to do the song and dance with the SCOTUS.

In light of that, its pretty damnably odd.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Drew
bull**** there not american citizens. There treated just like every other pows the americans have captured since ww1 and 2. None of the germans in ww2 had some sort of US rights given to them

You mean that during both world wars you gave punishment beatings to the prisoners and tortured them physically and mentally? Your country must be more f**ked up then I thought if that's the case.

The simple fact is they aren't being treated like POWs. How many Red Cross visits have they been allowed?

[Nico]

Cops in France don't need warrant to search your home. Afaik, that's never been abused, or we'd have heard about it ( french medias just LOVE police abuse, they wouldn't skip that - " laughs about the latest one, where a guy got ass-raped with a ... that plastic/alu/chrome thing you put on a car felloe to hide the mechanic parts, you know, the first thing you change when you're tuning a car, by a bunch of very angry policemen. Must have hurt ")