#Login Register


  • 9 Vote(s) - 2.56 Average
Home 


Supreme Court rules in favor of police in home searches without objector present
02-28-2014, 01:53 AM #1
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,782 Threads:1,182 Joined:Feb 2011
The court ruled 6 to 3 that when occupants of a dwelling disagree on whether they will admit police without a warrant, the objecting occupant must be physically present. That doesn’t change if police have removed the objector, the court said.

“An occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/s...story.html

So if you object to a warrantless search the police will simply remove you from the property. damned.gif
02-28-2014, 02:43 AM #2
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,396 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
Incremental steps.
If it were all done at once people would cry fowl. 37.gif

wonder.gif
02-28-2014, 02:50 AM #3
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,782 Threads:1,182 Joined:Feb 2011
Crossed my mind BO was selected to implement all these changes. He's still seen as a great pResident here, the be all end all of US statesmen. dunno.gif

Several months ago I told my co-workers (they were talking about fish) that Fuku radiation has been here a long time, they scoffed. Then CBC today published a report that the radiation arrived two years earlier than expected (I guess it took them two years to discover that). Point is, if all you listen to is the MSM, you're going to know nothing but what they want you to know. I could go on about the times I've told somebody what's happening, they sneer, then years later they go, like, oh you were right. gaah.gif rofl.gif
02-28-2014, 02:51 AM #4
Ruby Wolf Member
Posts:10,786 Threads:721 Joined:Oct 2012
Like how often does the supreme court vote against the police?!

How much is our freedom gonna cost us this time?!
02-28-2014, 02:54 AM #5
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,782 Threads:1,182 Joined:Feb 2011
(02-28-2014, 02:51 AM)Beyond Smolensk Wrote:  How much is our freedom gonna cost us this time?!

That's a good question. The longer the banks run things, the worse it will be. Mark Carney (BoE Chairman) all delighted last week that England's banks will exceed GDP by 7 times or so (don't quote me on that) wtf does a country do when an institution is too large to bail out?
02-28-2014, 03:13 AM #6
Ruby Wolf Member
Posts:10,786 Threads:721 Joined:Oct 2012
The world wide economic growth bubble,or whatever its called,certainly cant keep inflating forever,i mean like already lately a new car friggin costs the same as what a new house use to cost twenty or thirty years ago and thats the truth and that truth is insane,greed driven insanity,as a certain few continue to financially benefit relentlessly at the ruined expense of the many,as usual,like whats an average car gonna cost in ten years? $200,000?! and an average house $10,000,000?! it just cant go on like that (like this) for very long without collapsing in on itself and imploding followed by intense detonations from within sooner or later when it inevitably bursts and its gonna really explode hard and brutally...
02-28-2014, 03:19 AM #7
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,782 Threads:1,182 Joined:Feb 2011
iagree.gif and it's accelerating.
02-28-2014, 03:35 AM #8
Ruby Wolf Member
Posts:10,786 Threads:721 Joined:Oct 2012
(02-28-2014, 01:53 AM)Shadow Wrote:  The court ruled 6 to 3 that when occupants of a dwelling disagree on whether they will admit police without a warrant, the objecting occupant must be physically present. That doesn’t change if police have removed the objector, the court said.

“An occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/s...story.html

So if you object to a warrantless search the police will simply remove you from the property. damned.gif
Wow like its amazing and frightening to realize just how much things have already changed,some for the better most for the worse,during just within the relatively short time period that i've been alive so far...

Like around thirty five years ago my mother was being beaten up and thrown around and screamed at and terrorized (again) by my new step father and all of us scared to death little kids managed to call the police,after we unwrapped the land line telephone cord from around my mothers neck and the cops showed up and refused to enter the house and intervene on her or anyones elses behalf telling us again and again how they were not allowed to enter into our house for and during a domestic dispute that they couldnt get involved with and they drove away like f###en imagine that!!!
02-28-2014, 05:03 AM #9
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,782 Threads:1,182 Joined:Feb 2011
sad2.gif they don't like domestic disputes and act like it's a legal no-no to interfere when a woman is strangled. Sorry to read that Smolensk sad2.gif
02-28-2014, 05:48 AM #10
Ruby Wolf Member
Posts:10,786 Threads:721 Joined:Oct 2012
(02-28-2014, 05:03 AM)Shadow Wrote:  sad2.gif they don't like domestic disputes and act like it's a legal no-no to interfere when a woman is strangled. Sorry to read that Smolensk sad2.gif
Our literally evil step father certainly got what he deserved as time went by but thats another story...

Like yeah that was the status quo around here anyways for police who were not allowed to intervene during domestic disputes and couldnt enter inside someones house to help them...

Now we have boston dea dressed in swat riot gear armed to the teeth kicking in the wrong door,of a seventies year old priest, who was so shocked by their forceful actions and screaming and tackling him to the ground that he died on the spot of a heart attack and his family received millions from the city,i mean the friggin tax payers,you and i...
JollyRoger Show this Post
02-28-2014, 06:46 AM #11
JollyRoger Incognito Anonymous
 
The Judges are CLEARLY not on our side.
02-28-2014, 07:34 AM #12
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,899 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(02-28-2014, 01:53 AM)Shadow Wrote:  The court ruled 6 to 3 that when occupants of a dwelling disagree on whether they will admit police without a warrant, the objecting occupant must be physically present. That doesn’t change if police have removed the objector, the court said.

“An occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/s...story.html

So if you object to a warrantless search the police will simply remove you from the property. damned.gif

Not so sure it says that. To me it says if you were already being held, then you told the police over the phone you didn't agree with a search that the party who is present said yes to, then they could ignore your objection and search.

The police would need a valid reason to make the arrest. If they were to make an unlawful arrest, then you'd have a case to argue poison fruit.

Pray for me. hug.gif



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com