NationStates Jolt Archive

A cop who knew he couldn't get a warrant to search a house for drugs decided to knock on the door, tell the home owners that they'd been accused of sexual assault and asked if he could examine their bed for DNA evidence that might clear them. Since they didn't commit a sexual assault they let the cop in to help clear their names. The cop started poking around and found the drugs.

Without a warrant a cop can't search your house without your consent. By lying and getting consent for a totally different search I think the cop clearly violated that rule. It's similar to a gynecologist raping a patient. She gave consent for an examination, not sex. Basically the cop raped the 4th ammendment rights of these guys.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/NEWS01/608180418

Well... yeah, mistakes were made. On the other hand, it sounds like he should have gotten the warrant in the first place, so prosecuting him for any misdemeanour would be quite difficult.

I hope this policeman gets a nice stay…in some sort of police re-training centre

I think its just a case of someone watching too many cop shows (very clever though I’d certainly would of let a cop in)

I hope this policeman gets a nice stay…in some sort of police re-training centre

I think its just a case of someone watching too many cop shows (very clever though I’d certainly would of let a cop in)
That's the thing. Most reasonable people would. Nobody wants to be charged with a sexual assault they didn't commit.

What if a cop asked a serial killer permission to enter because he was being accused of being a drug dealer?
In the search for drugs that aren't there that permission was granted to perform, the cop find evidence proving this SK commited over 30 murders.

Is it still so wrong?

I think you might be more appalled at the situation you quote because drug possesion is such a silly crime in the first place.

A cop who knew he couldn't get a warrant to search a house for drugs decided to knock on the door, tell the home owners that they'd been accused of sexual assault and asked if he could examine their bed for DNA evidence that might clear them. Since they didn't commit a sexual assault they let the cop in to help clear their names. The cop started poking around and found the drugs.

Without a warrant a cop can't search your house without your consent. By lying and getting consent for a totally different search I think the cop clearly violated that rule. It's similar to a gynecologist raping a patient. She gave consent for an examination, not sex. Basically the cop raped the 4th ammendment rights of these guys.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/NEWS01/608180418

By stating what he was searching for and where he ws going to search: -furniture and bedding for evidence of sexual assault(or lack thereof)"- is the totality of their consent. THey didn't consent to a search of their home. They consented to a search of a specific part of their home for a specific thing. By deliberately and intentionally entering their house to search for something other than he was given consent to search for is a violation of the fourth amendment.

What if a cop asked a serial killer permission to enter because he was being accused of being a drug dealer?
In the search for drugs that aren't there that permission was granted to perform, the cop find evidence proving this SK commited over 30 murders.

Is it still so wrong?

I think you might be more appalled at the situation you quote because drug possesion is such a silly crime in the first place.

Yes. It's still wrong.

Is it still so wrong?

hell yes even if he found those darn WMD's it would still be the wrong thing to do

What if a cop asked a serial killer permission to enter because he was being accused of being a drug dealer?
In the search for drugs that aren't there that permission was granted to perform, the cop find evidence proving this SK commited over 30 murders.

Is it still so wrong?

I think you might be more appalled at the situation you quote because drug possesion is such a silly crime in the first place.
Yes it's still wrong. The constitution is more valuable than the lives of thirty people. You don't throw away the entire social contract to spare a few lives. Think of the soldiers who have died for that constitution. The nation gladly sacrificed them to maintain the constitution.

The case will likely be thrown out of court as he obtained the information illegally. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

Yes it's still wrong. The constitution is more valuable than the lives of thirty people. You don't throw away the entire social contract to spare a few lives. Think of the soldiers who have died for that constitution. The nation gladly sacrificed them to maintain the constitution.

One cop being slightly unconstitutional with his work is not going to throw away the entire social contract.

One cop being slightly unconstitutional with his work is not going to throw away the entire social contract.

and then another cop does and so on and so forth

and then another cop does and so on and so forth

Unlikely.

One cop being slightly unconstitutional with his work is not going to throw away the entire social contract.
Once the precedent is set it becomes standard proceedure and the constitution gets violated every day. Fuck the founding fathers of our nation. What the fuck did they know anyway?

Yes it's still wrong. The constitution is more valuable than the lives of thirty people. You don't throw away the entire social contract to spare a few lives. Think of the soldiers who have died for that constitution. The nation gladly sacrificed them to maintain the constitution.

Not to mention that the protection of the fourth amendment does not necessarily negate the arrest and prosecution of the suspect. Hell, let's suppose that by lying to gain entry and finding evidence of that serial crime, the police officer was put on a trail of PROPER evidence that could lead to the arrest of the killer. I have no problem with that. I have no problemwith guile and subterfuge being used in detective work, but not at the cost of the fourth amendment.

One cop being slightly unconstitutional with his work is not going to throw away the entire social contract.
If they let him do it in court, then I assume other cops will follow his lead, because it's a pretty smart way of gathering evidence.
Thus we've thrown away the 4th amendment.

Unlikely.
Why do you think that judges throw out evidence gained through illegal searches? It's to prevent such a thing from becoming normal investigating techniques. The courts already recognize that once the precedent is set that a certain type of search is legal it will be used over and over again.

One cop being slightly unconstitutional with his work is not going to throw away the entire social contract.

It will if it has legal precedent on it's side.

If they let him do it in court, then I assume other cops will follow his lead, because it's a pretty smart way of gathering evidence.
Thus we've thrown away the 4th amendment.

Thats the point, they won't let him.

However, if there was a seriel killer on the loose and the only way to save countless lives was to enter his house with false warrent then i think it may be worth it. I don't expect anyother cops to copy him as it would be on such an extremely rare occasion, and even if they do the constitution can be
reinforced.

"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."

For those of use who don't actually have the US constitution memorised and have better things to do than know what article/amendment says what...

Thats the point, they won't let him.

However, if there was a seriel killer on the loose and the only way to save countless lives was to enter his house with false warrent then i think it may be worth it. I don't expect anyother cops to copy him as it would be on such an extremely rare occasion, and even if they do the constitution can be
reinforced.

Nope. Not worth it.

"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."

For those of use who don't actually have the US constitution memorised and have better things to do than know what article/amendment says what...

What the hell do they teach in Sweden if not the U.S. Constitution?!? :p

By stating what he was searching for and where he ws going to search: -furniture and bedding for evidence of sexual assault(or lack thereof)"- is the totality of their consent. THey didn't consent to a search of their home. They consented to a search of a specific part of their home for a specific thing. By deliberately and intentionally entering their house to search for something other than he was given consent to search for is a violation of the fourth amendment.

You don't grant permission to search a particular room or item for a particular thing.
If they had been under suspicion of sex crimes and if a warrant had been secured, the cop would have had the right to search the house, not just the bed and any incrimiinating evidence of other crimes found in the course of the search would be considered legally obtained.

The resident's permission replaces the warrant. Your argument has no merit.

The cop's error was lying to obtain permission.
Your point will be stronger and perhaps valid if you compare it to commiting perjury before a judge or entering false evidence to obtain a warrant.

You don't grant permission to search a particular room or item for a particular thing.
If they had been under suspicion of sex crimes and if a warrant had been secured, the cop would have had the right to search the house, not just the bed and any incrimiinating evidence of other crimes found in the course of the search would be considered legally obtained.

The resident's permission replaces the warrant. Your argument has no merit.

The cop's error was lying to obtain permission.
Your point will be stronger and perhaps valid if you compare it to commiting perjury before a judge or entering false evidence to obtain a warrant.

If the permission replaces the warrant, then yes; it does have to state what is being searched for.

Nope. Not worth it.

I would say it is the lesser of two evils.

I would say it is the lesser of two evils.

And I would say that it's the greater of them.

Thats the point, they won't let him.

However, if there was a seriel killer on the loose and the only way to save countless lives was to enter his house with false warrent then i think it may be worth it. I don't expect anyother cops to copy him as it would be on such an extremely rare occasion, and even if they do the constitution can be
reinforced.
Why are you being so lax on crime? Surely there is no crime greater than the destruction of the principles that shape the nation and upon which our way of life is founded.

However, if there was a seriel killer on the loose and the only way to save countless lives was to enter his house with false warrent then i think it may be worth it.

I don't because that means cops can search anyone’s house for evidence however if there was some actual evidence pointing to the person being a serial killer it would be easy to get a warrant anyway

And I doubt a cereal killer can murder “countless lives” unless you can’t count very high:p

And I would say that it's the greater of them.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

What the hell do they teach in Sweden if not the U.S. Constitution?!? :p

Things like languages...

I don't because that means cops can search anyone’s house for evidence however if there was some actual evidence pointing to the person being a serial killer it would be easy to get a warrant anyway

And I doubt a cereal killer can murder “countless lives” unless you can’t count very high:p

Yes. Very few serial killers are as effective as John Wayne Gacy. The only reason why he got away with so many was because he was a clown. Muhuhahahaha!

Things like languages...
That's useless. Everyone who matters speaks English anyway.

That's useless. Everyone who matters speaks English anyway.

And if we're lucky, we'll get you all to believe that and not poke around in our business.

Things like languages...

Hmm...

WHich brings up a totally unrelated question:

Here in the US, our standard school class for reading, grammar and literature is called "English"

and of course, high schools offer foreign languages like Spanish and French.

Is your standard grammar and composition course called "Swedish"?

There have been numerous cases of cops violating fourth amendment procedures to save lives. In most cases, the cops are let slide for doing it - especially if they found the location of a missing/kidnapped person in the so doing, and that has happened.

The downside is that whatever evidence is thereby discovered can NEVER be used in court. Which means that our hypothetical serial killer is allowed to walk, because the police have basically prevented him from being prosecuted.

And if we're lucky, we'll get you all to believe that and not poke around in our business.
Wait, you're keeping secrets from us? I think it might be time to liberate Sweden. I suspect Saddam's WMD are hiding out there.

Hmm...
WHich brings up a totally unrelated question:
Here in the US, our standard school class for reading, grammar and literature is called "English"
and of course, high schools offer foreign languages like Spanish and French.
Is your standard grammar and composition course called "Swedish"?

It's called "Svenska." That would be Swedish in English, yes. "Engelska" would be English, which we start learning in third grade. I did, anyway, but I already spoke it by then, so it was basically "free hour" for me.

Wait, you're keeping secrets from us? I think it might be time to liberate Sweden. I suspect Saddam's WMD are hiding out there.

What, those? Those are just wealth distribution automates. Yeah, that's the ticket...

It's called "Svenska." That would be Swedish in English, yes. "Engelska" would be English, which we start learning in third grade. I did, anyway, but I already spoke it by then, so it was basically "free hour" for me.

Thinking about it now, don't you think that's a little weird?

I do.

A cop who knew he couldn't get a warrant to search a house for drugs decided to knock on the door, tell the home owners that they'd been accused of sexual assault and asked if he could examine their bed for DNA evidence that might clear them. Since they didn't commit a sexual assault they let the cop in to help clear their names. The cop started poking around and found the drugs.

Without a warrant a cop can't search your house without your consent. By lying and getting consent for a totally different search I think the cop clearly violated that rule. It's similar to a gynecologist raping a patient. She gave consent for an examination, not sex. Basically the cop raped the 4th ammendment rights of these guys.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/NEWS01/608180418


sometimes thats the only way. would you rather have drug dealers running around on the streets and anrachy, or a society with less crime?

sometimes thats the only way. would you rather have drug dealers running around on the streets and anrachy, or a society with less crime?

Yes, because it's either one or the other. :rolleyes:

the question that should be asked is how many crimes can be solved and how much safer as a society we can be.

everyone cries murder when a cop does an illegal search, but then they find evidence that proves this guy was the killer of 100 + people they just throw all the evidence out. killer is still lose. if a cop does an illegal search there should be punishment for the cop, but any evidence they find should still be taken into account.

it has turned out to be a game. just recently with all the beurocratic bullshit a person who was pulled over and arrested for his 7th DUI got off completely free because someone didnt sign a document.

sometimes thats the only way. would you rather have drug dealers running around on the streets and anrachy, or a society with less crime?
I'd rather the government work within the bounds of the constitution even if it means somebody somewhere is sniffing a line of cocaine off of a prostitute's ass cheek. Call me crazy or just patriotic, but that's the way I feel.

I'd rather the government work within the bounds of the constitution even if it means somebody somewhere is sniffing a line of cocaine off of a prostitute's ass cheek. Call me crazy or just patriotic, but that's the way I feel.

*hums a few bars of "God Bless America"* :D

Thinking about it now, don't you think that's a little weird?

I do.

That we learn English? No, not weirder than it having been French a century ago, and German before that, not to mention Latin. English is just the lingua franca du jour. It will fall, too, and be replaced by something else. Circle of history and all that.

sometimes thats the only way. would you rather have drug dealers running around on the streets and anrachy, or a society with less crime?

Drug Dealers. Definitely. At least they're fairly hones about what they're doing.

We can't have a society of laws if the police break them. Quiet custodes ipse custodies, or something like that.

the question that should be asked is how many crimes can be solved and how much safer as a society we can be.

everyone cries murder when a cop does an illegal search, but then they find evidence that proves this guy was the killer of 100 + people they just throw all the evidence out. killer is still lose. if a cop does an illegal search there should be punishment for the cop, but any evidence they find should still be taken into account.

And how do you propose to punish a cop that just caught a serial killer?

If the punishment for killing a hundred people is death, what's the appropriate punishment for wiping your ass on everything that millions of americans died to preserve?

The cop's error was lying to obtain permission.
Your point will be stronger and perhaps valid if you compare it to commiting perjury before a judge or entering false evidence to obtain a warrant.
Police are allowed to lie in the course of their duty, by allowing the cop into their home, depending on what the conversation was, they consented to allow him to search their home.
The constitutionality could be debated, and it would basically come down to the cop saying, "They said I could search the room." and the other guys saying, "We said he could check the bed for DNA." in court.

Seriously though, do you people expect police to be totaly honest with all criminals? When performing a drug raid, should they knock on the door and ask politely to be let in first? Phone ahead to make an appointment, maybe?

That we learn English? No, not weirder than it having been French a century ago, and German before that, not to mention Latin. English is just the lingua franca du jour. It will fall, too, and be replaced by something else. Circle of history and all that.

No, not that. That your primary language class is named after your primary language. Shouldn't it just be called 'language'?

When performing a drug raid, should they knock on the door and ask politely to be let in first?

Depends on the raid. Might save a few lives if they did - a lot of innocent people have been killed by trigger-happy cops with "no-knock" warrants.

Police are allowed to lie in the course of their duty, by allowing the cop into their home, depending on what the conversation was, they consented to allow him to search their home.
The constitutionality could be debated, and it would basically come down to the cop saying, "They said I could search the room." and the other guys saying, "We said he could check the bed for DNA." in court.

Seriously though, do you people expect police to be totaly honest with all criminals? When performing a drug raid, should they knock on the door and ask politely to be let in first? Phone ahead to make an appointment, maybe?
I would hope that before they make a raid they get a warrant. This wasn't a raid, this was a search under false and coercive pretense.

Drug Dealers. Definitely. At least they're fairly hones about what they're doing.

We can't have a society of laws if the police break them. Quiet custodes ipse custodies, or something like that.



oh so you like crime. You support murder, rape and drugs. You think that cops should not be able to investigate. You probably think that all violent criminals should be freed to they can express themselves.

A cop who knew he couldn't get a warrant to search a house for drugs decided to knock on the door, tell the home owners that they'd been accused of sexual assault and asked if he could examine their bed for DNA evidence that might clear them. Since they didn't commit a sexual assault they let the cop in to help clear their names. The cop started poking around and found the drugs.

Without a warrant a cop can't search your house without your consent. By lying and getting consent for a totally different search I think the cop clearly violated that rule. It's similar to a gynecologist raping a patient. She gave consent for an examination, not sex. Basically the cop raped the 4th ammendment rights of these guys.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/NEWS01/608180418

and that's why police officers are never allowed in my house without a warrant.

Hopefully these guys get a good lawyer and this cop gets in trouble, I mean it's sad that they actually were criminals, but if the cop is going to screw up so bad, really it's just not fair for anyone.

And how do you propose to punish a cop that just caught a serial killer?

If the punishment for killing a hundred people is death, what's the appropriate punishment for wiping your ass on everything that millions of americans died to preserve?


millions of americans didnt die so people can smoke pot and not get caught. they didnt die so killers can get away with crimes.

there are plenty of ways to punish cops.

oh so you like crime. You support murder, rape and drugs. You think that cops should not be able to investigate. You probably think that all violent criminals should be freed to they can express themselves.
One could argue that you like crime. You seem to be in favor of the violation of the constitution, the supreme law of the land.

I would hope that before they make a raid they get a warrant. This wasn't a raid, this was a search under false and coercive pretense.
They still let him in, they could have asked for a warrant. Wouldnt you be suspicious if somebody came to your house and suddenly said 'We think you raped somebody, we want to check your bed and drawers and such.'?
As I said, it comes down to the wording, pretty much.

millions of americans didnt die so people can smoke pot and not get caught. they didnt die so killers can get away with crimes.

there are plenty of ways to punish cops.
They died in part so that we can be confident that what we do and what we keep in our homes won't be investigated without enough probable cause to get a search warrant.

No, not that. That your primary language class is named after your primary language. Shouldn't it just be called 'language'?

But that's what the other language classes are called. "Språk."

oh so you like crime. You support murder, rape and drugs. You think that cops should not be able to investigate. You probably think that all violent criminals should be freed to they can express themselves.

Actually, I don't have any real problem with drugs. I'm firmly convinced that everyone has the right to go to hell in their own, freely chosen, handbasket.

Nor do I have any problem with police investigating crime - legally. Once they step over the line, though, they're far worse than the average criminal, as they were given the responsibility of enforcing the law. In violating it, they not only break the law, but also the public trust.

millions of americans didnt die so people can smoke pot and not get caught.

Yes they did. :)

They still let him in, they could have asked for a warrant. Wouldnt you be suspicious if somebody came to your house and suddenly said 'We think you raped somebody, we want to check your bed and drawers and such.'?
As I said, it comes down to the wording, pretty much.
If a police officer came to my house and said I raped someone and he wants to check for DNA evidence I would let him. I'd like to be cleared of suspicion as soon as possible. Just the accusation getting into the news could ruin my life. Of course now I know better. I wouldn't cooperate with a police officer ever under any circumstances.

But that's what the other language classes are called. "Språk."

Språk?

Nutty. :)

One could argue that you like crime. You seem to be in favor of the violation of the constitution, the supreme law of the land.


No. The story you gave in the beginning was that the cops entered the house for a complaint about sexual assault. and they found the drugs. No crime comitted. True they went around the truth, but there is no crime there at all.

Språk?

Nutty. :)

You'll get no argument from me there. Swedish is weird.

oh so you like crime. You support murder, rape and drugs. You think that cops should not be able to investigate. You probably think that all violent criminals should be freed to they can express themselves.

There is a thing called due process. It involves little things like probable cause, warrants and protecting citizens from minor things like illegal search and seizure. I don't want to live in a country where the police can come into my home on any pretext. It was cited before in Latin, but it reads "who watches the watchman?" If we aren't protected from the police, we have no protection from anything. This has nothing to do with liking crime, it has everything to do with the private citizen being protected from police malfeasance. I suspect that you would prefer to live in a police state and be subject to routine searches at police whim. And don't tell me that if I have nothing to hide, it won't be a problem; if the politicians have reason to dislike you (say your opinions don't match theirs), it's a simple procedure for the police to plant evidence.

I'd rather have to defend myself from my fellow citizens than from the police.

If the punishment for killing a hundred people is death, what's the appropriate punishment for wiping your ass on everything that millions of americans died to preserve?

I could have sworn they were dieing for their country, not for a piece of paper.
Just like soldiers from every other country do.

I'm not even sure that Americans are aware that it is quite possible to have a free country without the American Constitution, which apparently should have a marching band and lights from heaven show up every time it is uttered.

sometimes thats the only way. would you rather have drug dealers running around on the streets and anrachy, or a society with less crime?

No. The story you gave in the beginning was that the cops entered the house for a complaint about sexual assault. and they found the drugs. No crime comitted. True they went around the truth, but there is no crime there at all.

oh so you like crime. You support murder, rape and drugs. You think that cops should not be able to investigate. You probably think that all violent criminals should be freed to they can express themselves.


Why do you hate America? Why do you hate freedom?

If a police officer came to my house and said I raped someone and he wants to check for DNA evidence I would let him. I'd like to be cleared of suspicion as soon as possible. Just the accusation getting into the news could ruin my life. Of course now I know better. I wouldn't cooperate with a police officer ever under any circumstances.
Good for you.
However, I would advise cooperating when they pull a gun on you and tell you to put down the money ;)

sometimes thats the only way. would you rather have drug dealers running around on the streets and anrachy, or a society with less crime?

Drug dealers and anarchy.

I could have sworn they were dieing for their country, not for a piece of paper.
Just like soldiers from every other country do.



The oath of an American Serviceman is taken to the constitution, not the country.

oh so you like crime. You support murder, rape and drugs. You think that cops should not be able to investigate. You probably think that all violent criminals should be freed to they can express themselves.

I don't suport murder and rape.

I don't want to live in a country where the police can come into my home on any pretext.


They didn't in this instance, they only entered once permission was secured.

No. The story you gave in the beginning was that the cops entered the house for a complaint about sexual assault. and they found the drugs. No crime comitted. True they went around the truth, but there is no crime there at all.
The complaint about a sexual assault was made up by the cop to gain entrance. There was no actual allegation of sexual assault. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

I could have sworn they were dieing for their country, not for a piece of paper.
Just like soldiers from every other country do.

technically they died for the constitution since that’s what they swore an oath of allegiance too

so American soldiers serve a piece of paper whilst I'm going to serve a wrinkly old lady who isn’t getting any

edit: or is she?!

If a police officer came to my house and said I raped someone and he wants to check for DNA evidence I would let him. I'd like to be cleared of suspicion as soon as possible. Just the accusation getting into the news could ruin my life. Of course now I know better. I wouldn't cooperate with a police officer ever under any circumstances.

At least you have learned something. There is nothing special about that uniform that prevents the police from lying, cheating, coercing, pressuring, or anything else that is common to everyday people.

Police never get into my house, my car, or my place of business without a warrant. It doesn't matter what they say.

"Due process." It's an important term. I suggest everyone in this thread learn it.

Actually, I don't have any real problem with drugs. I'm firmly convinced that everyone has the right to go to hell in their own, freely chosen, handbasket.

Nor do I have any problem with police investigating crime - legally. Once they step over the line, though, they're far worse than the average criminal, as they were given the responsibility of enforcing the law. In violating it, they not only break the law, but also the public trust.



Again you are only helping the murders and rapists when you try to block the people who are there to stop them. Its really disgusting how some people are so naive that they dont realize that without the police they might not exist right now, without the police and their searches america would be an anarchy state. Maybe not full anarchy but that whole 20's mob thing, would still be around.

And you like drugs, wow, you like drugs. What kind of sick fuck are you? I cant even think of a way to try to explain to you the real story here. Im just going to let you go on with your life not caring. If your that far to the left you're never going change your views. Not worth my time.

I could have sworn they were dieing for their country, not for a piece of paper.
Just like soldiers from every other country do.

I'm not even sure that Americans are aware that it is quite possible to have a free country without the American Constitution, which apparently should have a marching band and lights from heaven show up every time it is uttered.
They didn't die for a piece of paper. They died for the ideas written on that piece of paper. They died so we don't live in a police state.

Again you are only helping the murders and rapists when you try to block the people who are there to stop them. Its really disgusting how some people are so naive that they dont realize that without the police they might not exist right now, without the police and their searches america would be an anarchy state. Maybe not full anarchy but that whole 20's mob thing, would still be around.

And you like drugs, wow, you like drugs. What kind of sick fuck are you? I cant even think of a way to try to explain to you the real story here. Im just going to let you go on with your life not caring. If your that far to the left you're never going change your views. Not worth my time.

Amadenijad? That name kind of fits considering the content of your post.

They didn't die for a piece of paper. They died for the ideas written on that piece of paper. They died so we don't live in a police state.

Who was trying to enforce a police state on you?

Police never get into my house, my car, or my place of business without a warrant. It doesn't matter what they say.

a good plan after all you can also get people dressed as cops and such

so when travelling on an empty road and a cop tells you to pull over you should indicate to the side of the road and travel slowly to the nearest area with people (the police have to go through with this so no crime!) *drifts of topic completely*

Again you are only helping the murders and rapists when you try to block the people who are there to stop them. Its really disgusting how some people are so naive that they dont realize that without the police they might not exist right now, without the police and their searches america would be an anarchy state. Maybe not full anarchy but that whole 20's mob thing, would still be around.

And you like drugs, wow, you like drugs. What kind of sick fuck are you? I cant even think of a way to try to explain to you the real story here. Im just going to let you go on with your life not caring. If your that far to the left you're never going change your views. Not worth my time.

So for you, the police following the law and proper procedure = helping criminals?

And you call other people "sick f*cks"?

There is a thing called due process. It involves little things like probable cause, warrants and protecting citizens from minor things like illegal search and seizure. I don't want to live in a country where the police can come into my home on any pretext. It was cited before in Latin, but it reads "who watches the watchman?" If we aren't protected from the police, we have no protection from anything. This has nothing to do with liking crime, it has everything to do with the private citizen being protected from police malfeasance. I suspect that you would prefer to live in a police state and be subject to routine searches at police whim. And don't tell me that if I have nothing to hide, it won't be a problem; if the politicians have reason to dislike you (say your opinions don't match theirs), it's a simple procedure for the police to plant evidence.

I'd rather have to defend myself from my fellow citizens than from the police.

so i get it, you would rather live in anarchy where war lords run around with their armies killing innocent people in the streets. And have i ever said i want random searches. no, look at my posts in this thread, it might sound like it, but i havent said it at all, I believe in probabl cause. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. If your wife is found dead in your house, and you're drivng to canada with you're life savings in the back seat, you killed her. the police have probable cause, and if they couldnt go around the law to investigate, that guy that is obviously going to get away with murder. There are times when you cant pay attention to those restrictions for the better of society, without them criminals would roam the streets commiting unthinkable acts ever day. But if they hid their crimes well enough, nobody could ever prosecute them and that is more morally wrong than investigating without a warrant.

And you like drugs, wow, you like drugs. What kind of sick fuck are you? I cant even think of a way to try to explain to you the real story here. Im just going to let you go on with your life not caring. If your that far to the left you're never going change your views. Not worth my time.

Read my post again, dumbass. What I said was that everybody has the right to FUCK THEMSELVES UP. I've seen what drug addiction does to people, and the kind of agonising hell it puts them through.
What you don't seem to get is that, like it or not, drug crime is consensual crime. And our efforts to destroy it are causing more damage to our societies and our people than the drugs are. Legalization and control are the only things that will EVER actually work.
Heh. I just realised, that's the first time I've ever been called a lefty...

a good plan after all you can also get people dressed as cops and such

so when travelling on an empty road and a cop tells you to pull over you should indicate to the side of the road and travel slowly to the nearest area with people (the police have to go through with this so no crime!) *drifts of topic completely*

I just read a report of several people who were "arrested" by fake SWAT team members and robbed.

Again you are only helping the murders and rapists when you try to block the people who are there to stop them. Its really disgusting how some people are so naive that they dont realize that without the police they might not exist right now, without the police and their searches america would be an anarchy state. Maybe not full anarchy but that whole 20's mob thing, would still be around.

And you like drugs, wow, you like drugs. What kind of sick fuck are you? I cant even think of a way to try to explain to you the real story here. Im just going to let you go on with your life not caring. If your that far to the left you're never going change your views. Not worth my time.

That whole 20's mob thing was a direct outgrowth of prohibition. We're having similar problems now with another kind of prohibition, the prohibition on drugs. Consider, alcohol and cigarettes are drugs, they're regulated and taxed, but not illegal. If we regulated and taxed marijuana (which isn't any more dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes) we would pull the teeth of illegal growers and vendors, have quality control and a nice tax addition. Other, more dangerous drugs may be more problematic, but increasing police harassment of users and low level distributors is not going to stop the gang activity. The only way we're going to do that is to attack the sources in other countries and I see a problem with that.

Unlikely.

Thats what they thought in Germany in the 1930's too,

Just because somethings "unlikley" doesnt mean it wont or can't happen, if you told people in 1930 that by 1940 a second world war would've broken out, a crazy austrain man took over germany and conquered almost all of Europe and millions are dying by the day, they'd call you a loon too.

Who was trying to enforce a police state on you?
The cop who pulled me over for "swerving within my lane" just so he could search my car. How the fuck can you be swerving if you stay within your lane?

A cop who knew he couldn't get a warrant to search a house for drugs decided to knock on the door, tell the home owners that they'd been accused of sexual assault and asked if he could examine their bed for DNA evidence that might clear them. Since they didn't commit a sexual assault they let the cop in to help clear their names. The cop started poking around and found the drugs.

Without a warrant a cop can't search your house without your consent. By lying and getting consent for a totally different search I think the cop clearly violated that rule. It's similar to a gynecologist raping a patient. She gave consent for an examination, not sex. Basically the cop raped the 4th ammendment rights of these guys.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/NEWS01/608180418well...
to take a book out of Spike's "everything I learned, I learned from CSI"

1) the home owner should've asked for a warrent. (If he was actually accused, he would've been taken in for questioning.)

2) the evidence can be admitted on two basis of facts.
a) if the drugs were out in the open, say on the kitchen table, on the bathroom sink... as long as the cop did not have to open drawers. (the article did not say where the drugs were.)
b) the homeowner did grant the officer permission to enter his home. because there was NO WARRENT, the officer was not obligated to keep his search consistant with what he/she said they were there for.

the evidence might be thrown out because...
1) the officer mis-represented the reason why he was there (he lied)

2) there was no probable cause for searching the home. if there was, he could've gotten a warrent.

3) Without knowing where the drugs were, it might constitute an illegal search.

all in all, the lesson here is, if an officer wants to search your home, and you are doing anything illegal... make them get a warrent. it is your right in the USA.

So for you, the police following the law and proper procedure = helping criminals?

And you call other people "sick f*cks"?


Lets say a guy kills your parents or children or whatever. The cops have a suspect who they are almost certain did it but when they go for a warrant and the judge asks them what they have to tie the suspect to the murder they realize that he commited a perfect crime, and they cant physically tie him to the murders. you would just sit back as the cops close the case? You cant tell me that you would let that guy go free just so that you dont infringe on his constitutional rights. If cops have probable cause, they should be allowed to investigate.

I just read a report of several people who were "arrested" by fake SWAT team members and robbed.

..... I don't care what anybody says. That's ingenius.

so i get it, you would rather live in anarchy where war lords run around with their armies killing innocent people in the streets. And have i ever said i want random searches. no, look at my posts in this thread, it might sound like it, but i havent said it at all, I believe in probabl cause. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. If your wife is found dead in your house, and you're drivng to canada with you're life savings in the back seat, you killed her. the police have probable cause, and if they couldnt go around the law to investigate, that guy that is obviously going to get away with murder. There are times when you cant pay attention to those restrictions for the better of society, without them criminals would roam the streets commiting unthinkable acts ever day. But if they hid their crimes well enough, nobody could ever prosecute them and that is more morally wrong than investigating without a warrant.


So it's okay in your world for the police to violate the constitution "for the better of society"? Isn't that contradictory?

Do you know how many people have been killed due to "no-knock" searches? Do you know why they are being made illegal?

The cop who pulled me over for "swerving within my lane" just so he could search my car. How the fuck can you be swerving if you stay within your lane?


Wow.
It took millions of American military dieing to finally subdue this crazy cop??

Read my post again, dumbass. What I said was that everybody has the right to FUCK THEMSELVES UP. I've seen what drug addiction does to people, and the kind of agonising hell it puts them through.
What you don't seem to get is that, like it or not, drug crime is consensual crime. And our efforts to destroy it are causing more damage to our societies and our people than the drugs are. Legalization and control are the only things that will EVER actually work.
Heh. I just realised, that's the first time I've ever been called a lefty...


Yeah, lets legalize all drugs so that 5 year olds can run around on their first day of school on an acid trip. That might be fun.

If a police officer came to my house and said I raped someone and he wants to check for DNA evidence I would let him. I'd like to be cleared of suspicion as soon as possible. Just the accusation getting into the news could ruin my life. Of course now I know better. I wouldn't cooperate with a police officer ever under any circumstances.
actually, what you can do, is if a cop came up to me to say I sexually assaulted someone in my home, and they want to check DNA samples, (and I know I didn't do it,) I would ask for an evidence bag and give him 5 strands of hair, pulled from my head and place it into the bag... right then and there. (I don't take drugs either, so I know nothing will show up there.) or tell them you'll go to the station to provide a sample the next day.

Who was trying to enforce a police state on you?

Thats why America is so much different than other Nations and for a good reason. Here we are ready willing and able to fight and if nessicary die for ideas. Those ideas are important. Its not impossible, but its much harder to establish a police state when the military is devoted to the constitution, and not a particular party, or the country itself. No-where in the oath, (which I have taken) does it say you swear to defend a particular government or country. You swear to defend the US constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic.

so i get it, you would rather live in anarchy where war lords run around with their armies killing innocent people in the streets. And have i ever said i want random searches. no, look at my posts in this thread, it might sound like it, but i havent said it at all, I believe in probabl cause. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. If your wife is found dead in your house, and you're drivng to canada with you're life savings in the back seat, you killed her. the police have probable cause, and if they couldnt go around the law to investigate, that guy that is obviously going to get away with murder. There are times when you cant pay attention to those restrictions for the better of society, without them criminals would roam the streets commiting unthinkable acts ever day. But if they hid their crimes well enough, nobody could ever prosecute them and that is more morally wrong than investigating without a warrant.

You are not very bright, are you? Don't ever mistake protecting citizens from the police for anarchy. What you support is fascism pure and simple. I bet you just loved Hitler and Stalin.

Yeah, lets legalize all drugs so that 5 year olds can run around on their first day of school on an acid trip. That might be fun.

well coffee is a legal drug I don't see many kids hopping round on that

Lets say a guy kills your parents or children or whatever. The cops have a suspect who they are almost certain did it but when they go for a warrant and the judge asks them what they have to tie the suspect to the murder they realize that he commited a perfect crime, and they cant physically tie him to the murders. you would just sit back as the cops close the case? You cant tell me that you would let that guy go free just so that you dont infringe on his constitutional rights. If cops have probable cause, they should be allowed to investigate.

If the cops have probable cause, they will GET the warrant. What you have described is an instance of them NOT having probable cause.

Even then, they can continue to investigate. They can go through his trash (not protected). They can interview friends, family, the suspect himself. They can get his employer to let him look over his workplace.

What they CAN'T do is go into his house without either a warrant, permission obtained without deception, or probable cause of an impending crime. That is NOT a terribly restrictive requirement.

So it's okay in your world for the police to violate the constitution "for the better of society"? Isn't that contradictory?

Do you know how many people have been killed due to "no-knock" searches? Do you know why they are being made illegal?


I DONT SUPPORT NO-KNOCK AND RANDOM POLICE SEARCHES. ok, lets get that out right now becasue im sick of telling you this. What i am saying is that if the cops have probable cause, then they should be able to investigate that one person, or whoever else is involved in a crime.

I DONT SUPPORT NO-KNOCK AND RANDOM POLICE SEARCHES. ok, lets get that out right now becasue im sick of telling you this. What i am saying is that if the cops have probable cause, then they should be able to investigate that one person, or whoever else is involved in a crime.

If they have probable cause, they can get a warrant.

Yeah, lets legalize all drugs so that 5 year olds can run around on their first day of school on an acid trip. That might be fun.

We don't allow kids to buy tobacco products legally, we wouldn't allow them to buy drugs either. 18+ (or 21+, depending on where you are), just like cigarettes and alcohol. Legalize and control, remember?

Thats why America is so much different than other Nations and for a good reason. Here we are ready willing and able to fight and if nessicary die for ideas. Those ideas are important. Its not impossible, but its much harder to establish a police state when the military is devoted to the constitution, and not a particular party, or the country itself. No-where in the oath, (which I have taken) does it say you swear to defend a particular government or country. You swear to defend the US constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic.

I wouldn't say that makes you different from any other country look at Britain we swear an oath to the Queen who has to regulate parliament and such so that it doesn’t go mad (which is why the Queen isn’t allowed to state her political views)

Pretty much every country would die for there freedoms America isn’t so unique in that respect

well coffee is a legal drug I don't see many kids hopping round on that


actually caffine is the legal drug. not coffee.

You are not very bright, are you? Don't ever mistake protecting citizens from the police for anarchy. What you support is fascism pure and simple. I bet you just loved Hitler and Stalin.

Yeah he did, I have a picture of it.

Vinny: "Thomas Jefferson put that in the constitution"

D.A. :"He didn't put that in there for you!"

Vinny: "Yes he did. I'm exactly the guy he put it in for. I am the worst-case scenario of Thomas Jefferson's dream."

-My Blue Heaven

Lets say a guy kills your parents or children or whatever. The cops have a suspect who they are almost certain did it but when they go for a warrant and the judge asks them what they have to tie the suspect to the murder they realize that he commited a perfect crime, and they cant physically tie him to the murders. you would just sit back as the cops close the case? You cant tell me that you would let that guy go free just so that you dont infringe on his constitutional rights. If cops have probable cause, they should be allowed to investigate.

So there's no evidence to tie you mythical murder to him, only that they're "pretty sure". Yeah, let's convict him on that.

Glad you oppose the very principles of the constitution for you "safer society" where the police have effectively free reign.

Ever read John Adams?

Lets say a guy kills your parents or children or whatever. The cops have a suspect who they are almost certain did it but when they go for a warrant and the judge asks them what they have to tie the suspect to the murder they realize that he commited a perfect crime, and they cant physically tie him to the murders. you would just sit back as the cops close the case? You cant tell me that you would let that guy go free just so that you dont infringe on his constitutional rights. If cops have probable cause, they should be allowed to investigate.
If they have probable cause they can get a warrant. If they can't meet the requirements for a warrant the guy probably is innocent.

actually caffine is the legal drug. not coffee.

okay:

well caffine is a legal drug I don't see many kids hopping round on that

You'll get no argument from me there. Swedish is weird.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. :)

Yeah, lets legalize all drugs so that 5 year olds can run around on their first day of school on an acid trip. That might be fun.

Oh, look, a slippery slope!

LEts all slide down it!

I could have sworn they were dieing for their country, not for a piece of paper.
Just like soldiers from every other country do.

I'm not even sure that Americans are aware that it is quite possible to have a free country without the American Constitution, which apparently should have a marching band and lights from heaven show up every time it is uttered.

They were dieing for the ideals of the country. Their oath is to the COnstitution of the United States, not the United States.

We don't allow kids to buy tobacco products legally, we wouldn't allow them to buy drugs either. 18+ (or 21+, depending on where you are), just like cigarettes and alcohol. Legalize and control, remember?


Im just going to let you go on this drug thing. Its wrong, just plain wrong, morally and ethically. Drugs are discusting things that erode society and if you like that then fine.

Wow.
It took millions of American military dieing to finally subdue this crazy cop??

Yep.

Wow.
It took millions of American military dieing to finally subdue this crazy cop??
It's one example. The fact that it's such a minor example is testament to the strength of our constitution. Without it there could be checkpoints on any major road. They could yank people out of their cars with no probable cause, search the cars, search the people, and get away with it.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. :)

It keeps the monoglots at bay, at least.

Yeah, lets legalize all drugs so that 5 year olds can run around on their first day of school on an acid trip. That might be fun.
Do 5 year olds run around drunk smoking marlboros on their first day of school now?

Yeah, lets legalize all drugs so that 5 year olds can run around on their first day of school on an acid trip. That might be fun.

If you don't think 5 year olds on acid is fun, then you have no idea what fun is. :p

You are not very bright, are you? Don't ever mistake protecting citizens from the police for anarchy. What you support is fascism pure and simple. I bet you just loved Hitler and Stalin.



No this is nothing like facism. Utterly nothing like it. I have said i dont like random searches, but i have said that sometimes in very special cases it can be justified. like if you MURDER someone.


And goddamn you for saying that i support the personification of evil.

Im just going to let you go on this drug thing. Its wrong, just plain wrong, morally and ethically. Drugs are discusting things that erode society and if you like that then fine.

I don't like them. If there was some magical way to eradicate every gram of coke, heroin, speed, LSD and everything else people abuse forever, I'd be all in favour of it.

But we have to live in the real world, not fantasyland. The simple fact is that the war on drugs is causing most of the problems, not the drugs themselves. Without this modern Prohibition we wouldn't have drug gangs and cartels, we'd have half the prison population, and our streets would be safer. I don't want drugs. I want rationality.

Do 5 year olds run around drunk smoking marlboros on their first day of school now?


They get worse ever year...haha

No, not that. That your primary language class is named after your primary language. Shouldn't it just be called 'language'?

Here in Finland, Finnish is called in schools 'äidinkieli', which in English means 'native language', or literally, 'mother's tongue'. I agree with you, the Swedes are silly.:p

Back to the point of the thread...

Most of the time, rights tend to come together with duties. A government guarantees civil rights to the country's inhabitants, but expects the people to contribute to the country in a positive manner, such as obeying the laws the government has passed. Once an individual commits a crime, thus deciding that the duties don't apply to him, he also gives up his rights along with the duties. That's why in the old times, criminals were called 'outlaws'; people outside of the boundaries and protection of the law. Seriously, it's not that hard to just sit there and not commit a crime.

However, in America and other western societies, this matter is not that simple. The government has promised protection to the individuals, no matter what, in the constitution, and should be expected to stick to its word. The police officer broke that promise, and should be punished for it. He did it to capture a 'real' criminal, though, so some sort of slap on the wrists should be sufficient. Ends justify the means and so forth. Dismissing evidence on the grounds of them being acquired illegally is ridiculous, and the criminals should be punished nevertheless.

And please, people, stop painting images of police states where people are regularly searched just in case; this case will not lead to anything like that. As it implies in the original post, the police officer was quite sure the inhabitants of the house had drugs, but he just didn't have enough hard evidence to convince any judge to give him a warrant.

Give him a break; the American legislation makes police work hard enough as it is.

Thats why America is so much different than other Nations and for a good reason. Here we are ready willing and able to fight and if nessicary die for ideas. Those ideas are important. Its not impossible, but its much harder to establish a police state when the military is devoted to the constitution, and not a particular party, or the country itself. No-where in the oath, (which I have taken) does it say you swear to defend a particular government or country. You swear to defend the US constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic.


Americans are the only ones that actually think that America is any different in these areas.

I don't like them. If there was some magical way to eradicate every gram of coke, heroin, speed, LSD and everything else people abuse forever, I'd be all in favour of it.

But we have to live in the real world, not fantasyland. The simple fact is that the war on drugs is causing most of the problems, not the drugs themselves. Without this modern Prohibition we wouldn't have drug gangs and cartels, we'd have half the prison population, and our streets would be safer. I don't want drugs. I want rationality.


Yes, that makes sence, really im not being sarcastic. I see where you're coming from. BUT...you want rationality, and a rational person would see that the drug gangs would be gone drug smuggling would be gone but then you would have a full generation of people who are addicts. true, crime may stay up if we keep the restrictions, but its better to have a war on the problem, and have a fighting chance to finally eradicate drugs, then to have them dictate our lives.

Ends justify the means and so forth. Dismissing evidence on the grounds of them being acquired illegally is ridiculous

And you called Swedes silly...

It's one example. The fact that it's such a minor example is testament to the strength of our constitution. Without it there could be checkpoints on any major road. They could yank people out of their cars with no probable cause, search the cars, search the people, and get away with it.


/me looks over shoulders nervously

Wow, I don't have an American Constitution protecting me from these horrors, I must have just been incredibly lucky up to now.

No this is nothing like facism. Utterly nothing like it. I have said i dont like random searches, but i have said that sometimes in very special cases it can be justified. like if you MURDER someone.


And goddamn you for saying that i support the personification of evil.

You've equated wanting the police to follow the constitution and proper procedure to supporting crime in all its facets.

It is more beneficial that many guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should suffer because it is of more importance that innocence should be protected than it is that guilt should be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world that all of them cannot be punished and many times they happen in such a manner that it is not of much consequence to the public whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned the subject will exclaim " it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security". And if sucha a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject there would be an end to all security whatsoever.


Can you tell me who said that?

Yes, that makes sence, really im not being sarcastic. I see where you're coming from. BUT...you want rationality, and a rational person would see that the drug gangs would be gone drug smuggling would be gone but then you would have a full generation of people who are addicts. true, crime may stay up if we keep the restrictions, but its better to have a war on the problem, and have a fighting chance to finally eradicate drugs, then to have them dictate our lives.

And yet it isn't true w/ alcohol or tobacco. The "war" isn't fighting the problem at all.

Here in Finland, Finnish is called in schools 'äidinkieli', which in English means 'native language', or literally, 'mother's tongue'. I agree with you, the Swedes are silly.:p

Back to the point of the thread...

Most of the time, rights tend to come together with duties. A government guarantees civil rights to the country's inhabitants, but expects the people to contribute to the country in a positive manner, such as obeying the laws the government has passed. Once an individual commits a crime, thus deciding that the duties don't apply to him, he also gives up his rights along with the duties. That's why in the old times, criminals were called 'outlaws'; people outside of the boundaries and protection of the law. Seriously, it's not that hard to just sit there and not commit a crime.

However, in America and other western societies, this matter is not that simple. The government has promised protection to the individuals, no matter what, in the constitution, and should be expected to stick to its word. The police officer broke that promise, and should be punished for it. He did it to capture a 'real' criminal, though, so some sort of slap on the wrists should be sufficient. Ends justify the means and so forth. Dismissing evidence on the grounds of them being acquired illegally is ridiculous, and the criminals should be punished nevertheless.

And please, people, stop painting images of police states where people are regularly searched just in case; this case will not lead to anything like that. As it implies in the original post, the police officer was quite sure the inhabitants of the house had drugs, but he just didn't have enough hard evidence to convince any judge to give him a warrant.

Give him a break; the American legislation makes police work hard enough as it is.

In the US, a criminal is not a criminal until convicted of a crime. ANd certain rights can only be taken away temporarily until that time. Even then, there are specific rules regarding the suspension of those rights. Also, there are certain rights that cannot ever be taken away.

The police officer violated one of those rights. For the man in question to further be penalized for that violation would be further violation.

You are not very bright, are you? Don't ever mistake protecting citizens from the police for anarchy. What you support is fascism pure and simple. I bet you just loved Hitler and Stalin.


right there. he called me a nazi. He basically said i support the hollocaust. To me there are few insults greater.

And yet it isn't true w/ alcohol or tobacco. The "war" isn't fighting the problem at all.

Wars rarely do.

right there. he called me a nazi. He basically said i support the hollocaust. To me there are few insults greater.

You're really good at the game "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" aren't you?

/me looks over shoulders nervously

Wow, I don't have an American Constitution protecting me from these horrors, I must have just been incredibly lucky up to now.
You also probably don't have Bush's NSA trying to listen in on your phone. Our constitution combined with the Judicial branch of our government is putting a stop to that.

A cop who knew he couldn't get a warrant to search a house for drugs decided to knock on the door, tell the home owners that they'd been accused of sexual assault and asked if he could examine their bed for DNA evidence that might clear them. Since they didn't commit a sexual assault they let the cop in to help clear their names. The cop started poking around and found the drugs.

Without a warrant a cop can't search your house without your consent. By lying and getting consent for a totally different search I think the cop clearly violated that rule. It's similar to a gynecologist raping a patient. She gave consent for an examination, not sex. Basically the cop raped the 4th ammendment rights of these guys.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/NEWS01/608180418


The Fourth Amendment was violated.
Police are in every state I am aware of allowed to use reasonable deception when dealing with criminals--however since these people had not been charged and not in the commision of a crime they can not be treated as such.

He gained consent to enter the home, but if we consider the reason he was given permission it was clearly coercision--which means he forced the people in to violating their 5th amendment rights.

Now I have read people talk about how police need to gather evidence and what if it was killer and all that shit-----these people are idiots who have no concept what our rights exist for.

The 4th amendment means that apolice officer has to prove there is reasonable suspicion that he will find something that is evidence of a crime in your home--and he can not be vague about what that might be--in other words they have to be specific about where they are looking and whatthey are looking for.

It doesnt matter what the crime is, those rights are not just criminals rights they are MY rights and I would not see them violated for any reason.

Because if it can be done to them it can be done to you---period.

Nothing he found should be allowed into evidence and therefore they should have thier charges thrown out--not because it is right that they get away, but because the cop didnt do his job. Not only did he fail to do his job but he placed every single american in danger by further weakening the 4th amendment.

He would not have needed a search warrant with the new judgemetns handed down if he had even the remotest suspicion of crime where facts backed his ideas the fact he had to use guile demonstrates he had no right to be there.

Also one must keep in mind police are never trying to help you be innocent, that isnt their job.

Never let a police officer in your home, never, without a warrant.
They could tell me i was accused of raping babies and eating pre-schoolers and all they needed to do was step inside my front door for a second to prove me completely innocent--not coming in my house without a warrant.
I had charges being brought against me they would pick me up anyway, these people are obviously not criminals or they would have known how to deal with police.

I hope he gets fired --he wont--but I hope he does.

Yes, that makes sence, really im not being sarcastic. I see where you're coming from. BUT...you want rationality, and a rational person would see that the drug gangs would be gone drug smuggling would be gone but then you would have a full generation of people who are addicts. true, crime may stay up if we keep the restrictions, but its better to have a war on the problem, and have a fighting chance to finally eradicate drugs, then to have them dictate our lives.

I don't entirely agree with you - though your position isn't unreasonable. I don't believe drug use would skyrocket, for the following reaons:

History. Cocaine, Heroin and Hemp were widely available before their prohibition in the 1920s, and while they were used, their instances of abuse were vanishingly small. The worst instances of drug addiction were soldiers addicted to morphine after battle wounds, and we can handle that now.

The Thrill of the Forbidden. Half the allure of drugs stems from their very illegality - young people are attracted to them for the "cool factor" of defying parental/governmental authority. Remove that, and you remove much of the market.

The Lure of Money. Many kids get involved because of the money and the prestige it buys "gangstas". Without that, the gangs will fall back to what they once were - local problems, local losers.

It's always hard to prognosticate, but history is on my side for this. Did you know that liquor consumption dropped after alcohol prohibition was repealed?

right there. he called me a nazi. He basically said i support the hollocaust. To me there are few insults greater.


Yeah, slander isn't so fun when you're on the receiving end, is it? Think about that the next time you call some "pro-drugs" or "pro-crime" when what they really support is the rule of law.

right there. he called me a nazi. He basically said i support the hollocaust. To me there are few insults greater.
Facism is not Nazism, read a book.

However it is very scary to hear a police officer make a comment like "these days security is more important than freedoms" or "Liberty must take a back seat to saftey and security in these times." which I have heard not only on national television, but talking to police officers themselves. I was testifying as a witness in one case about child abuse a few weeks ago, (btw, I was going to beat the shit out of the guy who did it but he was in a wheelchair, but believe me had he continued after I got involved I still would've wheelchair or not) and I like the liazon officer with me really wanted to see this guy go down, but, the officer, during the whole procedure was complaining about the "criminal justice system" and how it should be replaced in these modern times. He didnt do anything illegal i assure you but just hearing a cop talk about how he wished he had the power to step on rights to punnish people kinda made me think.

In the US, a criminal is not a criminal until convicted of a crime. ANd certain rights can only be taken away temporarily until that time. Even then, there are specific rules regarding the suspension of those rights. Also, there are certain rights that cannot ever be taken away.

The police officer violated one of those rights. For the man in question to further be penalized for that violation would be further violation.

All rights are granted by governments, and therefore can be taken away by governments. Different thing is, whether it is wrong, immoral, or unacceptable. I fully support the idea of not throwing people into jail until it's proven beyond doubt that they really are guilty, but if a cop finds a load of drugs in a suspect's house, it's reasonable to assume that that person is guilty of possession of drugs. No, he shouldn't be convicted right then and there, but he shouldn't be defined as innocent either. I strongly support the legalization of common sense.

So are you saying that because a police officer made a mistake, that suddenly makes it legal for the other person to possess/distribute drugs?

Yeah, slander isn't so fun when you're on the receiving end, is it? Think about that the next time you call some "pro-drugs" or "pro-crime" when what they really support is the rule of law.

way to go dude, total burn. hehe.

All rights are granted by governments, and therefore can be taken away by governments. Different thing is, whether it is wrong, immoral, or unacceptable. I fully support the idea of not throwing people into jail until it's proven beyond doubt that they really are guilty, but if a cop finds a load of drugs in a suspect's house, it's reasonable to assume that that person is guilty of possession of drugs. No, he shouldn't be convicted right then and there, but he shouldn't be defined as innocent either. I strongly support the legalization of common sense.

So are you saying that because a police officer made a mistake, that suddenly makes it legal for the other person to possess/distribute drugs?

The government in the US does not have the right to take away rights. Becuase the government here is supposed to be for the people, and unless the people want certain rights taken away, it would be illegal for the government to do it on its own.

All rights are granted by governments, and therefore can be taken away by governments. Different thing is, whether it is wrong, immoral, or unacceptable. I fully support the idea of not throwing people into jail until it's proven beyond doubt that they really are guilty, but if a cop finds a load of drugs in a suspect's house, it's reasonable to assume that that person is guilty of possession of drugs. No, he shouldn't be convicted right then and there, but he shouldn't be defined as innocent either. I strongly support the legalization of common sense.

Being that your first sentance is completely wrong, the rest is just noise. Rights are not "granted" by gov'ts.

So are you saying that because a police officer made a mistake, that suddenly makes it legal for the other person to possess/distribute drugs?

And a false dichotomy to boot. In return, are you saying because there are crimes it is acceptable for the police to violate the rule of law in return?

The government in the US does not have the right to take away rights. Becuase the government here is supposed to be for the people, and unless the people want certain rights taken away, it would be illegal for the government to do it on its own.

Actually, the government of the US is chosen by the people, and therefore represents the will of the people. Right?

All rights are granted by governments, and therefore can be taken away by governments. Different thing is, whether it is wrong, immoral, or unacceptable. I fully support the idea of not throwing people into jail until it's proven beyond doubt that they really are guilty, but if a cop finds a load of drugs in a suspect's house, it's reasonable to assume that that person is guilty of possession of drugs. No, he shouldn't be convicted right then and there, but he shouldn't be defined as innocent either. I strongly support the legalization of common sense.

So are you saying that because a police officer made a mistake, that suddenly makes it legal for the other person to possess/distribute drugs?

The government derives it's power from the people The people grant themselves their rights. The government is merely there to protect them.

ANd no, I am not saying that the man has the right to sell/distribute drugs. In fact, I'm stunned at the olympic-caliber leap of logic it would take for you to think I would be. Because the police officer made a mistake, the evidence obtained should not be admissible in court. That's all. If the man is arrested, tried and convicted based on VALID evidence, I certainly have no problem with that. Hell, I would even support the gathering of VALID evidence obtained based on leads due to a police lying to 'unofficially' search his house. but the man has a RIGHT to be secure in his possessions and property UNTIL due process deprives them.

Actually, the government of the US is chosen by the people, and therefore represents the will of the people. Right?


Now you get to read up on rights.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/natrlrig.html

All rights are granted by governments, and therefore can be taken away by governments. Different thing is, whether it is wrong, immoral, or unacceptable. I fully support the idea of not throwing people into jail until it's proven beyond doubt that they really are guilty, but if a cop finds a load of drugs in a suspect's house, it's reasonable to assume that that person is guilty of possession of drugs. No, he shouldn't be convicted right then and there, but he shouldn't be defined as innocent either. I strongly support the legalization of common sense.

So are you saying that because a police officer made a mistake, that suddenly makes it legal for the other person to possess/distribute drugs?
If you are United States citizen and posted this you are an idiot who shouldnt comment on anything other then the slobber running down your chin.

If you live outside the states,
Certain ringhts in the United States ..I belive the French adopted this concept as well... are deemed beyond the right of the Government to infringe.
That being said Search and Siezure is not one of those rights.
However, it does take an act of congress to side step the rights that are not considered "God Given" or "Inalienable" what these rights are does differ slightly depending on what Naion you are in but most western nation do subscribe to the "Inalienable Rights" concept. SO I must presume you are from a none western state.

And yes it is exactly the point that because the officer failed to execute his job as it is supposed to be, he did not make a "mistake" he willingly violated rights he has been clearly educated on. The evidence he aquired was gained illegally and therefore it can be considered in the judgement of these people---in short, read a book.

Your concept of common sense is laughable. You would make Orwell cry.

Actually, the government of the US is chosen by the people, and therefore represents the will of the people. Right?

Yes, and if at ANY point the the people believe that the government no longer respects the will of the people, the people have "the right of revolution" (second amendment) to overthrow that government, and replace it with a more compotent one.

I believe that is the biggest difference between America and the rest of the world, given the circumstances, we have the "right" to revolt. But I also believe that is a human right.

Being that your first sentance is completely wrong, the rest is just noise. Rights are not "granted" by gov'ts.



And a false dichotomy to boot. In return, are you saying because there are crimes it is acceptable for the police to violate the rule of law in return?

Hmm? Give me some examples of civil rights that are granted by/received from someone other than a government.

If the American government decides to remove the 4th amendment from the constitution for some reason, then the rights it defines cease to apply. But until that happens, the amendment is a promise to the people and a law to be followed. I never said it was acceptable for an American police officer to break the law.
Did the police officer break the 4th amendment? Yes.
Does he deserve to be punished? Yes.
Did the other person break drug laws? Yes.
Does he deserve to be punished? Yes.

I merely said that the officer's crime was done for the good of the community, and that should be taken into account.

Yes, and if at ANY point the the people believe that the government no longer respects the will of the people, the people have "the right of revolution" (second amendment) to overthrow that government, and replace it with a more compotent one.

No, that isn't the Second AMendment. Revolution is protected by the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Second Amendment simply guarantees the means for the people to protect themselves from despotism.

Yes, and if at ANY point the the people believe that the government no longer respects the will of the people, the people have "the right of revolution" (second amendment) to overthrow that government, and replace it with a more compotent one.

I believe that is the biggest difference between America and the rest of the world, given the circumstances, we have the "right" to revolt. But I also believe that is a human right.

Yes. Thank god at least we agree on some level; I'm getting more replies than I can answer.

Wait, you're keeping secrets from us? I think it might be time to liberate Sweden. I suspect Saddam's WMD are hiding out there.

No, no, like this. Sweden, you're suspected of sex crimes. Can you let us in so we can find some DNA evidence to clear you?

Hmm? Give me some examples of civil rights that are granted by/received from someone other than a government.

So what you're saying is that you didn't even bother reading the source on natural rights. Gotcha. You should try reading the Finnish constitution. No "granting" there either, just guaranteeing.

Press, religion, speech, privacy.....

If the American government decides to remove the 4th amendment from the constitution for some reason, then the rights it defines cease to apply.

And since the gov't can't do that anyway...

The right doesn't "cease to apply". Not the way it works.
But until that happens, the amendment is a promise to the people and a law to be followed. I never said it was acceptable for an American police officer to break the law.
Did the police officer break the 4th amendment? Yes.
Does he deserve to be punished? Yes.
Did the other person break drug laws? Yes.
Does he deserve to be punished? Yes.

I merely said that the officer's crime was done for the good of the community, and that should be taken into account.

Sure it should. But that doesn't mean that the evidence can be admitted into court. That whole "rule of law" thing again.

If you are United States citizen and posted this you are an idiot who shouldnt comment on anything other then the slobber running down your chin.

If you live outside the states,
Certain ringhts in the United States ..I belive the French adopted this concept as well... are deemed beyond the right of the Government to infringe.
That being said Search and Siezure is not one of those rights.
However, it does take an act of congress to side step the rights that are not considered "God Given" or "Inalienable" what these rights are does differ slightly depending on what Naion you are in but most western nation do subscribe to the "Inalienable Rights" concept. SO I must presume you are from a none western state.

And yes it is exactly the point that because the officer failed to execute his job as it is supposed to be, he did not make a "mistake" he willingly violated rights he has been clearly educated on. The evidence he aquired was gained illegally and therefore it can be considered in the judgement of these people---in short, read a book.

Your concept of common sense is laughable. You would make Orwell cry.

I'm from Finland, which, while not being in America, is a western state.

Anyway... You believe in that 'natural rights' -ideology. I don't, and I don't think we can convert each other. If we lived in a total anarchy, and you wanted to kill me, would I have some sort of God-given right to not be killed? I don't think so. Of course if you did it, you'd be a complete prick, but there wouldn't be any repercussions (except from God, who might or might not have granted me the right to not be murdered, or from my vengeful family).

In my opinion, a bag of dope is a bag of dope, no matter how it was found. I know that according to the current legislation you are right; I'm just telling in what way I think justice would be best served. If you have drugs, you are guilty of drug possession, period.

So what you're saying is that you didn't even bother reading the source on natural rights. Gotcha. You should try reading the Finnish constitution. No "granting" there either, just guaranteeing.

Press, religion, speech, privacy.....



And since the gov't can't do that anyway...

The right doesn't "cease to apply". Not the way it works.


Sure it should. But that doesn't mean that the evidence can be admitted into court. That whole "rule of law" thing again.


Actually I posted that before I got your post with the link. I have read it now, thank you. I still don't agree with it though. And granting and guaranteeing, I think, are in this context pretty much the same thing. I'm sure you know that there are many countries in the world where the government doesn't allow people to have any of those rights you mentioned. My choices of words are not always the best possible ones, but you must agree that in the end it's the goverment that decides what people are and are not allowed to do.

The evidence can't be admitted according to the current legislation. But it should, that's my point.

You also probably don't have Bush's NSA trying to listen in on your phone. Our constitution combined with the Judicial branch of our government is putting a stop to that.


I think you've lost the point.

Americans revere their Constitution unecessarily as seen in the "wipe their ass with the Constitution that millions died for" comment made earlier. Americans believe that somehow their Constitution that makes them special which is bizarre since other countries are just as free or more so without it.

No this is nothing like facism. Utterly nothing like it. I have said i dont like random searches, but i have said that sometimes in very special cases it can be justified. like if you MURDER someone.

Who decides if it's a "special" case?

I think you've lost the point.

Americans revere their Constitution unecessarily as seen in the "wipe their ass with the Constitution that millions died for" comment made earlier. Americans believe that somehow their Constitution that makes them special which is bizarre since other countries are just as free or more so without it.
You're missing the point. The constitution guarantees those freedoms. It limits the governmnet's power to eliminate those freedoms.

No this is nothing like facism. Utterly nothing like it. I have said i dont like random searches, but i have said that sometimes in very special cases it can be justified. like if you MURDER someone.

Doesn't work. To justify that you'd have to prove that they murdered someone before performing the search. So then you wouldn't need to search their home anyways.

I think you've lost the point.

Americans revere their Constitution unecessarily as seen in the "wipe their ass with the Constitution that millions died for" comment made earlier. Americans believe that somehow their Constitution that makes them special which is bizarre since other countries are just as free or more so without it.

How many countries can say that their government exists to protect their freedoms? How many have that in writing?

All rights are granted by governments, and therefore can be taken away by governments. Different thing is, whether it is wrong, immoral, or unacceptable. I fully support the idea of not throwing people into jail until it's proven beyond doubt that they really are guilty, but if a cop finds a load of drugs in a suspect's house, it's reasonable to assume that that person is guilty of possession of drugs. No, he shouldn't be convicted right then and there, but he shouldn't be defined as innocent either. I strongly support the legalization of common sense.

So are you saying that because a police officer made a mistake, that suddenly makes it legal for the other person to possess/distribute drugs?


From what it says in the article, the officer didn't "make a mistake", it was a premeditated illegal search and seizure.

From what it says in the article, the officer didn't "make a mistake", it was a premeditated illegal search and seizure.

Sorry. I didn't mean mistake as in "oops, how the hell did that happen?" I meant more like "now that I think about it, it wasn't such a great idea after all." I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Sorry. I didn't mean mistake as in "oops, how the hell did that happen?" I meant more like "now that I think about it, it wasn't such a great idea after all." I'll try to be more clear in the future.


OK, gotcha. np.

Yeah, lets legalize all drugs so that 5 year olds can run around on their first day of school on an acid trip. That might be fun.

It is far easier for children to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get the legal ones, such as alcohol and tobacco.
If a liquor store owner or a tobacco shop owner sells to children he faces fines, the loss of his license and possible jail time.
Because drugs such as cannabis are already illegal selling to ANYONE and getting caught results in arrest.

By legalizing "soft" drugs and regulating their sale it would make it more difficult for children to obtain them.

Plus the money that is now going to violent drug gangs could go to legitimate businesses and these substances could be taxed.

Perhaps a portion of the tax revenue could be used to treat people addicted to hard drugs?

How many countries can say that their government exists to protect their freedoms? How many have that in writing?

What do you imagine all the other governments are doing?
Especially in places like:

Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kiribati
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
Uruguay


All of these countries rank as free the the US according to Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World survey.
They do it without the American Constitution too.

We have a constitution here too and embedded in it is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all in writing, that the gov't must protect.

You're productive and powerful in economy and military and also in culture.
Regardless, America is just one of many free nations and your constant self praising of your Constitution is as grating as the parent that constantly natters on about how their entirely average child is the most special creature gifted to the rest of us to behold.

A cop who knew he couldn't get a warrant to search a house for drugs decided to knock on the door, tell the home owners that they'd been accused of sexual assault and asked if he could examine their bed for DNA evidence that might clear them. Since they didn't commit a sexual assault they let the cop in to help clear their names. The cop started poking around and found the drugs.

Without a warrant a cop can't search your house without your consent. By lying and getting consent for a totally different search I think the cop clearly violated that rule. It's similar to a gynecologist raping a patient. She gave consent for an examination, not sex. Basically the cop raped the 4th ammendment rights of these guys.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/NEWS01/608180418
Thats gay.

Thats gay.

LOL, you just ended the entire discussion :D

What do you imagine all the other governments are doing?
Especially in places like:

Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kiribati
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
Uruguay


All of these countries rank as free the the US according to Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World survey.
They do it without the American Constitution too.

We have a constitution here too and embedded in it is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all in writing, that the gov't must protect.

You're productive and powerful in economy and military and also in culture.
Regardless, America is just one of many free nations and your constant self praising of your Constitution is as grating as the parent that constantly natters on about how their entirely average child is the most special creature gifted to the rest of us to behold.And your criticism is a load of douchebaggery. Nobody here is comparing the USA to those other nations. We are only speaking for ourselves. To us the constitution is sacred because it's the document that guarantees our freedom and places limits on our government. We have a right to hold it in high esteem. Nobody came here to say other countries suck because they dont' use the US constitution. You just seem to have a problem with Americans respecting the document upon which our nation is based.

I read this twice, and I don't think the policeman violated any law.

Underhanded? Yes
Disturbing? Yes
Despicable? Absolutely
Illegal? I don't think so.

Giving permission to search your residence or your belongings allows the police to request prosecution for anything that they find. There was no warrant, so the people at the residence could have still said no, and the officer could not have searched their residence.

This is why you should always, always wait for a warrant. Once the warrant has been issued for a particular item or type of evidence, then anything else found during the search is inadmissable except as to how it relates to crime in question.

And your criticism is a load of douchebaggery. Nobody here is comparing the USA to those other nations. We are only speaking for ourselves. To us the constitution is sacred because it's the document that guarantees our freedom and places limits on our government. We have a right to hold it in high esteem. Nobody came here to say other countries suck because they dont' use the US constitution. You just seem to have a problem with Americans respecting the document upon which our nation is based.

Lunatic Goofballs asked what other countries have it writing.
He made the comparison to others.

I don't have any problem with Americans respecting their constitution. It's a pretty good document for being over 200 years old.
It's just nauseating to hear about it over and over as if we all don't have similar documents.

I read this twice, and I don't think the policeman violated any law.

Underhanded? Yes
Disturbing? Yes
Despicable? Absolutely
Illegal? I don't think so.

Giving permission to search your residence or your belongings allows the police to request prosecution for anything that they find. There was no warrant, so the people at the residence could have still said no, and the officer could not have searched their residence.

This is why you should always, always wait for a warrant. Once the warrant has been issued for a particular item or type of evidence, then anything else found during the search is inadmissable except as to how it relates to crime in question.

The problem is, however, they only gave him consent to look at their bed. SO, if the police officer/ detective found the drugs anywhere else (even in their bedroom) it isn't admissable in court.

The evidence won't stand up in court.

The evidence won't stand up in court.
Even still the cops are going to watch this guy like a hawk. Assuming he is a drug dealer then nobody is ever going to buy from him again, nor would anyone sell to him. He might get away without punishment(which is the cop's own fault) but he won't be offending again, and if he does he'll be arrested before he can think.

Lunatic Goofballs asked what other countries have it writing.
He made the comparison to others.

I don't have any problem with Americans respecting their constitution. It's a pretty good document for being over 200 years old.
It's just nauseating to hear about it over and over as if we all don't have similar documents.

That's true. I did. Perhaps I went a bit over the top. On the other hand, how many of those documents were based on the example of the U.S. Constitution? I'm willing to wager more than a few.

What about yours? What historical document limits government in your country?

Again you are only helping the murders and rapists when you try to block the people who are there to stop them. Its really disgusting how some people are so naive that they dont realize that without the police they might not exist right now, without the police and their searches america would be an anarchy state. Maybe not full anarchy but that whole 20's mob thing, would still be around.

And you like drugs, wow, you like drugs. What kind of sick fuck are you? I cant even think of a way to try to explain to you the real story here. Im just going to let you go on with your life not caring. If your that far to the left you're never going change your views. Not worth my time.

If you can't see that the law should not be broken by agents of the law, I suggest you're the one who has the problem.

If you can't see that the law should not be broken by agents of the law, I suggest you're the one who has the problem.
now what law was broken?

I do realize that alot of facts are missing... such as were the drugs out in plain sight or did he have to open drawers to get to them.

too little info to make a case, but the officer did ask to search the house and the man did say ok.

What do you imagine all the other governments are doing?
Especially in places like:

Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kiribati
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
Uruguay


All of these countries rank as free the the US according to Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World survey.
They do it without the American Constitution too.

We have a constitution here too and embedded in it is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all in writing, that the gov't must protect.

You're productive and powerful in economy and military and also in culture.
Regardless, America is just one of many free nations and your constant self praising of your Constitution is as grating as the parent that constantly natters on about how their entirely average child is the most special creature gifted to the rest of us to behold.


Please don't let your bias against America blind you to the point that an American cop violated the American constitution and that is what the topic is about.

Yeah, lets legalize all drugs so that 5 year olds can run around on their first day of school on an acid trip. That might be fun.

Just like the five year olds running around drunk because alchohol is leagal . . .

That's true. I did. Perhaps I went a bit over the top. On the other hand, how many of those documents were based on the example of the U.S. Constitution? I'm willing to wager more than a few.

What about yours? What historical document limits government in your country?


We have a Constitution also, but we typically put more stock in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Please don't let your bias against America blind you to the point that an American cop violated the American constitution and that is what the topic is about.


I don't have a bias against America, I'm generally a supporter of America. The anti-America rant was tangental to the thread and limited to the ego-centric way too many Americans view the world.

I'm not convinced though that the American Cop violated the American constitution.
He asked for and obtained permission before entering and searching.
If they had denied permission and he burst in or snuck in then sure, he violated it.

No this is nothing like facism. Utterly nothing like it. I have said i dont like random searches, but i have said that sometimes in very special cases it can be justified. like if you MURDER someone.


And goddamn you for saying that i support the personification of evil.

There is no justification for violating the Constitution, and if you are, as I suspect, military , you swore an oath to defend it. Your comments indicate that you don't take it seriously and, more, you don't understand what you're defending..

We live under the rule of law - this includes the police. To say that the police can, under certain circumstances, ignore the law, is anarchic.

right there. he called me a nazi. He basically said i support the hollocaust. To me there are few insults greater.

I did not say that you supported the holocaust, I said you were stupid.

This reads too much like 'Silence of the Lambs' (the movie version) when Clarice Stirling accidentally walks into the home of Buffalo Bill while looking for information related to his case. Creepy. Only the cop did it delibrately.

If the officer had used a more legitimate approach this wouldn't have put the case in jerpoady.

this reminds me of an RPG session I had. One of us was a rouge cop. one who operated on both sides of the law...

so he needed to check out a suspects home... he walked by the house... then with a look of concerned, he walked up to the door... and kicked it in. then he picks up his radio and calls HQ.
"uh, I just came across a home. there's evidence of a break in, going to investigate."
He looked around, and honestly reported that "it appears nothing was stolen, could've been vandals..."

the rest of us were laughing at the GM's face as she tried to figure out a way to hang him for what he did.

There is no justification for violating the Constitution, and if you are, as I suspect, military , you swore an oath to defend it. Your comments indicate that you don't take it seriously and, more, you don't understand what you're defending..

We live under the rule of law - this includes the police. To say that the police can, under certain circumstances, ignore the law, is anarchic.


Not to mention unpatriotic.

Facism is not Nazism, read a book.


Umm duh, the man said i supported hitler. Therefore he called me a nazi. I'm not dumb enough to think facism and nazism are the same. Maybe you should read what people post a little bit better.

Umm duh, the man said i supported hitler. Therefore he called me a nazi. I'm not dumb enough to think facism and nazism are the same. Maybe you should read what people post a little bit better.

As should you. And, btw, logic does not seem to be your strong suit, neither do you seem to be able to recognize sarcasm when it bites you. Oh, and I believe Stalin was also mentioned in my post.

And, for the record, I'm a woman.

Lets say a guy kills your parents or children or whatever. The cops have a suspect who they are almost certain did it but when they go for a warrant and the judge asks them what they have to tie the suspect to the murder they realize that he commited a perfect crime, and they cant physically tie him to the murders. .

Pray tell, how can you be "almost certain" he did it, without any apparent evidence he did it?

Either you have evidence to base your conclusion on, or you have nothing to base your conclusion on.

You can't be "almost certain" someone did ANYTHING, without evidence that he did it. Either you have evidence with which you draw your conclusions, or you don't.

you would just sit back as the cops close the case?

No, I would want them to do their jobs, and find evidence.

You cant tell me that you would let that guy go free just so that you dont infringe on his constitutional rights.

If you gather evidence in violation of the constitution, then he's going free one way or the other.

If cops have probable cause, they should be allowed to investigate

If cops have probable cause, then cops have a warrant. What do you think you need to GET a warrant anyway? Probable cause is, by definition, exactly what they need.

If they have enough for probable cause, they have enough to get a warrant.

Umm duh, the man said i supported hitler. Therefore he called me a nazi. I'm not dumb enough to think facism and nazism are the same. Maybe you should read what people post a little bit better.

Before you attack others like that, maybe you should try reading what was posted. A-SD did not call you a Nazi, or say you supported Hitler. A-SD said, and I quote:

You are not very bright, are you? Don't ever mistake protecting citizens from the police for anarchy. What you support is fascism pure and simple. I bet you just loved Hitler and Stalin.

Therefore, this court rules you were called an idiot, as the defense claims. Court dismissed!

And since the gov't can't do that anyway...


Last time I checked, 3/4 of the state legislatures can add an amendment to the constitution that would make the 4th null and void.

/me looks over shoulders nervously

Wow, I don't have an American Constitution protecting me from these horrors, I must have just been incredibly lucky up to now.

Then you have your own nation's constitution/national law.

The only thing stopping the AMERICAN government from doing that in AMERICA is the supreme law of the land which stops them.

Other nation's have their own equivilants, this is not to say that any nation that does not have a carbon copy of our constitution can fall into a police state. They can have their own. However without SOME legal regime to prevent the government from taking these actions...there would be nothing to stop them from taking these actions.

If the cop didn't have a warrent for the drugs and lied to get inside with the sex crime ruse then it was the owners of the home who are to blame. The cop certainly didn't have a warrent for the ficticious charge so the owners could have refused to let him enter. I'm sure the charges will be dismissed but since the owners consented then the 4th amendment doesn't apply.

If the cop didn't have a warrent for the drugs and lied to get inside with the sex crime ruse then it was the owners of the home who are to blame. The cop certainly didn't have a warrent for the ficticious charge so the owners could have refused to let him enter. I'm sure the charges will be dismissed but since the owners consented then the 4th amendment doesn't apply.

Not that simple. Although the police are allowed to trick you, be duplicitus, manipulative, and mean, they are NOT allowed to deceive you of your rights. No matter how tricky and sneaky a cop can be, he can NEVER tell you "you can't have a lawyer", he can NEVER tell you "if you confess we'll take 5 years off your sentence", he can NEVER tell you "we're not going to arrest you if you just tell us what happened".

The police can not lie about your rights. The question is if this was a de facto lie, by creating a situation in which the individual did not believe he should exercise them.

Not that simple. Although the police are allowed to trick you, be duplicitus, manipulative, and mean, they are NOT allowed to deceive you of your rights. No matter how tricky and sneaky a cop can be, he can NEVER tell you "you can't have a lawyer", he can NEVER tell you "if you confess we'll take 5 years off your sentence", he can NEVER tell you "we're not going to arrest you if you just tell us what happened".

The police can not lie about your rights. The question is if this was a de facto lie, by creating a situation in which the individual did not believe he should exercise them.

All he did was say they were accused of a crime and he wanted to clear them of it. Right there the owners should know it was bullshit and refused him entry. They didn't, so the cop under regualar circumstances could search freely. Since he used the ruse to search for something different a judge could dismiss it though. From what I read he never said "you have to let me in". From what I notice the law varies depending on where you are even with a warrant. Some specifically limit whats on the warrant to be searched for, others may say that even if the cops searched for weapons and found drugs, then you could still be charged for the drugs. Thinking about this further I really don't see a problem.

Some specifically limit whats on the warrant to be searched for, others may say that even if the cops searched for weapons and found drugs, then you could still be charged for the drugs. Thinking about this further I really don't see a problem.

That is incorrect. The 4th amendment (and by extention, the 14th) applies uniformly through the nation, it does not vary, and does not change by region.

What the ACTUAL law is this:

1) the warrant must describe the places to be searched, and what they are searching for

2) the search must be limited only to those places where one could find what you are searching for (no searching for that stolen car in the closet for example)

3) evidence of another crime found while conducting a legitimate search is grounds (if you search the garage for a stole car and find a dead body, that's legitimate, if in the search for the stolen car you open the closet and find the dead body, that is not).

4) anything in "plain sight" is also valid.

The laws are uniform, the warrant must describe what you are looking for, and where you are looking for it. You can not search any place that could not contain what you are searching for, nor search any areas beyond the scope of the warrant. If while you conduct that search you find other stuff...ok. However if you deviate and find stuff, then that is right out. Only things found in the process of a LEGITIMITE search is valid.

And that does NOT vary at all, it is national.

All he did was say they were accused of a crime and he wanted to clear them of it. Right there the owners should know it was bullshit and refused him entry. They didn't, so the cop under regualar circumstances could search freely.

No, actually, it doesn't. If I give you consent to search my front left pocket of my pants it does not give you permission to search my front right pocket, any of my back pockets, my shoes, or my wallet.

If they consented to a search of areas that yielded dna evidence, and the cop went beyond that, then it went beyond the terms.

No, actually, it doesn't. If I give you consent to search my front left pocket of my pants it does not give you permission to search my front right pocket, any of my back pockets, my shoes, or my wallet.

If they consented to a search of areas that yielded dna evidence, and the cop went beyond that, then it went beyond the terms.

Okay, if he was specifically given consent only to search in a specific area than I can see that, though I don't know what happened in that house to say they did specify.

As for the earlier post, it seems from all the news I've seen that judges can give differing opinions on what scope a warrant covers. All the years of precedent makes things complicated regardless of what should be a simple matter.

Then you have your own nation's constitution/national law.

The only thing stopping the AMERICAN government from doing that in AMERICA is the supreme law of the land which stops them.

Other nation's have their own equivilants, this is not to say that any nation that does not have a carbon copy of our constitution can fall into a police state. They can have their own. However without SOME legal regime to prevent the government from taking these actions...there would be nothing to stop them from taking these actions.


All very true.
I can only agree with you.

To all those who voted for a Tougher, Straighter America and a certifiably incompetent welfare-recepient fratboy:

Welcome to the Kingdom of Gilead on the continent of Oceania. Nice bed you folks made, enjoy laying in it.

Thats the point, they won't let him.

However, if there was a seriel killer on the loose and the only way to save countless lives was to enter his house with false warrent then i think it may be worth it. I don't expect anyother cops to copy him as it would be on such an extremely rare occasion, and even if they do the constitution can be
reinforced.
And then what if all the evidence garnered by the false-pretence search is thrown out because it's unconstitutional?
Your way would have just allowed a serial killer to walk away scot-free.

Is that what you really want?

Seriously though, do you people expect police to be totaly honest with all criminals? When performing a drug raid, should they knock on the door and ask politely to be let in first? Phone ahead to make an appointment, maybe?
No. I expect them to get enough cause to be able to obtain a warrant before busting into someone's house.
Y'know, like it says in the constitution.

Though the cop clearly did violate thier amendment rights by using false pretences to gain concent to enter he on the other hand had clear proven knowledge of them being drug distributers
and by lying to bust them he really did do more harm then good by removing drug dealers from the area
so I think that although he went about it the wrong way he still did what was right by any means neccasary

but I do not condone the violation of any constitutional rights hence he should be given the maximum sentance and have his badge removed in disgrace.

Though the cop clearly did violate thier amendment rights by using false pretences to gain concent to enter he on the other hand had clear proven knowledge of them being drug distributers
and by lying to bust them he really did do more harm then good by removing drug dealers from the area
Man, you call two guys with 3grams of coke and an ounce of dope 'drug dealers'?

Obviously doesn't take much to get you high, does it?


Also, he didn't have 'clear proven knowledge' of their activities. If he had, he could have obtained a warrant. Even he said he didn't have enough proof.

the first post which started it mentioned nothing of how much only that it was about "drug dealers"
and it mentioned that he had forehand knowledge of them "selling" drugs
and for the record I do not do drugs in any way shape or form