A Man's Home is NOT His Castle

[BigKahuna13]

....or so says the current Supreme Court in the Hudson v. Michigan decision. Used to be that the police had to knock on your door, announce themselves and wait 10 or 15 seconds for you to open up, before executing a seach warrant. If they didn't any evidence gathered was usually suppressed. Now, as long as they have a search warrant, they can take a battering ram to your front door.

Scalia, being his typical disingenuous self, admitted that the police clearly violated Hudson's 4th amendment rights but that suppressing the evidence was too high a penalty for the police to pay for doing that. You have to wonder what he thinks a appropriate remedy, that would keep the police from violating citizens' Constitutional rights, would be. Maybe being sent to bed without dinner.

And so continues the slide towards totalitarianism.........

[Dr. NO]

....or so says the current Supreme Court in the Hudson v. Michigan decision. Used to be that the police had to knock on your door, announce themselves and wait 10 or 15 seconds for you to open up, before executing a seach warrant. If they didn't any evidence gathered was usually suppressed. Now, as long as they have a search warrant, they can take a battering ram to your front door.

Scalia, being his typical disingenuous self, admitted that the police clearly violated Hudson's 4th amendment rights but that suppressing the evidence was too high a penalty for the police to pay for doing that. You have to wonder what he thinks a appropriate remedy, that would keep the police from violating citizens' Constitutional rights, would be. Maybe being sent to bed without dinner.

And so continues the slide towards totalitarianism.........

You need to go back and read the complaint and the judgement. It was not a problem for the cops to knock in the door of a suspected criminal prior to the ruling, but previous rulings stated that under that circumstance, evidence collected could not be used. Never was it said they could not use the tactic. Yesterday's ruling stated that they COULD use evidence obtained with the break in method provided they had a valid search warrent prior to the break in.

Don't fully agree with the ruling, but that is what it was.

[Bubba]

....

And so continues the slide towards totalitarianism.........

You seem to think that we are sliding toward totalitarianism when, in fact, we are sliding backward toward where we were prior to earlier Supreme Court decisions. We were not a totalitarian state then...were we?

I'm not defending the decision - I read about it this morning and clearly have issues with it. I just don't think your conclusion is necessarily correct.

[BigKahuna13]

....or so says the current Supreme Court in the Hudson v. Michigan decision. Used to be that the police had to knock on your door, announce themselves and wait 10 or 15 seconds for you to open up, before executing a seach warrant. If they didn't any evidence gathered was usually suppressed. Now, as long as they have a search warrant, they can take a battering ram to your front door.

Scalia, being his typical disingenuous self, admitted that the police clearly violated Hudson's 4th amendment rights but that suppressing the evidence was too high a penalty for the police to pay for doing that. You have to wonder what he thinks a appropriate remedy, that would keep the police from violating citizens' Constitutional rights, would be. Maybe being sent to bed without dinner.

And so continues the slide towards totalitarianism.........

You need to go back and read the complaint and the judgement. It was not a problem for the cops to knock in the door of a suspected criminal prior to the ruling, but previous rulings stated that under that circumstance, evidence collected could not be used. Never was it said they could not use the tactic. Yesterday's ruling stated that they COULD use evidence obtained with the break in method provided they had a valid search warrent prior to the break in.

Don't fully agree with the ruling, but that is what it was.

Uh Doc that's what I said. See bolded sentence.

You seem to think that we are sliding toward totalitarianism when, in fact, we are sliding backward toward where we were prior to earlier Supreme Court decisions. We were not a totalitarian state then...were we?

No we weren't. My totalitarian comment is aimed the whole host of recent developments, of which this is the latest example, whereby privacy rights are violated, an executive branch acts as if it were imperial, a moribund legislature.

[Bubba]

You seem to think that we are sliding toward totalitarianism when, in fact, we are sliding backward toward where we were prior to earlier Supreme Court decisions. We were not a totalitarian state then...were we?

No we weren't. My totalitarian comment is aimed the whole host of recent developments, of which this is the latest example, whereby privacy rights are violated, an executive branch acts as if it were imperial, a moribund legislature.

I just think it's an unnecessarily extreme usage of language. The court has reversed an earlier decision, without explicitly saying so (at least according to the article I read), and we've seen this before. In fact, we've often seen an imperial presidency and a moribund legislature. It's one of many cycles in our history.

As for privacy rights, whether criminal related or other, before decisions like Miranda, Roe (and the precursor to Roe on privacy - I can't think of the case) we had many fewer protections than we have today. The pendulum swings.....

[BigKahuna13]

You seem to think that we are sliding toward totalitarianism when, in fact, we are sliding backward toward where we were prior to earlier Supreme Court decisions. We were not a totalitarian state then...were we?

No we weren't. My totalitarian comment is aimed the whole host of recent developments, of which this is the latest example, whereby privacy rights are violated, an executive branch acts as if it were imperial, a moribund legislature.

I just think it's an unnecessarily extreme usage of language. The court has reversed an earlier decision, without explicitly saying so (at least according to the article I read), and we've seen this before. In fact, we've often seen an imperial presidency and a moribund legislature. It's one of many cycles in our history.

As for privacy rights, whether criminal related or other, before decisions like Miranda, Roe (and the precursor to Roe on privacy - I can't think of the case) we had many fewer protections than we have today. The pendulum swings.....

Maybe it is - an unwarrantedly extreme use of language, but the way this adminstration plays fast and loose with the rules and way Congress just lets them bothers me - alot. Especially Mr. Bush's (mis) conception of how much power he really has.

[yeti]

Only a couple of years left....