Am I the only one that still likes Bush? (The President)

[Nightingale 0]

Standing inside a doorway in full view of an officer would fall under "plain view" exception. "Police officers do not need a warrant to search and seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer has a right to be where the evidence or contraband is first spotted. For instance, the police may search for and seize marijuana growing outdoors if they first spot the marijuana from an airplane or helicopter, since the marijuana is deemed to be in plain view"

So, if the officer has a right to be on your front porch, and you're standing just inside the doorway blowing smoke in his face, he can come in and seize the evidence.

"Evidence of a crime may be seized without a warrant under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. To rely on this exception, the officer must be in a lawful position to observe the evidence, and its incriminating character must be immediately apparent." See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Before you calling bull and spouting off when you have no education in the law, research or ask someone first.

I'm not a lawyer, but I sure know a hell of a lot more than the average person...and in this case, apparently more than you too. I have the education, you don't...or so it seems from your baseless arguments.

Quote

I didn;t write that they could kick down your door

Ok, sorry for making an incorrect assumption...

Quote

There was a Texas case about 5 years ago where a guy had some drugs in plain view, the cops walked up and saw it, they then crossed the doorway, I think the door was open or unlocked, and they entered, removed all people from the house, they then secured the door and obained a warrant.

Absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act first of all (which is what we were discussing), and secondly, if LE officers have probable cause (e.g. see some dude toking up in his open doorway or think a driver may have drugs in his car b/c the guy is acting all kinds of weird), then they have the right to go into the house, car, etc. and do whatever they need to do to stabilize the situation and then get a warrant. That's been law for fucking ever...nothing new about that one.

So it still stands...complete bull shit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Before you calling bull and spouting off when you have no education in the law, research or ask someone first.

I'm not a lawyer, but I sure know a hell of a lot more than the average person...and in this case, apparently more than you too. I have the education, you don't...or so it seems from your baseless arguments.

Quote

I didn;t write that they could kick down your door

Ok, sorry for making an incorrect assumption...

Quote

There was a Texas case about 5 years ago where a guy had some drugs in plain view, the cops walked up and saw it, they then crossed the doorway, I think the door was open or unlocked, and they entered, removed all people from the house, they then secured the door and obained a warrant.

Absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act first of all (which is what we were discussing), and secondly, if LE officers have probable cause (e.g. see some dude toking up in his open doorway or think a driver may have drugs in his car b/c the guy is acting all kinds of weird), then they have the right to go into the house, car, etc. and do whatever they need to do to stabilize the situation and then get a warrant. That's been law for fucking ever...nothing new about that one.

So it still stands...complete bull shit.

Quote

I'm not a lawyer, but I sure know a hell of a lot more than the average person...and in this case, apparently more than you too. I have the education, you don't...or so it seems from your baseless arguments.

Uh, I’m positive you don’t know more than me, but let’s stop making this about you and me and more about the current legal system. I don’t have education? Good one….

Quote

Ok, sorry for making an incorrect assumption...

Not only the assumption that I wrote nothing about kicking in of doors, but of the Patriot Act as well. I wrote nothing of the Patriot Act or of the impact it has had on the 4th. So how can you hold me to that?

Quote

Absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act first of all (which is what we were discussing),

OK, the thread asks if others like Bush, so the thread has deviated from that to the Patriot Act and now the 4th; I didn’t address the PA, so don’t hold me to that.

Quote

… and secondly, if LE officers have probable cause (e.g. see some dude toking up in his open doorway or think a driver may have drugs in his car b/c the guy is acting all kinds of weird), then they have the right to go into the house, car, etc. and do whatever they need to do to stabilize the situation and then get a warrant.

First fundamental error is in comparing a car to a house. In a car you have virtually no expectation of privacy, whereas a house and its curtilige are paramount. When a lawyer reads this he/she would laugh; cars and houses are worlds apart when it comes to the 4th. In fact, there have been several 4th discussions about motorhomes; are they motors or homes? The US Sup Ct has concluded, last I checked, that unless the motorhome is up on blocks or otherwise disabled, it is a motor and is subject to pretty much any warrantless search and seizure or search subsequent to impound.

One case that comes to mind is the Chimmel case. This case is used as law for searching the immediate area of the driver’s ‘bubble.’ They call it the, “Chimmel bubble.”

Now, I will post Texas caselaw where the cops did burst into a house, arrest him and…….

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/102200a.htm

Texas statute: Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 14.01(b) provides that "[a] peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view."

Facts of the case:

On April 21, 1998, the Abilene Police Department received an anonymous tip that drug dealing was taking place at the residence of Ian and Leo Steelman, appellees. (1) In response, the department dispatched three officers to the scene. Upon arrival, the officers proceeded to the front door of the residence. Before they got to the front door, however, the officers peered into the house through a crack in one of the window blinds. They observed no illegal activity. They merely saw four men sitting in a living room. (2) The officers then proceeded to knock on the front door.
Ian opened the door, stepped outside, and closed the door behind him. When Ian opened the door, the officers smelled the odor of burnt marijuana. The officers asked Ian for identification. Ian informed the officers that he would have to retrieve his identification from inside the house. He then opened the door, walked back through it, and attempted to close it behind him. At that point, one of the officers placed his foot in the doorway and prevented Ian from closing the door. The officers then burst through the doorway, handcuffed all of the occupants, including Leo, and placed them all under arrest.
At that point, the officers contacted narcotics agent David Varner. Varner arrived at the scene and smelled marijuana inside the residence. After asking for, but not receiving, appellees' consent to search the residence, Varner left to obtain a search warrant. In his search warrant affidavit, Varner asserted that probable cause existed to believe that the occupants of the residence were in possession of marijuana. Approximately two hours after the officers initially entered the residence, Varner obtained a search warrant, searched the residence, and found marijuana.

Finding:

Given the evidence before it, the trial court in the instant case could have reasonably concluded that the arrest of Ian was not lawfully made without a warrant because the arresting officers did not have probable cause to believe that Ian had committed an offense in their presence. Since the officers had no authority to make a warrantless arrest under article 14.01(b), they had no authority (under article14.05) to enter the residence without a warrant and conduct a search, and any evidence seized as a result of those illegalities was tainted and subject to suppression. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's decision to grant the appellees' motion to suppress.

Quote

That's been law for fucking ever...nothing new about that one.

Here is another fundamental error: the law via caselaw is progressive, sometimes regressive, but always dynamic and changing. Very little lasts forever. In fact, it used to be a crime (in the 1950’s) to have Communistic propaganda or adult pornography (Mapp v Ohio). It used to be illegal in 16 states up until 1968 for people of different races to marry (loving v Virginia). See what a nice guy I am? I even posted the caselaw before you further embarrass yourself.

So when I hear/read that it has always been that way / always will be that way, I realize I am conversing with a layperson.

Quote

So it still stands...complete bull shit.

Ooops, perhaps not…..



------> I'm hoping you reply with less sarcasm and more substantive evidence-based argument.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Standing inside a doorway in full view of an officer would fall under "plain view" exception. "Police officers do not need a warrant to search and seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer has a right to be where the evidence or contraband is first spotted. For instance, the police may search for and seize marijuana growing outdoors if they first spot the marijuana from an airplane or helicopter, since the marijuana is deemed to be in plain view"

So, if the officer has a right to be on your front porch, and you're standing just inside the doorway blowing smoke in his face, he can come in and seize the evidence.

"Evidence of a crime may be seized without a warrant under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. To rely on this exception, the officer must be in a lawful position to observe the evidence, and its incriminating character must be immediately apparent." See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).

Quote

"Police officers do not need a warrant to search and seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer has a right to be where the evidence or contraband is first spotted.

..."if the officer has a right to be where the evidence or contraband is first spotted." This is key and the real question here. Does a cop have the right to subvert a house's inherent 4th w/o exigency or a fleeing felon? I've found a couple key peices of precedent; let's see what you say.

Quote

For instance, the police may search for and seize marijuana growing outdoors if they first spot the marijuana from an airplane or helicopter, since the marijuana is deemed to be in plain view"

OK, what if it's thru a skylight in the livingroom of a house? Backyard, sure, but inside the sacred house? Hmmmm, what do you think?

Quote

So, if the officer has a right to be on your front porch, and you're standing just inside the doorway blowing smoke in his face, he can come in and seize the evidence.

I found a piece of caselaw that supports that, but it uses exigency to circumvent the warrant requirement. I will look up the Horton case and get back.

[Lucky... 0]

Here is teh Chimel case:

Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752 (1969) - authorizes the landmark "Chimel rule": police may search the area within a person's immediate control (arm's reach) incidental to an arrest. The justification for the search is the arrest. Anything seized does not have to be related to the crime arrested for.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Standing inside a doorway in full view of an officer would fall under "plain view" exception. "Police officers do not need a warrant to search and seize contraband or evidence that is "in plain view" if the officer has a right to be where the evidence or contraband is first spotted. For instance, the police may search for and seize marijuana growing outdoors if they first spot the marijuana from an airplane or helicopter, since the marijuana is deemed to be in plain view"

So, if the officer has a right to be on your front porch, and you're standing just inside the doorway blowing smoke in his face, he can come in and seize the evidence.

"Evidence of a crime may be seized without a warrant under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. To rely on this exception, the officer must be in a lawful position to observe the evidence, and its incriminating character must be immediately apparent." See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).

I do enjoy sparring with you, Nightingale! After researching the case I find that the phrase I emboldened, "To rely on this exception, the officer must be in a lawful position to observe the evidence, and its incriminating character must be immediately apparent."

In reading the Horton case I find that there was a warrant issued and the cop was legally inside the house searching for other items. I find the cops not in a lawful position to enter the house and seize evidence if they are just on the porch w/o a warrant.

But my original point was:

Cops can enter a house thru the threshold, remove the occupants and obtain a search warrant if they see drugs inside.

I find this a violation of the 4th, but the courts do not - that was my point.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Before you calling bull and spouting off when you have no education in the law, research or ask someone first.

I'm not a lawyer, but I sure know a hell of a lot more than the average person...and in this case, apparently more than you too. I have the education, you don't...or so it seems from your baseless arguments.

Quote

I didn;t write that they could kick down your door

Ok, sorry for making an incorrect assumption...

Quote

There was a Texas case about 5 years ago where a guy had some drugs in plain view, the cops walked up and saw it, they then crossed the doorway, I think the door was open or unlocked, and they entered, removed all people from the house, they then secured the door and obained a warrant.

Absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act first of all (which is what we were discussing), and secondly, if LE officers have probable cause (e.g. see some dude toking up in his open doorway or think a driver may have drugs in his car b/c the guy is acting all kinds of weird), then they have the right to go into the house, car, etc. and do whatever they need to do to stabilize the situation and then get a warrant. That's been law for fucking ever...nothing new about that one.

So it still stands...complete bull shit.

Here's a case that establishes the change of a system, the change of laws w/o legislative action, or in the case of the Patriot Act, change with legislation:

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/198/

KATZ vs US

This is a simple case about Katz using a telephone as a mediaum to wager bets interstate. The court found that, "People not places" have rights to privacy. Now we have Bush advocating and authorizing warrantless wiretaps, so how is it things don't change?

[Nightingale 0]

I don't think that is a violation of the 4th, since the 4th has a prohibition against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, not warrantless searches and seizures. If an officer sees something illegal, and he is lawfully positioned to do so and not trespassing, I think it's perfectly reasonable to take action.

[TheAnvil 0]

TheAnvil chuckles to himself, nibbles on a carrot, scratches his long JACKASS ears, and trots off to graze elsewhere.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Uh, I’m positive you don’t know more than me, but let’s stop making this about you and me and more about the current legal system. I don’t have education? Good one….

Postive eh? Well maybe, maybe not, but certainly you can't be positive...you don't even know what education I have. I never said you didn't have education, from your previous post it seemed like you were blowing smoke out of your ass and didn't really know what you were talking about, therefore it appears that you at least aren't educated in that topic (law)...but that's only what it seemed from your post, doesn't mean it's true. Things can be misinterpreted you know.

Quote

I wrote nothing of the Patriot Act or of the impact it has had on the 4th

Yeah I guess that was niolosoiale who mentioned the PA...his was right above yours...oops! But if you're this asshurt over some idiot having cops come into his house because of toking up in plain sight, then one can make a decent assumption you think the Patriot Act immensely violates freedom, privacy, etc.

All of that aside, I don't see a problem with this Texas case. The officers had probable cause to detain the people because of the smell of marijuana...that's been enough probable cause for decades. However in this sentence: "Approximately two hours after the officers initially entered the residence, Varner obtained a search warrant, searched the residence, and found marijuana.", it is clear that the men were merely detained, and no searching was done until the warrant was obtained. Where's the problem?

So since I must have confused you with someone else on the Patriot Act thing, how do you think the Bush admin has taken away privacy from us? The above case is an extremely weak argument at best; you're gonna have to do better than that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't think that is a violation of the 4th, since the 4th has a prohibition against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, not warrantless searches and seizures. If an officer sees something illegal, and he is lawfully positioned to do so and not trespassing, I think it's perfectly reasonable to take action.

Come on Nightingale, I believe you are a lwa student, if I recall you writing that - correct me if I'm wrong. You posted the caselaw, I refuted it, now address mine. I'm not saying you are wrong, but to post personla opinions on what the appelate courts find is not scientific.

The threshold is God, and then the cops violate it to see how far the courts will allow them to continue to violate. It's a silly game that decides how much police intrusion is acceptable.

What do you think of the cases I posted, especially where the cops forcibly entered just on the smell and then arrested everyone, obtained a search warrant and was eventually thrown out?

Quote

don't think that is a violation of the 4th, since the 4th has a prohibition against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, not warrantless searches and seizures.

And you know as well as I do, especially since I posted more cases that establish changes in the system/rules, that these laws and definitions of REASONABLE[/B] change.

There was a case in the 60's where the cops pumped a suspect's stomach to find a heroine ballon; the court threw it out because it, "Shocked the conscious of teh court." Today they will forcibly draw blood on a DUI stop if the suspect won't volunteer it or breath and the courts buy off on it.

So where I'm going is this: What is reasonable? That is such a subjective word that is disguised as objective. An unreasonable search doesn't mean an illegal search, unless the courts define that search as unreasonable, then it is illegal.

Just because a search is warrantless doesn't make it illegal or unreasonable. But the house's protection is supreme, perhaps more than even the suspect's body. I think it's probably easier for a cop to get a telephonic warrant to draw blood on a DUI stop than it is for a cop to get a warrant to search a house.

Bring in more caselaw and weigh in on mine if you wish....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

TheAnvil chuckles to himself, nibbles on a carrot, scratches his long JACKASS ears, and trots off to graze elsewhere.

I feel several ponts more intelligent after reading your input. Thx much

[TheAnvil 0]

You're not ready to discuss the composition of the budget, social programs, discretionary spending, medical programs, the role of the Federal gov't in education, immigration, national security, energy policy or anything else of note, then, I take it?

Oh darn.

TheAnvil nibbles on a carrot, wonders where his tequila is, and trots off to play in another field.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Nightingale 0]

Well, you did ask me "what do you think?" so I figured you were asking for a personal opinion.

I'm not sure which caselaw you want me to refute... perhaps something in a post not addressed to me? Or I'm just missing it, which is a possibility, as I'm in the middle of studying for finals, so my brain is a bit uncooperative at the moment.

What it seems to come down to is that if you don't want to get in trouble for doing something illegal, don't do it where a cop can see it from anywhere the cop is legally allowed to be. If you're dumb enough to open the door and smoke pot right in front of the cop...

I agree that the "I smelled pot" thing should be thrown out, because the human sense of smell is not very good. Detaining someone on the officers' sense of smell alone is too arbitrary.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You're not ready to discuss the composition of the budget, social programs, discretionary spending, medical programs, the role of the Federal gov't in education, immigration, national security, energy policy or anything else of note, then, I take it?

Oh darn.

TheAnvil nibbles on a carrot, wonders where his tequila is, and trots off to play in another field.

Oh yes I am. I got caught up in this topic, and as you see, I don't just post 3-minute one-liners, so my posts take a while to compose.

I will get to that tomorrow, but in the mean time, instead of talking discretionary spending, maybe think of a reason to explain the massive increase in debt since Bush2. Also, explaion how Reagan, Bush, Bush is responsible for 60% of the total debt. Explain how they cut social programs, increase military spending and how we are better off for it. Explain how discretionary spending is the enemy when the debt seems to slow and the annual deficit actually turned around into the black from red when we had more liberal, social discetionary spending, the opposite as it did when we had less D.S. and more military spending.

Work on those while I get to the rest of the post.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Well, you did ask me "what do you think?" so I figured you were asking for a personal opinion.

I'm not sure which caselaw you want me to refute... perhaps something in a post not addressed to me? Or I'm just missing it, which is a possibility, as I'm in the middle of studying for finals, so my brain is a bit uncooperative at the moment.

What it seems to come down to is that if you don't want to get in trouble for doing something illegal, don't do it where a cop can see it from anywhere the cop is legally allowed to be. If you're dumb enough to open the door and smoke pot right in front of the cop...

I agree that the "I smelled pot" thing should be thrown out, because the human sense of smell is not very good. Detaining someone on the officers' sense of smell alone is too arbitrary.

Quote

Well, you did ask me "what do you think?" so I figured you were asking for a personal opinion.

No, in the law, common sense and your opinion and/or mine mean squat. I was asking for some precedent.

Quote

I'm not sure which caselaw you want me to refute... perhaps something in a post not addressed to me?

The ones addressed to you or to Viperpilot. Essentially, the issue of this series of posts within the thread comes down to this: Can a cop enter your house for a reason other than exigency or a fleeing felon? My initial statement was that formerly they could not, now they can. So to post precedent referring to that is inline with the arguments. You posted one, and I posted a couple. I researched your and found that they had a warrant and a right to be in the house, but searching for something else. My initial statement was that the cops couldn’t breech the threshold of the doorway in the past, now they can. Can you support or refute either?

Quote

Or I'm just missing it, which is a possibility, as I'm in the middle of studying for finals, so my brain is a bit uncooperative at the moment.

By all means, study and screw this argument. I hope to see you do well and graduate. What year are you in? Hopefully not the first. If you can find time and energy, just brief it and look at my above statement of the overview of the argument.

Quote

What it seems to come down to is that if you don't want to get in trouble for doing something illegal, don't do it where a cop can see it from anywhere the cop is legally allowed to be. If you're dumb enough to open the door and smoke pot right in front of the cop…

Sure, but you can’t legislate common sense and the law doesn’t try to. I would like to read some precedent on this matter if you know of any - past and present.

Quote

I agree that the "I smelled pot" thing should be thrown out, because the human sense of smell is not very good. Detaining someone on the officers' sense of smell alone is too arbitrary.

Ahhh, but the detention wasn’t the biggy, it was the warrant that stemmed from the whole mess. Of course the Exclusionary Rule would taint the entire process and all fruits, so there is a correlation.

[Hawkins121 0]

You guys are boring.