How they will get inside our homes!!!(It's starting...)

reply to post by semperfortis


As Tommy Heinsohn would say..."Bing Bang Boom!"

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


First of all, if the police are called to a house for noise there is no probable cause to believe that people are drinking whether underage or not. Noise and alcohol are not one and the same. When the officer gets to the site, if he hears noise he has a duty to knock on the door and ask the people to be quiet. Not everyone realizes that thier noise is traveling and disturbing other neighbors ya know ?

If only one person comes to the door and that person appears to be sober then there can be no probably cause for the officer to believe that there is drinking going on in that household at that time.

If however the person who answers the door is clearly drunk and appears to be underage then the officer might have a reasonable suspicion that underage drinking is happening in that household.

It is perfectly legal for adults to get sloppy drunk inside thier own homes.
So in my opinion the police officer should only be asking for ID from those persons that he has a suspicion are under age and only if he actually sees them. I don't know about anyone else but I wouldn't throw my door open wide to anyone, not even a cop.

So the person who answers the door is the key here. If they are sober then the policeman would have no reason to suspect that anyone else in that household was drinking much less someone under age.


Refusing to allow a policeman to come into your house does not translate to probable cause of wrong doing. That is simply protecting your constitutional right. " 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."

Originally posted by re22666
where i live (WNY) i keep hearing of firemen going door to door to check for smoke alarms and repeatedly hear that they seem to look around more than go right where directed the smoke alarms are, "have to check dryer vents, furnice, fusebox?, etc. as well."

I've also heard the stories of fire inspectors being pressed to "see and report" more than fire code violations.

The gist is people are much less suspicious of the FD, and IIRC the FD can request entry without a warrant (and not just when your house is on fire either).

I'm having a tough time calling this one. Fire prevention is certainly a good thing, but if the inspector stumbles across bad stuff (drug labs, kiddie porn, bodies, bombs, etc), what should they do?

Although they should NOT go out of their way to find things, i.e. "Let's check all your drawers and closets to make sure there's nothing hazardous..."

Heres a simple solution.(if its just you and a few friends and you aren't playing your music stupidly loud)

Dont open your door. Its that simple, dont go to your door dont open it dont even recognize the fact that they are out there. Turn off your music, turn off your lights and go to your basement.

If you have been smoking ganja in your home recently and the cops are at your door dont even contemplate opening the door.

When i was young I had my home invaded several times on the grounds that they could "smell pot" (even though i never allowed smoking in my house) They just smelled the pot smoke on me, Its simple guys just ignore them. They aren't going to kick your door in unless they have a damn good reason.

They're gonna get inside your homes by foreclosing on them.

reply to post by jasonjnelson


If you live in a different state can one still sue as a matter of violating constitutional rights

This can be really effective in raising awareness if enough people participate.

Oh yes, I love the little harassment stops.

whats more fun, is blowing off pumped up cops who are drunk on their own power. I mean seriously, I just about bait them with words into uttering my favorite phrase "Well if you're innocent than you should have nothing to hide, right?" and my reply is "Hardly. If I'm innocent than you have no reason to search me. Care to rephrase?"

I get blank looks, usually a shrug and am dismissed.

"have a nice day... officer"

reply to post by jasonjnelson


Man, I tell you what. My home is well protected. My family has been instructed to fire upon anyone entering the premises uninvited. You know this type of law would never settle in Oklahoma. ANYONE walking into my house without permission, cop or not, will get a new orifice. It is not out of some misguided sense of omnipotence, but more so out of an available means of self protection!

I am absolutely not advocating violence against anyone in blue...but nutjobs can buy uniforms as well...and cops here don't just come into a persons house without a good cause...

People who infringe upon my right to peace inside of my own home with unnecessary, obnoxious sonic assault and the drunken hell-raising/vandelism/littering that goes with this sort of thing, don't get a free pass from me.
They are called on it.
A cop force that really turns this type of thing off is doing a good job in my book.

Live and let live entails mutual respect.
When one party assumes their, "rights," allow them to cr-p on someone else's life, the line has been crossed. Let them pay Hell for causing hell in the lives of innocents who never bothered them.

Mutual respect, Golden Rule... a lesson all should allow to be implanted in their hearts and live by.

That too many don't is exactly WHY we have some of the laws in the first place.

We wouldn't need cops and the world would be a beautiful place if the Golden Rule was Internal Law Heeded, Lived.

can u imagine when they comes into ya house!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hehehehhe

That is ridiculous. The government is becoming more and more invasive with the general public's privacy.

Not to mention the fact that they are putting an outrageous new rule in one of the biggest party cities in the US.

How I look at things like this is all men have been given the right to live and if you have the right to live then you have all the rights ever invinted.

And when another man comes and takes those rights from you which he can and will, but you have every right to respond. So it is up to you wether the action or the reaction is greater.

All I am saying if some one is trespassing things happen.

Now I am going to rant some more because this is my first time to respond on this website, but I have been reading for years and you all talk about how they take away rights but no man can take away your rights without letting him because god has given you the right to live.

And with that right how are you going to let just another man take your rights away is because you and I are lazy if we did not want certain laws they would not happen.

This hole new world order thing wether it is true or not it is happening right now it has always been happenning and will always contuin unless it is shut upped. But then the only way to shut it up is with a revolution because it already has to much controle to do it peacefully. And by saying that I am now a terrorist according to the U.S. government. And now I don't to have a party with minors drinking for them to come in they think they can come in whenever they want, but I wonder wether they thought about how strong my will to live is and wether there action will be greater than my reaction.

Jackinthebox: Any family with 2 incomes typically does not need to work 2 or 3 jobs, and that's a sad reason to give for "bad parenting." The kids that this is aimed at are typically from more well-to-do homes anyways. They get together for house parties, their parents are oblivious, or just don't care. While your violen-playing scenario may seem reasonable to you, I think that's bunk. None of my friends I know work 2 or 3 jobs. Only if they are going to school or something, and if you are going to college, perhaps that's no the best time to have kids?

Again, yes, there are bad cops. And I see videos posted of these idiots actions. I never see the probably 100-fold more "good cop" moments posted though, how curious. Just like the gloom and doom forcasts I see in many threads here (it always has to be a flood or a NWO or a giant brown dwarf hurtling into us), the negative gets a spotlight. The positive is ignored.

So again, I don't see a wicked agenda associated with this law. I'd think if they wanted to actually get into folks homes, they'd do something more clever than only targeting kids (or folks that "look under 30"). It has the potential to be abused, but we wouldn't need it all, if all parents actually parented, instead of blithely ignoring what their kids are doing behind closed doors.

reply to post by fleabit

Any family with 2 incomes typically does not need to work 2 or 3 jobs, and that's a sad reason to give for "bad parenting." The kids that this is aimed at are typically from more well-to-do homes anyways.

Well-to-do homes or no, where do you think the parents are when these parties are happening? What has changed in the past fifty, even thirty years that now suddenly this sort of problem has reached such "epidemic" proprtions that we have to give police yet another way to get around the Constitution? Did adults suddenly all decide to be bad parents?

None of my friends I know work 2 or 3 jobs. Only if they are going to school or something, and if you are going to college, perhaps that's no the best time to have kids?

Just because you and your friends happen to be well off, doesn't really mean much to me in this case. Or are you the sort of "well to do" families this is aimed at?

I never see the probably 100-fold more "good cop" moments posted though, how curious.

Like what, handing out tickets, or kicking bums out of dumpsters? Most of the time the police are there to pick up the pieces after your life has been forever changed by some burglar, rapist or murder. Yet people still think that the police make them safe. Please.

So again, I don't see a wicked agenda associated with this law.

And that is what seperates the boiling frogs from the men.

I'd think if they wanted to actually get into folks homes, they'd do something more clever than only targeting kids (or folks that "look under 30").

Why something "more clever?" This seems to be working just fine. Has you fooled. As if this were the only excuse anyway. Just another in the long list of excuses for the police to stick their nose in other people's business.

It has the potential to be abused, but we wouldn't need it all, if all parents actually parented, instead of blithely ignoring what their kids are doing behind closed doors.

We don't need it. If the parents are such bad parents, do you really think that a police intervention one night is going to change the fortunes of a troubled teen? Certainly not. It's just going to drive the problems further underground, and probably make them worse.

If there is a potential for such power to be abused, it WILL be abused. That was the whole point of the Constitution, to keep such abuses from happening. Every time you shred up the Constitution a little more, a little more fascism oozes in. There is no middle ground.

Originally posted by semperfortis
It's not a 4th Amendment issue, I'll explain why.

California is VERY liberal compared to many states here in the East. In all three states I have worked in, this law is not needed for one very good reason.

If I get a call about a loud party, I have a citizen complaint and therefor "Reasonable Suspicion"...

When I get there, if I see or hear a party going on with juveniles and alcohol present, I now have "Probable Cause". I'm going in the house, period. Arrests will be made.

Remember that the 4th Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution for that matter, does NOT provide protection for people to break the law. That is NOT it's intent and to subjugate it to that role is a disservice to all Americans.

Also understand that asking for an ID is not a 4th Amendment issue. The Supreme Court has CONSTANTLY upheld the right of the police, (Yeah go figure, police have rights too) to request and even demand an identification from any person being stopped under Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause.

Google "Terry Frisk" or "Terry Stop"

Semper

i was going to reply to this post with "dude the cops will do whatever they want, whenever they want." then i read this.

my point is this: your overthinking things. they are concocting elaborate conspiracies to get into your pad because as semperfortis just told you, they can do and say whatever they have to do get whatever they need/want.

it's not a big deal, and it's not really worth looking into OR ESPECIALLY FIGHTING. this seriously enables the police to effectively shut down parties and potentially save a lot of children from danger (drunk driving especially) so you're 'conspiracy theory' as a basis for fighting this could actually prove to be more damaging then helpful.

i'm paranoid too, but i use logic and common sense. think about it man, this isn't even a fight worth fighting.

peace.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


THINK FOR YOURSELF.
QUIESTION AUTHORITY.

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
What if I refuse to identify myself?

What if you have no right to know who I am just because you have reasonable suspicion?

Not saying that you are, Semper, but A LOT of police officers will arrest you if you don't present an I.D.


[edit on 25-7-2008 by dunwichwitch]

If you are on private property or even in a parking lot and a cop drives up asking you what you are doing where you are going etc,. you do not have to answer them. If they ask you for an ID and you refuse to oblige, they may think you don't have an ID on your person in which case in many states it is against the law not to carry an ID. In this case simply inform them that you didn't say you don't have an ID but that they CAN'T SEE IT. You have thre right to remain anonymous. Know that any questions they ask are because they are looking for something concrete to make an arrest and if you ARE up to some spurious activity, the best thing you can do is NOT give them the stick to beat you with. Know as long as they are asking questions, they don't have enough to make an arrest. So in this case some questions are best left un-answered by you.

Remember anything you say can and WILL be used against you. Many understand this to be a "may be used against you" when it is WILL be used against you and that means every time every thing you say.

If they ask you why you are not cooperating let them know that you do not have to do their Job for them. In most cases simply asking the cops if you are under arrest during the initial start of any dialogue with them and they say NO, then it is best to keep it that way by letting them know you are under no obligation to cooperate and unless they arrest you you're free to go about your business.

Here is one I know can get many cops in trouble because they do it all the time. During an onsite investigation questioning anyone they think looks suspicious, know that it isn't illegal to look suspicious (whatever that is) invariably they will want to place handcuffs on you allegedly for your own safety and their own. Now this is no time to be timid but INSIST that you know what you are being placed under arrest for. They will again say you are not under arrest and repeat that is is just policy blah blah blah.

Let them know that YOU know the law and remind them if they put those handcuffs on you, your freedom of movement is being impeded and you have officially been "incarcerated" THAT means you MUST be UNDER ARREST so they had better know what they are doing because if they don't have a reason to to incarecerate you, safety or no safety, that YOU WILL SUE them for false arrest.

Most everyone I know who has asserted themselves in this manor, the cops backed off because they know it's true.

Unless you are under arrest, they don't have a right to touch you much less have you answer any questions but the last thing they can do is put you under arrest while saying you are not under arrest and that is EXACTLY what they are doing putting handcuffs on you during questioning you and searching your person to find whatever they can to really arrest you for.

Most of the time, they find it too but you have a better chance to avoid that eventuality letting them know you are aware of this most abused violation of ones rights.

This law sounds more like something to placate a special interest but is basically nothing more the cops are not already within their rights to do.

The OP in my opinion is making a mountain out of a mole hill







[edit on 25-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

There is definately a movement to remove our 4th Amendment rights. Kentucky tried to pass a law that will allow "Public Health Servants" access to homes where dogs and cats are kept to "check for disease" all without a warrant.

The removal of our 4th Amendment rights against unwarranted search is also contained under the USDA implementation of NAIS. It is called PREMISES ID. Right now it is aimed at livestock owners but dog owners will also be included later. When you sign up for (or are assigned) a “premise ID you are entering into a contract with the US government that allows them access to your property 24/7. The Animal Welfare Act requires a license holder of a petting farm or kennel to call the USDA whenever they will be off the property or face fines.

In the New User Guide it states on Page 22:
The premises identification number (PIN) is assigned permanently to a geophysical location. If an owner or entity sells his/her farm, the next operators of the premises use the original premises identification number that had been assigned to that location. If the seller buys a new location to build a new operation that never had livestock, he/she would register that location and obtain a new premises identification number (PIN).
Premises Identification = Encumbrance xstatic99645.tripod.com...

Although NAIS was never voted into law and the implementation has violated many laws and Constitution rights but the USDA is still ruthlessly pressing on

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed surveillance of every premises where even a single animal of any covered livestock is kept and the requirement of RFID of every animal raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns. Indeed, the “premises” that USDA plans to subject to GPS satellite surveillance and RFID includes the private homes of citizens....Comments on NAIS from Roger McEowen, Leonard Dolezal Professor in Agricultural Law
www.ranchers.net...

Those fighting to retain the right to farm are being harrassed by the USDA. It is suggested the following be presented to anyone faced with a “public servant”

go to nonais.org... and near the bottom of the page under “Technical Documents” is a form called “Public Servant Questionaire”

Farm to consumer and R-calf are fighting this attempt to control land, and the food supply and YOU. check out

this for the Lawsuit (you may wish to help support this)
www.opednews.com...

AND this letter to Chairman Harkin for a moratorium on Premise ID at
www.r-calfusa.com...

Those fighting to retain the right to farm are being harassed by the USDA. It is suggested the following be presented to anyone faced with a “public servant”

go to nonais.org... and near the bottom of the page under “Technical Documents” is a form called “Public Servant Questionnaire”

Farm to consumer and R-calf are fighting this attempt to control land and the food supply. check out
this for the Lawsuit (you may wish to help support this)
www.opednews.com...

AND this letter to Chairman Harkin for a moratorium on Premise ID at
www.r-calfusa.com...