It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Case of the wrong door opens at Supreme Court

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Case of the wrong door opens at Supreme Court


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has heard argument in a case about when the police can enter a home without a search warrant.

The justices seemed likely to rule against a Kentucky man who had the misfortune of being found with drugs in his apartment by police who were looking for someone else.

The case could clarify when police can conduct searches without a warrant, and at least one justice worried that the court might go too far and allow officers easily to find a way around getting a wa
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well, will this case decide if police can search your home without a warrant? The article says that the justices are likely to rule against the man who had his home searched by police who were looking for a different person.

The article came out a little over and hour ago, is pretty short at the moment, and dosent provide much information.

If they do indeed rule against the Kentucky man, what will come of this? Will police be able to search anyones home without a warrant?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
This is an attempt to get inadmissible evidence laws thrown out.

If we lose those laws, than the police will be able to enter any house any time, without any need for warrants.

They can just claim they were after someone else and still get you. Totally unconstitutional.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Agreed. I dont see any type of restraint for unwarranted searches if the Supreme Court rules against the man who had him home searched without a warrant. Whats to stop the police from searching random homes if they dont need a warrant anymore?

It looks like the justice system might fail us again.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
If the man gave consent for the police to enter (because they were looking for someone the man knew they wouldn't find there), and there were controlled substances in plain view, it would not be fruit of the poisenous tree.

I'd be interested in reading the details of this case.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I did some searching and found this article. Article


The three men were sitting around King's apartment in Lexington,Ky., on a Thursday night in October 2005, when police officers knocked on the front door, then kicked it in. They did not have a search warrant.


The police were chasing a suspect down a hallway, lost track of him, saw 2 closed doors and kicked in Kings (not the suspect) door and found a guy smoking pot and a small amount of coc aine. King and his friends pled guilty, but the Kentucky Supreme Court threw out the charges because the police didnt have a search warrant for his home.


The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the state's appeal of that ruling Wednesday, in a case that could clarify rules for when police can conduct searches without a warrant.


It turns out the original suspect in the chase entered a door across from Kings home, and, according to the article, the suspect had his charges dropped for unkown reasons.

Heres another link with the same story. Article 2



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Thanks for the details. In my opinion, this is not "hot pursuit," meaning the cops did not SEE the suspect entering that apt, and therefore had no right to enter on "speculation." therefore (I would hope) that the SC would find the dope to be fruit of the poisenous tree. 4th Amendment violation, illegal search and seizure.
edit on 12-1-2011 by capod2t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
From what I understand so far, this guy had his door kicked in without a warrant, got arrested, then his states Supreme Court threw out the case against him because the cops didnt have a warrant, and now the US Supreme Court is looking at it. The article in the OP says that the US Supreme Court is going to rule against this man.

I dont really understand alot of the language used in legal stuff, so I might have the wrong view of whats going on so far.

If the US Supreme Court "rules against" him, does that mean he will be charged at the federal level, even though the states court threw it out?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Here are the keys to this case:


They heard a door slam in a hallway, but by the time they were able to look down it, they saw only two closed doors
- they had a reason to believe he was in one of those two apts.


They didn't know which one the suspect had gone through, but, smelling the aroma of burnt pot, chose the apartment on the left
- Now they are aware of criminal activity taking place behind door #1.

And, Here's the kicker:


The police contend they entered the apartment because they heard noises they thought might indicate that evidence was being destroyed.
- Exigent Circumstances

This is called "Articulation."

Destruction of evidence or cries for help (exigent circumstances) allow, at times, for warrantless entry. This is a slippery one, though. I would hope they toss this case.

To answer a previous question, he would not be prosecuted federally. Rather, the case would be remanded back to the state courts for disposition.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


I thought there was a plain site law. Like if cops came into your house looking for one thing, but stumbled across something else (dead bodies probably excluded ; P) they couldn't do anything about it without going for another warrant or at all if they entered without one.

I'm not sure exactly how it works but we talked about it in a criminal justice class I took. They can't come in to see if you are alivebecause no one has seen you for a week then search and find pot and arrest you, but if they come in and you are sitting rolling one they can. Something like that, cop or lawyer feel free to clarify.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


The "plain view" issue here is secondary to whether or not they even had a right to get into a place where they HAD plain view.

There was a case in Calif where DEA knew this dude was growing in his back yard, but he put up a 14' fence. DEA got a ladder and looked over the fence to see the plants. 9th Circuit tossed thecase bcuz it was not plain view. However, there's another where DEA flew over a similar house and saw plants. That worked.

The State of KY must have some good attys because this, IMO, is a tough one to articulate.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Sorry, but this sounds like a clear breach of the 4th amendment to me. They had no cause to kick the door in. I would like to know exactly what they heard to lead to the belief of evidence being destroyed. Evidence of what? Smells like BS and a$$ covering on the part of the leos to me.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 



"It's all in the furtherance of Justice" (as some on the street might say).

I agree. I'm laughing because it sounds like you're "on the job" and aware of what goes on...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by capod2t
 
If by "on the job" you mean a cop, I am not and never have been. It is a job I could not do. My ex-wife is a cop, that is the closest I have come to it.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
What exactly does "rule against" mean in this case? What would happen if the court really does rule against the Kentucky man?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


It would actually be that the Supreme Court would be ruling in favor of the Petitioner (the State) which would remand the original case back to the lower courts, or activate the original sentence imposed.




top topics



 
2

log in

join