|
patentmagus posted:Yeah, especially if the SWAT team had found drugs or kiddie porn during their home invasion. Not for lack of trying: quote:"In the meantime, the officers searched and occupied plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and Linda Mitchell's house. When plaintiff Linda Mitchell returned to her home, the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor." I'd make some joke about "left the refrigerator open, what monsters!" But loving seriously, a little professionalism, Henderson PD? Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Aug 13, 2016 |
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Given how little you've actually done to support your interpretation of these events as "reasonable," aside from try to shout down other people, I think I'd be forgiven for assuming it was. What would I support? You never actually addressed my argument in any sort of legally grounded way. I'm not shouting down "people" I'm shouting down you for being an rear end in a top hat ignorantly flailing around. I'm not positive my interpretation is correct but you're not providing any sort of substantive counter argument, it's like if I said 2+2=4 and you countered me with "but no, because banana". You have neither the tools to actually debate the issue nor the temperament to actually learn anything about it so yeah, I'm telling you to sit down and loving color while the adults talk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
I think the entire 4th is a red herring as it wasn't a search, they were using his property rather than searching it. If they found things in his house and arrested him for them, then it's arguably a 4th amendment issue. But this strikes me as a takings clause issue more than anything else, his property was taken by the police (temporarily) without just compensation. But the takings clause makes clear that the government can just take your property with sufficient need - they just have to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
"You're not addressing my point" says Jarmak just before spending 90% of his post calling the other person a child.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What would I support? You never actually addressed my argument in any sort of legally grounded way. I'm not shouting down "people" I'm shouting down you for being an rear end in a top hat ignorantly flailing around. I think I'm seeing the problem. For some reason I assumed you were trying to argue this in good faith. I was wrong and clearly you have no intention of doing anything of the sort. You don't get to assume that an unwarranted search and seizure of a person's home is reasonable. It's their home. There is literally no stronger case for a person having a reasonable expectation of privacy than when they're in their home. If you, or more accurately, the Henderson PD wants for this to not be a 4th violation, the burden of proof falls on.the person trying to claim that this search occurred in extrodinary circumstances whereby any reasonable person would expect to have their home searched and seized (and as I cited in a previous post, they did perform an unwarranted and extremely obvious search of the premises after seizing the property.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I think I'm seeing the problem. For some reason I assumed you were trying to argue this in good faith. I was wrong and clearly you have no intention of doing anything of the sort. You're literally just making poo poo up and none of this is grounded in anything evilweasel posted:I think the entire 4th is a red herring as it wasn't a search, they were using his property rather than searching it. If they found things in his house and arrested him for them, then it's arguably a 4th amendment issue. But this strikes me as a takings clause issue more than anything else, his property was taken by the police (temporarily) without just compensation. This is a good point, though I was thinking of the 4th from a seizure perspective. It does sound like regardless of the legality of the commandeering they owe him some money for being dickheads with his house because they were pissed. I can't seem to find any case law on temporary takings.. do you have any suggestions? edit: After doing some review it seems like takings clause doesn't really apply to the issue at hand, as far as their ability to do the initial occupation, it only applies so much as they have to pay for any damage they did. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're literally just making poo poo up and none of this is grounded in anything The idea that the home is the most private area and that searches of the home are more likely to be unreasonable than other searches predates the US. It is well grounded to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The idea that the home is the most private area and that searches of the home are more likely to be unreasonable than other searches predates the US. It is well grounded to say the least. He made an expectation of privacy argument, which goes to whether a search occurred, it really has no bearing on an emergency exception situation or really a seizure at all. Nor is he actually using that concept correctly except in the most general sense, which if one was being charitable one could read as just speaking casually but given the post history I'm reading as "I'm throwing legal ideas I've heard against the wall and hoping something sticks" General inviolability of a domicile would weigh on a balancing test but he's not making that argument. edit: After reading through the whole district court decision it seems the real issue here is that the officers weren't acting on an actual exigency but loving with the plaintiff because he was being an (constitutionally protected) rear end in a top hat. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think the entire 4th is a red herring as it wasn't a search, they were using his property rather than searching it. If they found things in his house and arrested him for them, then it's arguably a 4th amendment issue. But this strikes me as a takings clause issue more than anything else, his property was taken by the police (temporarily) without just compensation. Why wouldn't the taking of the property count as a seizure under the 4th amendment? They literally arrested the owners in order to deprive them of the home while the police wanted to use it. Which they then proceeded to conduct seemingly illegal searches upon the homes. Also, does temporary police usage count as being taken for public use? My understanding is that that's been defined as using eminent domain type actions to permanently take property for "public good", not temporarily borrow some poo poo. Unless Hollywood's idea of a cop's ability to commander a vehicle is an accurate portrayal of the use of the takings clause.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Your complete lack of understanding of how the fourth amendment works? You seem to be under the impression that there is one, unifying 4th Amendment jurisprudence. But there isn't. 4A case law is carved up and different based upon different fact patterns. There is home-specific case law. There is vehicle-specific case law. There is post-arrest-specific case law. There is border-specific case law. And so on. Comparing the reasonableness of border searches to warrantless entry into a home is apples and oranges, not just as a matter of common sense, but also as a matter of 4A case law. Nobody in a court cares whether a search is permissible at a border crossing when discussing whether a search at a home was permissible. They care about home-entry cases. evilweasel posted:I think the entire 4th is a red herring as it wasn't a search, they were using his property rather than searching it. If they found things in his house and arrested him for them, then it's arguably a 4th amendment issue. But this strikes me as a takings clause issue more than anything else, his property was taken by the police (temporarily) without just compensation. Anything that gives the government more information is a search. Entry into a home is a search under the 4A. Like, so obviously a search, I don't even know if the most ardent of prosecutors would argue otherwise to a judge with a straight face. Arguing "seizure" of the home is weird and probably, wrong, however. Definitely seizure of the home's occupants, if they were not entitled to leave or were arrested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
1L property: property rights are the right to exclude and if you can't keep the cops out, they seized your property, even if temporarily
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:1L property: property rights are the right to exclude and if you can't keep the cops out, they seized your property, even if temporarily Justice Scalia just popped a boner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:edit: After reading through the whole district court decision it seems the real issue here is that the officers weren't acting on an actual exigency but loving with the plaintiff because he was being an (constitutionally protected) rear end in a top hat. I appreciate that you've only now started to actually read up on the case in question, but you're accusing me of talking out my rear end and hoping something sticks. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:You seem to be under the impression that there is one, unifying 4th Amendment jurisprudence. But there isn't. 4A case law is carved up and different based upon different fact patterns. There is home-specific case law. There is vehicle-specific case law. There is post-arrest-specific case law. There is border-specific case law. And so on. Searches at the border is the archetypal example of a search being reasonable without a warrant and I can't check right now but I believe is the originating precedent. It's like bringing up yelling fire in a crowded theater to illustrate that the first is not absolute and getting the response "you idiot this case isn't in a theater". Keeshhound posted:I appreciate that you've only now started to actually read up on the case in question, but you're accusing me of talking out my rear end and hoping something sticks. That's uh... exactly what you were doing though? Your argument for why the police were wrong is still wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Why wouldn't the taking of the property count as a seizure under the 4th amendment? They literally arrested the owners in order to deprive them of the home while the police wanted to use it. Which they then proceeded to conduct seemingly illegal searches upon the homes. Also, does temporary police usage count as being taken for public use? My understanding is that that's been defined as using eminent domain type actions to permanently take property for "public good", not temporarily borrow some poo poo. Unless Hollywood's idea of a cop's ability to commander a vehicle is an accurate portrayal of the use of the takings clause. I would say it's more a deprivation of property which is covered by the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process of law, or a taking. Considering it a seizure seems to be trying to shoehorn it into the wrong amendment because other sections of the Constitution/bill of rights protect property rights so there's no reason to shoehorn it in as a seizure under the 4th. I'm not really clear on the full definition of seizure in the 4th but in context it's clearly not about property rights its about arrests/searches and I assume seizure essentially means arrest in that context. Either way I just don't see it as a search, the government may have tried to search the property while they were on it but I wouldn't interpret "get out of your house, we need to use it" as a search. There's all sorts of reasons why it might not be OK but I think the 4th is stretching there. Green Crayons posted:Anything that gives the government more information is a search. Entry into a home is a search under the 4A. ...no. That's not what a search is. There are all sorts of reasons that the government can enter your home without a search warrant or without probable cause - for example, if they see someone drowning in your pool they are fully allowed to leap in and try to rescue that person even if they have no reason to believe it's anything but an accident. Their entry will raise 4th Amendment issues if they then find evidence of something and try to use it against you, but as a generalized we're coming into your property for other reasons it does not. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's uh... exactly what you were doing though? I don't know where you got the idea that I hadn't read the case by the time I asked you to read it as well, but regardless, obviously we got off on the wrong foot. I was absolutely being an rear end in a top hat when I posted the text of the 4th amendment as though you didn't know what it was. But you still haven't articulated why you were so sure that the police: 1. Entering Mitchel's residence without a warrant. 2. Arresting Mitchel without a warrant. And 3. Searching his property without a warrant. Could ever be anything but a 4th amendment violation. It doesn't even matter if it's now confirmed that the police were retaliating against him, it was a violation when they first smashed down his door. The first thing you suggested was that there were hostages and that that justified acting without awarrant, but even that doesn't hold up; you're basically arguing that citizens lose their fourth amendment protections when their neighbors gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:...no. That's not what a search is. There are all sorts of reasons that the government can enter your home without a search warrant or without probable cause - for example, if they see someone drowning in your pool they are fully allowed to leap in and try to rescue that person even if they have no reason to believe it's anything but an accident. Their entry will raise 4th Amendment issues if they then find evidence of something and try to use it against you, but as a generalized we're coming into your property for other reasons it does not. Nope. You're just wrong on some basic points. First, you're confusing "what this a search?" with "was this search reasonable?" A search is any action that reveals information--the two different types of inquiries in the "is it a search" analysis is "were reasonable expectations of privacy invaded?" and "were property interests invaded?" Literally walking into a home is the classic example of a search. In contrast, exigent circumstances goes to whether a search was reasonable. If there was no search, then whether exigent circumstances existed is beside the point. After all, if there was no search (or seizure), the 4A isn't triggered. Second, your requirement that "government must find something to use against you" as a predicate for there being a search is so incredibly not the law that I don't even know where you're getting it from. Like, you're definition of a search would make 1983 actions even more obsolete than they already are for 4A violations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:In contrast, exigent circumstances goes to whether a search was reasonable. If there was no search, then whether exigent circumstances existed is beside the point. After all, if there was no search (or seizure), the 4A isn't triggered. That's my entire point, there was no search.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Your basis for arguing why there was no search (exigent circumstances) necessarily depends upon there having been a search. edit: Jarmak posted:Searches at the border is the archetypal example of a search being reasonable without a warrant and I can't check right now but I believe is the originating precedent. It's like bringing up yelling fire in a crowded theater to illustrate that the first is not absolute and getting the response "you idiot this case isn't in a theater". This is also just wrong. What are you even basing this on?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
This entire area of discussion is fascinating to me because I've been a longtime viewer of lovely cop shows, and half the time their assertion is 'the door is unlocked, therefore we can go in and anything we don't have to actively unlock is fair game for search.' Which seems...wrong?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:This entire area of discussion is fascinating to me because I've been a longtime viewer of lovely cop shows, and half the time their assertion is 'the door is unlocked, therefore we can go in and anything we don't have to actively unlock is fair game for search.' Which seems...wrong? It is. The only thing the police don't need a warrant for is poo poo that any reasonable person could notice without taking action to uncover. So if the door is unlocked and hanging open, they could look in, but they still couldn't go inside without the owner's permission, because that's trespassing. On the other hand, if the door is unlocked, but latched, they're poo poo out of luck and need to ask for permission or get a warrant. Edit: As Gyges notes, this is specifically in regards to police-initiated searches. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Aug 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:It is. If they have a reasonable suspicion that something is going on in the house they can enter, I think it's called exigent circumstances? For instance if the door is unlocked&open and there's a burglary alarm, they hear something that would constitute a need to enter like a struggle or cry for help, they smell the overpowering reek of marijuana, other such things. If the door is secured, then they need more since a door hanging open is itself somewhat "suspicious".
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
In practice courts are REALLY deferential to the police. Exigent circumstances can just be like "I heard he had drugs and he knew I was out there so he was obviously about to flush all his drugs down the toilet, therefore I had to break his door down".
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In practice courts are REALLY deferential to the police. Exigent circumstances can just be like "I heard he had drugs and he knew I was out there so he was obviously about to flush all his drugs down the toilet, therefore I had to break his door down". 1) officer suspects drugs are inside the house, but doesn't want to get a warrant 2) officer announces his presence 3) suddenly officer has exigent circumstances justification to enter into the home without a warrant because the bad guys might flush the drugs down the toilet when they know cops are outside
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:That's an actual fact pattern that many courts have decided constitute legitimate exigent circumstances. Yes I am aware. That's why I said it. It seems like in drug investigations it sort of becomes the exception that devours the rule, but I definitely understand why courts rule that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yes I am aware. That's why I said it. It seems like in drug investigations it sort of becomes the exception that devours the rule, but I definitely understand why courts rule that way. Part of the reason for this is that Scalia was actually one of the strongest supporters of 4th amendment rights on the court. His hatred for drugs was stronger than any of his other beliefs though(see Raich), so there's basically a drug exception to the 4th amendment since he was generally more willing to allow exceptions in drug cases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Searches at the border is the archetypal example of a search being reasonable without a warrant and I can't check right now but I believe is the originating precedent. It's like bringing up yelling fire in a crowded theater to illustrate that the first is not absolute and getting the response "you idiot this case isn't in a theater". You do realize that the case in which the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument was made was actually about distributing leaflets that opposed the draft, not actually about someone who yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, right? So that's actually a pretty solid argument about that case in general. ShadowHawk posted:The referendum creating that impartial committee was written specifically to exclude the congressional races though, because Nancy Pelosi. It also came after the establishment defeated a very similar referendum (by Arnold) which did include the congressional delegation. Who cares? Now that Republicans have been essentially purged from the state government, California is functional again. It would be fantastic if we eliminated gerrymandering nationwide but that's not legally possible since the states get to run their own systems. Republicans have no problems doing it, as evidenced by the massive bias in US House seats, and in this case it's fixed a wildly dysfunctional system. Now Cali just needs to get rid of Prop 13 and they'll be set. (I would definitely be in favor of a nationwide VRA preclearance at all levels, if it could happen, but it probably couldn't) Mr. Nice! posted:Which is dumb as well. There have been threats of court stacking before and there has been definitely some partisan hackery on behalf of the court (CU), but the entire point of being a judge is to put aside personal bias and rule according to what the law says not what they feel. This all comes down to whether you consider the job of justices to be to arbitrate law or arbitrate justice. It's just naieve to claim that there is some objective standard of law that everyone knows in their heart of hearts. The law is voluminous and sometimes contradictory. Interpretation is the name of the game, everyone sees different scopes and different balance between those contradictory rights. Somebody's got to reconcile the right to marriage, race as a protected class, and bans on miscegenation. "Balls and strikes" philosophy is bankrupt and always has been. Again, in practical terms having contraceptives and gay marriage is pretty awesome and I don't particularly care if that puts someone's nose out of joint. twodot posted:I don't understand how an objective reasonable person could think there is an appearance of impropriety if a bunch of people who consider themselves objective and reasonable with no special knowledge don't think there is an actual impropriety. Person with conflict of interest refuses to acknowledge conflict of interest, film at 11. quote:Things couldn’t have been better, and then look what happened. They had to send a guy from the draft board around to look me over. I was Four-F. I had examined myself pretty thoroughly and discovered that I was unfit for military service. You’d think my word would be enough, wouldn’t you, since I was a doctor in good standing with my county medical society and with my local Better Business Bureau. But no, it wasn’t, and they sent this guy around just to make sure I really did have one leg amputated at the hip and was helplessly bedridden with incurable rheumatoid arthritis. Yossarian, we live in an age of distrust and deteriorating spiritual values. It’s a terrible thing,’ Doc Daneeka protested in a voice quavering with strong emotion. ‘It’s a terrible thing when even the word of a licensed physician is suspected by the country he loves.’ Too bad there's no ethics board for the SCOTUS, they just get to use the honor system. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You do realize that the case in which the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument was made was actually about distributing leaflets that opposed the draft, not actually about someone who yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, right? Given that they apparently can't tell the difference between a border crossing and a person's home? No, I don't think they have the legal nuance required. For what it's worth, I'd say that ruling wasn't technically wrong (you really aren't protected if you use speech to incite harm for perversity's sake) but it was grossly misapplied in that case. Much like trying to apply border crossing searches in a case involving a person's house.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
In this note, Cop Show Question #2: is it true that cops cannot normally arrest you within your own home and require you to step outside its bounds? (Unless something about warrants?? I honestly cannot tell what rules SVU plays by there because holy poo poo that show is dumb. I have a problem and my problem is dumb cop shows.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:In this note, Cop Show Question #2: is it true that cops cannot normally arrest you within your own home and require you to step outside its bounds? (Unless something about warrants?? I honestly cannot tell what rules SVU plays by there because holy poo poo that show is dumb. I have a problem and my problem is dumb cop shows.) If you're in a public place, they can arrest you with sufficient probable cause (which can be "I have a lot of evidence that he did it"). If it's a situation that's deemed an emergency (like someone's in imminent danger) they can bust into a private property. If it's just a normal situation, they can't go into your house and arrest you unless they have a warrant signed off by a judge (like a search warrant) because that violates the 4th Amendment: quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.[2] Note that the bolded includes "Persons" to be seized.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I honestly cannot tell what rules SVU plays by there because holy poo poo that show is dumb. I have a problem and my problem is dumb cop shows.) I'm perfectly happy for the coplaw discussion to continue, because it's really important for people to know their rights on that subject (the worst violations tend to not get reported because people don't realize it was something the police weren't supposed to do,) but... As a general rule, if you see them do it on a cop show, assume they're violating some kind of restriction on police power for the sake of drama, or just to make policework sexier than it usually is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
So even if you invite the cops into your home, without a warrant for your arrest signed by a judge, they can't arrest you inside that home, but could if you stepped outside and they believe they have probable cause (but no warrant)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
They can do whatever they want whenever they want. They'll just say the smelled weed or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:So even if you invite the cops into your home, without a warrant for your arrest signed by a judge, they can't arrest you inside that home, but could if you stepped outside and they believe they have probable cause (but no warrant)? If you invite them in, and they have enough evidence for an arrest without a warrant, they can arrest you. In essence, you inviting them in makes your home, or at least the foyer, a "public" space for their purposes. Basically, if the cops ever show up at your doorstep without a warrant, just talk to them through the door, or ignore them until they leave and come back with a warrant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:If you invite them in, and they have enough evidence for an arrest without a warrant, they can arrest you. In essence, you inviting them in makes your home, or at least the foyer, a "public" space for their purposes. This but remove the words "just talk to them through the door". Never talk to the police.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
What's the shortest turnaround the Supreme Court has made on reversing a decision? I ask because Citizens United IIRC was partly decided on "Nobody could possibly believe that this would cause corruption". Could a Court with a more-liberal replacement for Scalia reverse it without being unseemly in its haste?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:What's the shortest turnaround the Supreme Court has made on reversing a decision? I ask because Citizens United IIRC was partly decided on "Nobody could possibly believe that this would cause corruption". Could a Court with a more-liberal replacement for Scalia reverse it without being unseemly in its haste? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions Cases like West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and United States v. Ross show that it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
The shortest I can find from the Wiki list is: Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial and, in death penalty cases, does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Payne overruled two of the Courts' precedents: Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989). Citizens United was eight hellish years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I don't know where you got the idea that I hadn't read the case by the time I asked you to read it as well, but regardless, obviously we got off on the wrong foot. I was absolutely being an rear end in a top hat when I posted the text of the 4th amendment as though you didn't know what it was. But you still haven't articulated why you were so sure that the police: Because the warrant is not the be all end all? Fourth Amendment cases can also be examined under the reasonableness clause instead of the warrant clause (see: the point of bringing up the border search example)? Maybe you should try reading Camara? Or any of the emergency doctrine cases? Preservation of human life almost always supercedes right to privacy (and I'm not aware of any that don't I'm just qualifying my statement because I haven't done the research to verify). Green Crayons posted:This is also just wrong. What are you even basing this on? I severely misremembered it's importance but it still is a valid example of validating a search through the reasonableness clause instead of the warrant clause. I don't know why I was thinking it was so important, think I had a professor cite it as an example during crim pro or something cause it was really prominent in my mind and I was phone posting. Paul MaudDib posted:You do realize that the case in which the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument was made was actually about distributing leaflets that opposed the draft, not actually about someone who yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, right? This is some seriously impressive missing the point, by literally doing the very thing I used as an hyperbolic example of missing the point. So no, it's not a solid argument at all. Keeshhound posted:Given that they apparently can't tell the difference between a border crossing and a person's home? No, I don't think they have the legal nuance required. Guys really aren't keen on abstract thinking huh? If you can't comprehend that there are abstract concepts that can be cross applicable between those situations because "omg one is a home and one is a border" I don't really understand what you're doing in this thread. Oh but hey we're just declaring the reasoning in Schenck bad law now so I guess we're not actually arguing the law how it exists whatsoever just whatever we feel like it should be (yes I'm aware Schenck has been refined by Brandenburg but its reasoning was upheld and it's still considered good law).
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because the warrant is not the be all end all? Fourth Amendment cases can also be examined under the reasonableness clause instead of the warrant clause (see: the point of bringing up the border search example)? Maybe you should try reading Camara? Or any of the emergency doctrine cases? Preservation of human life almost always supercedes right to privacy (and I'm not aware of any that don't I'm just qualifying my statement because I haven't done the research to verify). Yes. Warrantless searches can be reasonable. No one has disputed this. Now you need to show why this specific case is an example of such a search. Look, I'll help you start: Jarmak posted:The officers in question did not violate Mr. Mitchel's Fourth Amendment rights because:
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:39
|
|