Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Entry by Police; Chips Away at Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.
The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment...[Full Article]
Search Allowed if Police Hear Evidence Being Destroyed
New York Times
WASHINGTON — The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision.
The issue as framed by the majority was a narrow one. It assumed there was good reason to think evidence was being destroyed, and asked only whether the conduct of the police had impermissibly caused the destruction.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches by kicking down a door after the occupants of an apartment react to hearing that officers are there by seeming to destroy evidence.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the majority had handed the police an important new tool.
“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”...[Full Article]
Supreme Court Chips Away at the Fourth Amendment in KY Case
Labels: 4th Amendment, Constitution, police state, Supreme Court
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Breitbart
ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."
The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:
"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will...
[Full Article]Labels: Constitution, Supreme Court
Friday, August 13, 2010
California lawyer's question referred to court for review
A California attorney who more than a year ago told WND she would go back again and again to the U.S. Supreme Court until she gets an answer on Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has returned to the court's calendar.
According to a posting on the U.S. Supreme Court website, Orly Taitz' latest request for an opinion from the high court has been "referred to the Court."
Taitz, who has spearheaded several of the prominent legal cases challenging Obama's eligibility based on claims he does not qualify for the office under the U.S. Constitution, has brought before the court a penalty of $20,000 imposed by a federal judge on her for her actions in one of her cases.
Taitz confirmed to WND she has had donations of about $2,000 to defray the penalty, but she is arguing she should not be subjected to the penalty.
 |
In two other cases in which penalties were threatened by federal judges on attorneys who brought eligibility challenges both courts backed off when the attorneys pointed out that being subjected to penalties gave them standing to request a hearing on the actual evidence in the case and the discovery of Obama's birth documentation.
The penalty against Taitz stems from her presentation of the case of Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes.
Taitz told WND that in her request before the court she is asking for discovery and arguing the sanctions are not warranted...
[Full Article]Labels: birth certificate, eligibility, Obama, Supreme Court
Saturday, June 5, 2010
In what has to be one of the biggest violations of common sense and burden of proof in motoring news this year, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that officers can “visually estimate” how fast a person is driving… and give them a ticket for it.
Thanks Ohio Supreme Court for giving cops the green light to make up speeding tickets.
Supreme Court Justice Maureen O’Connor said “Rational triers of fact could find a police officer’s testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified by (the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy) or a similar organization, and experienced in making such estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s speed. Independent verification of the vehicle’s speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding.”...
Labels: law enforcement, Ohio, police, speeding, Supreme Court
Friday, April 16, 2010
The Supreme Court is asking for more federal security funds, citing as one reason the “volume” of threats it receives.
Justice Clarence Thomas told a House Appropriations subcommittee on Thursday that the court wants money for 12 additional police officers, although security personnel want 24 ideally. Thomas said the court was considering the nation’s broader fiscal difficulties in asking for only 12...
Labels: Supreme Court, Uustice Clarence Thomas
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]