The U.S. Fourth Amendment

[CSolarstorm]

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.

Recently the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that although police must have a warrant to be allowed into a person's house, people have no right to refuse access to the police if they want to come in anyway. This has sparked controversy and minor protests.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/05/indiana-trounces-fourth-amendment

Then there's the TSA controversy, which despite the assertion that you sign away your Fourth Amendment rights when you buy an airplane ticket, is gaining significant attention because there is a popular bill being proposed in Texas that would prohibit "groping" by the TSA. The TSA actually responded to this by threatening to shut down flights that were not subjected to their procedures, because they were "not safe".

Also, it would be more believable that the airplane security has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment, if several TSA agents were not actually on record saying that we have to violate the Fourth Amendment for everyone's safety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni4GVWvT2Zs

Is the Fourth Amendment in danger? Or are these exceptions and specifications moving us toward the better good?

 

[bel9]

Recently the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that although police must have a warrant to be allowed into a person's house, people have no right to refuse access to the police if they want to come in anyway. This has sparked controversy and minor protests.

Two Kentucky police officers sparked the case when, in search of a suspect, they broke into an apartment smelling of marijuana for fear of evidence being destroyed. They got the wrong place but still found illegal drugs.

The Indiana Supreme Court says the ruling is for the safety of the police officer and community. They say allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and risk of injury to both police and the community. The justices say homeowners should take the matter to court after the search if they feel it was illegal.

I want to read more about this. Most of what I can find so far is more about the protesters and not about the ruling itself. The above two quotes are the only snippets I found about the ruling that wasn't simply "ZOMG TEH 4tH amendment IZ DEAD RAWR." I'd like to read more about the court's decision.

The main problem I see with the argument is that despite the slippery slope being presented, this has been legal and is nothing new. There is also a ton of different state laws that define for what officers can and cannot do/search based on probable cause.

Then there's the TSA controversy, which despite the assertion that you sign away your Fourth Amendment rights when you buy an airplane ticket, is gaining significant attention because there is a popular bill being proposed in Texas that would prohibit "groping" by the TSA. The TSA actually responded to this by threatening to shut down flights that were not subjected to their procedures, because they were "not safe".

The difficulty is defining the word groping. Either they touch you or they don't touch you at all, otherwise "groping" is pretty open.

 

[Malanu]

This is a tough, tough, issue. For me I ask, "Do you want to be safe and secure?" If your answer is yes, then you have to give up some freedom to have the security.

I worked for a security company for a year... (yeah I know) Our boss was taking the owner to see the new security systems in the vault. The Owner didn't have HIS badge. The vault guard would not let him in! Was the guard right or wrong for enforcing the "no pass, no enter rule"?

Lack of security allowed 9/11 to happen. The 'crotch bomber' proved that security isn't stringent enough. So again ask yourself, 'Do I want to be safe or free?' If you answer safe, then you know what's required. If you want freedom then you know the price too.

 

[GaZsTiC]

The US seems to continuously have problems following it's own amendment.

 

[Malanu]

The US seems to continuously have problems following it's own amendment.

Yeah we do have an issue with that don't we?

 

[bel9]

Okay I looked up a bit more about the case and found:

In 2007 a 911 call was made, so the police were required to show up and already had probable cause to enter the home and quell whatever domestic abuse was taking place. However, Rich Barnes, decided that the officers had no right to enter the home without a warrant although a 911 call was made out by his wife. Rich Barnes tried to physically assault the officers. He was subdued and the officers arrested him.

I stand by my first point: this is already legal. If the officers felt that there was imminent danger for someone [in this case the wife] they have every right to go in. Barnes had no right to assault the police officers.

 

[Malanu]

Okay I looked up a bit more about the case and found:

In 2007 a 911 call was made from the apartment of Rich Barnes, so the police were required to show up and already had probable cause to enter the home and quell whatever domestic abuse was taking place. However, Rich Barnes, decided that the officers had no right to enter the home without a warrant although a 911 call was made out by his wife. Rich Barnes tried to physically assault the officers. He was subdued and the officers arrested him.

I stand by my first point: this is already legal. If the officers felt that there was imminent danger for someone [in this case the wife] they have every right to go in. Barnes had no right to assault the police officers.

Yeah on domestic abuse calls I have heard that someone has gotta go! Either to jail or just out of the house.

 

[bel9]

This case keeps getting worse the more I read it. D:

On November 18, 2007, Richard Barnes and his wife, Mary, were arguing while Barnes was moving out of their apartment. During the argument, Mary tried to call her sister, but Barnes grabbed the phone and threw it against the wall. Mary then used her cell phone to call 911. Mary told the dispatcher that Barnes was throwing things around the apartment but stated that Barnes had not struck her.
Officer Lenny Reed responded to the 911 dispatch. When the officer arrived at the apartment building, he observed Barnes walking out of the apartment. Barnes was carrying a black bag. Officer Reed told Bar-nes that he was investigating a 911 call. Barnes stated that the officer was not needed,
and that the officer should leave because Barnes was leaving. Because Barnes was yell-ing at the officer, Officer Reed told Barnes that he was going to arrest him for disorderly conduct if Barnes did not calm down. The officer noticed that people near the apartment building were staring at Barnes and the offi-cer.
During this discussion, Mary walked out of the apartment carrying another duffel bag. She threw the bag down on the ground and told Barnes to take the rest of his things. Mary then walked back into the apartment followed by Barnes, Officer Reed, and another officer who had arrived on the scene. When they reached the doorway of the apartment, Barnes told the officers that they could not en-ter. Officer Reed explained they needed to come in to investigate the 911 call. Barnes continued to deny the officers entry. During their argument, Mary told Barnes to “just let them in.” Officer Reed attempted to walk past Bar-nes to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved the officer into the hallway. Officer Reed and Barnes continued to struggle and eventually the other officer on the scene grabbed Barnes in a vascular neck restraint and took Barnes to the ground. Barnes continued to struggle, and a taser was used to subdue Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/appeals/mapapp/docs/glance/2010/barnes-state.pdf

 

[.TraX.]

Better to run the risks of sticking by the 4th amendment than giving the police undue powers by removing it, IMO.

 

[Malanu]

Better to run the risks of sticking by the 4th amendment than giving the police undue powers by removing it, IMO.

This argues both ways, I'd rather them break into a house looking for a meth lab and not find one than not be able to bust felons red handed cause they can't get permission.

 

[.TraX.]

This argues both ways, I'd rather them break into a house looking for a meth lab and not find one than not be able to bust felons red handed cause they can't get permission.

Yeah, but we've already got enough problems with police abusing their power - far more than we have with the police not being able to acquire power, for the most part when the police have even minimal evidence there's a crime going on they can get a warrant or enter without one if needed (depending on the crime).

I can't think of an event in which a life has been lost because the police couldn't enter a house due to not having a warrant, but I sure can think of a lot of unfortunate situations where the police have overstepped their authority and people have been hurt, unjustly imprisoned or killed because of it.

 

[2+2=5]

Liberties are being killed by attrition. This doesn't come as a surprise.

 

[bel9]

Yeah, but we've already got enough problems with police abusing their power - far more than we have with the police not being able to acquire power, for the most part when the police have even minimal evidence there's a crime going on they can get a warrant or enter without one if needed (depending on the crime).

I can't think of an event in which a life has been lost because the police couldn't enter a house due to not having a warrant, but I sure can think of a lot of unfortunate situations where the police have overstepped their authority and people have been hurt, unjustly imprisoned or killed because of it.

Assaulting an officer is battery. Even before the ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court, Barnes had no right to assault the officer. The Appeals court, which sided that the police had no right to enter and favored Barnes, still found Barnes guilty of police battery.

Barnes had no right to attack. If the officers brought charges against him later, he could have cited their failure to produce a warrant, although it wouldn't have helped him since the police officers had extingent circumstances and the wife had already given them permission to come into the apartment.

 

[.TraX.]

Barnes had no right to attack. If they officers brought charges against him later, he could have cited their failure to produce a warrant, although it wouldn't have helped him since the police officers had extingent circumstances and the wife already gave them permission to come into the apartment.

You're not wrong, I'm just saying it's ridiculous to give police any more powers than they already have.

 

[2+2=5]

You're not wrong, I'm just saying it's ridiculous to give police any more powers than they already have.

I agree, because the next step from there would be the formation of a Thought Police.

 

[Malanu]

You're not wrong, I'm just saying it's ridiculous to give police any more powers than they already have.

Yeah that is the downside of having that kind of authority. That is the downside of "security" and why it needs to be determined how secure do you want your life to be and what will you pay to have it.

 

[.TraX.]

Yeah that is the downside of having that kind of authority. That is the downside of "security" and why it needs to be determined how secure do you want your life to be and what will you pay to have it.

At a certain point it doesn't actually give more security though, history has shown us that with enough money or influence you can buy off enough police for all security measures involving the police to fail. We can't assume that giving police more authority actually results in greater security, at some point it probably results in less.

 

[Malanu]

At a certain point it doesn't actually give more security though, history has shown us that with enough money or influence you can buy off enough police for all security measures involving the police to fail. We can't assume that giving police more authority actually results in greater security, at some point it probably results in less.

Yeah that's a great point. So you come down on the side of freedom over security I assume?

 

[.TraX.]

Yeah that's a great point. So you come down on the side of freedom over security I assume?

I tend to sit somewhere in the middle.

For instance, I'm strongly opposed to anything that removes judicial oversight and due process because I believe that in it's self is a form of security for us - but on the same token I'm strongly in favor of very strong sentences for violent criminals (I'm talking gang assaults, rapists, murderers, and assaults with weapons).

 

[Malanu]

Cool, I wasn't trying to pigeonhole you into a camp. I was seeing where you stand... so I guess I was trying... Anyway, I meant no disrespect!