Searches Without Warrants approved

Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/...83/detail.html

NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.

Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."

The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000.

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.

"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.

But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has big problems with the ruling.

"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition.

Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.

"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.

Quote:

---

"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said

---

Where??? Another right given to us in the 'Bill of Rights' just went down the tubes. What is going to balence that? As it stands now in Louisiana, a cop can come to your home, because of a dog barking complaint (you don't even own a dog), and then conduct a search of your home and possesions if he 'FEELS' that some how he is in danger.
Would he just search for weapons.......No of course not. As long as he is searching, he will look for anything that might be used against you.
He feels threatened, but why is he wanting your password into your computer....is there a weapon hidden on the hard drive?

Ahem.... It will be knocked down before it even gets to the Supreme Court.... 'nuff said?

hope your right TS. just seems to me they keep trying things like this over and over maybe one day they'll slip it by.

humm we cant get everyone to go for mass fingerprinting so lets hit where it hurt.s we'll say its to protect their kids. yeah! yeah! thats it! protect the kids! maybe we'll soon here of a terorrist attempt in new orleans that wouldn't have gotten as far as it did if the police had these rights.

if people did roll over in their graves when things happened mr orwell would be known in heaven as pinwheel george

I must agree. Search and Seziure without probable cause and a search warrant is wrong. I am all for catching criminals and I for one have nothing to hide where illegal acts are concerned. I am sure the court system will strike down this action, since this practice essentially creates a police state, which flies directly in the face of freedom.

How dose this shock any one? We have a federal goverment that has violated this gaurented right for at least two Us citizans...now they are just takeing their standared operating procedure and codeifying it. can't blam the luesiana police the yare jsut takeing adantage of our current judicial and executive enviroment.....if we have another four years of this crap we wont have many rights left.

It's not a "Federal government" decision here. Try not to skew the issue please. The ruling was handed down by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals( State Court). I have every confidence that our legal system will strike down this ruling in a higher court, and will be rejected for re-consideration by a higher court thereafter.

The interesting thing is this is one of the most laid back societies on the surface of this continent. I haven't read the article so I won't jump to conclusions I just find it interesting that of all the places it was New Orleans. An officer can hold or detain a person and get a search warrent so what's the issue? I wonder what surrounds this guy, like is he a huge mob boss or what?

Unsurprising but disturbing development. Hopefully the state court will throw it out.

Geez! I read the court documents and this situation is extremly murky. Ok here is the skinny:

1. Co-worker notifies police that defendant has weapons and has communicated his intent to commit murder and destroy Telecom relay stations.
2. Police look up defendant's criminal record and discover Federal convictions for violent crimes. Defendent is on probation.
3. Police go to defendant's residence to speak with defendant. (No search warrant)
4. Co-habitant gives police permission to search premesis when queried.
5. Police fearing potential violence preform a sweep of the residence, to include closets where an individual may hide.
6. Police notice several weapons in one of the closets. (Weapons are not seized at this time.)
7. Police arrest defendant, who left the residence through a back door, on charges of illegal posession of a weapon by a parolee.
8. Police obtain permission to search the residence again from the defendant.
9. Police search the bedroom and sieze the weapons.

The crux here lays around whether or not it was legal to conduct a search, when the police did not have the intent of arresting the defendant, only questioning him. If the Police feared potential violence, the defense argues that a search warrant should have been aquired prior to entering the residence. Defense also argues that the subsequent arrest was invalid, since search was illegal.

On the flip side. The police had permission to search the residence and were concerned about the previous convicions indicating a potential to commit violence. Now, Police are supposed to act on situations where lawbreaking is witnessed by the officer. In this instance, the possession of firearms by an individual on parole.

I'll have to digest all of this before I form an opinion.

It looks like as usual a lot of stuff is left out. But if they were given permission it enter the residence by another occupant. Why the new powers? Do they actually have new powers or is the rhetoric based on the decision to uphold the arrest? As in someone's interpretation that the police have these all sweeping new powers?

This is waht I get fpr not reasearching thestory...if the cohabitant of the house gave permision for the search then no rights have been violated...remember folkes if a cop askes you to come in your house you can say no. to quote a friend of mine who is a cop "we are like vampires, we have no ability to enter a house untill we are invited in."

Same with your car. If you get pulled over and the police man asks to look in the car, you have a right to say no. In most cases the property rights are extended to the hidden areas of your car. Of course if you have a fatty tucked under your ear or a Bud in the cup holder, that right becomes vague depending on state laws.

most states if they can see it they can see it, but cops need a warrent to search a trunk......only once haei had to insiest on one...i think the cop felt that i wasn't willing to wait untill one got there.

I put some serious thought int this topic, and after due consideration I have decided that I have to agree with the defense council.

While it is obvious that the defendent is guilty of firearm possession by a parolee, the more prevalent issue is about illegal search. The officers knew about the threat to commit murder, knew about the prior Federal convictions for violent crimes, and knew about the high probability that weapons were stored in the defendant's house. Normal and established protocols for this scenario dictated acquiring a search warrant or even an arrest warrant for parole violation. I also doubt that any judge would hesitate in issuing the aforementioned warrant. Also there is large amounts of case law referencing illegal search when no warrant is involved. Now I hate to admit this but, the police oversteped thier authority. Personally I think the guy needs to be back behind bars, however our rights to privacy as viewed per the rule of law must be upheld or the law becomes moot.

Yeah most people are stressed when they are in that situation. And they don't want to make it any worse so they just open the trunk where their case of Budweiser is setting on ice. :)

//Edit OverdueSpy - you overlook the fact the police were given permission by a co-occupant? I can agree that given all the evidence and circumstance that they definitely should have followed protocal and obtain search warrent. But given all that, they were given permission to go inside, were they not?

Yes they were given permission to go inside and look around, but this is where we get into the issue of "Why did the officers conduct a search when there was no intent to arrest the individual and no search warrant had been issued?" Accoring to the officers testimony they went to the premisis to "only question" the defendant, and conducted the security sweep to protect themselves. If the officers were indeed there only to question the defendant then why was there a need to conduct a security sweep? My contention is that if the threat was that high then a warrant should have been issued prior to proceeding to the residence, unless there was a potentially violent dispute ongoing at the time. IMHO the security sweep/search was conducted under false pretenses.

I kind of see your point of veiw, you are saying since they had a complaint from a co-worker and they had his criminal record, they should have seen the danger and got a search warrent. I guess I would have to see the actual ruling from the court or a time line. For instance perhaps they only did want to question him and upon entering the residence saw something that forced an imediate response? Certainly if they did indeed have some presumption they would arest him, based on circumstances I see, a search warrent would have been very easy to obtain?

one tip from a coworker...depending on the judge you would be hard pressed to get a warrent on that evedience....and we must assume that the local police know the local judges and how they will react to any given request., I doubt any one here knows enough about the judges in teh area to know how eaily or how quickly a search warrent would be otained on very thin evidence, IMHO they went the right route by looking to question the guy.

They where allowed into the premisis, unless the cohabitant can show that they intimadated their way in no laws where broken and no rights where violated.

Quote:

---

"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.

---

Right, which is why they have search warants, to make sure you have a legit reason.

-Cheers-

So, can anyone tell me how this law is not unconstitutional?

Quote:

---

Originally posted in the US Constitution
Amendment IV

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 11001001
So, can anyone tell me how this law is not unconstitutional?

---

I'm a little confused here. The statement "not unconstitutional" is kind of a double negative. Are you asking if anyone thinks that the court's decision was constitutionaly sound? My personal view is no, and the decision was not constitutionally sound. Not trying to poke fun or anything, I just need some clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
I'm a little confused here. The statement "not unconstitutional" is kind of a double negative. Are you asking if anyone thinks that the court's decision was constitutionaly sound? My personal view is no, and the decision was not constitutionally sound. Not trying to poke fun or anything, I just need some clarification.

---

Basically, the fourth amendment guarantees your protection against illegal searches and seizures.


What this means:

No one can perform a search and/or seizure on you or your property without the issuance of a search warrant.

No one can get a search warrant without a damned good reason, and "probable cause" to back it up.


So, by eliminating the need for cops to obtain a search warrant in order to search you or your property, the legislature is essentially nullifying the fourth amendment.

Yeas, in the long run, I am saying that I agree with you. That the new law is in fact unconstitutional.

I hope that helps.