"Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

POSTED: 3:55 pm CST March 26, 2004
UPDATED: 11:30 am CST March 29, 2004

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 keep officers safe, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision in United States v. Kelly Gould, No. 0230629cr0, was made March 24 by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000, in which defendant Gould filed a motion to suppress information gleaned from a search of his home. The motion was granted by district court, and the government appealed this decision. The March 24 ruling by the 5th Circuit is an affirmation of that appeal.

In the case, the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office was contacted on Oct. 17, 2000, by a Gould employee who told officers that Gould intended to kill two judges and unidentified police officers and to destroy telephone company transformers. The LPSO informed the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office of the threats.

A search of Gould's criminal history revealed several arrests and that he was "a convicted felon for violent charges," according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

When officers went to question Gould, they were told he was asleep. The officers asked if they could look inside for Gould, and were allowed to enter.

The officers testified that that they believed a search of the home was necessary to ensure their safety, given the allegations by Gould's employee and Gould's criminal history, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

Gould's bedroom door was ajar, and officers testified they peered inside and saw no one. Thinking Gould could be hiding, the officers looked in three closets. In one of the closets, the officers found three firearms, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

Gould was found hiding outside the home a few minutes later. He was taken into custody and questioned about the guns. The officers asked for and received Gould's consent to search the home, with Gould signing a waiver of search warrant. Gould subsequently was arrested for allegedly being a felon in possession of firearms.

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new search power, which is effective immediately, will be used judiciously.

"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 said the ruling is problematic.

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

Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans.

"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justice system works in an effective manner," Defillo said."
This quote was excerpted from:
http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

History of the case...from March 2003
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0230629p.pdf
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30629
UNITED STATES v. KELLY DONALD GOULD,

Yesterday, a Channel 6 article said that two dissenting judges called the decision, the "road to hell". Channel 6 in New Orleans has taken that part out on their current article.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0230629cv0p.pdf
Ruling on the case of March 24,2004.
------------------SNIP--------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm....So, if you're in The Big Easy, New Orleans, and they get a tip
that you MAY be running a P2P machine and have copyrighted files, guess that means they can come on in and have a look around.

By the way, this ruling affects FIVE states right now.
~CW

Hmmm...they could say..."I thought I smelled smoke coming from inside the house...maybe there's a fire...we better go in and have a "look see".

Yawohl Mein Herr.

By the way, we will need to see your papers.

Hah, if you destroy the need for a search warrant, the checks and balances won't come into play. I suppose an officer could break in my house without a warrant, because i glared at him and he felt threatened. And they say that they only show up if you've done something in the first place? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Just like in the "piracy" suppena's (sorry i know i misspelled), and regardless, it's awful easy for a cop to #1: fabricate a reason to search a home, #2: lie and say they felt unsafe.. i mean come on, its a Police Officers word against your's. This also opens the door to a police state. Anyone can be arrested for anything at anytime. What happens now? We repeal due process rights!?

He doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans? There was a major crackdown on politial corruption about a year or so ago, but I doubt it will be long before this gets abused.

wow 3 posts all in 1 minutes, lol

The fact that this is just for Lousyana (Louisiana) is not to be seen as something that will not affect the other 49...this establishes precedent that will eventually go to the Supreme Court.

ah good point, its still very very unsettling however

But, of course, if that House Bill passes and a 2/3 vote can overturn Supreme Court decisions, all bets are off.

Sucks that the actions of the few will affect many.

I'll miss the 4th Amendment...it was nice...

I need to use the 1st amendment as much as possible until Louisiana muzzles that too.

damn now this is scary. this is what u get for letting a pig make decisions on their own inflated egos. think they have power, they're just cowards in uniforms. real men don't need to carry guns to be brave.

http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/no_warrantw.htm

But Mike Walsh, a defense attorney, said the 5th Circuit decision "grossly expands" the definition of lawful searches.

Said Walsh: "In my opinion, this is a further erosion of everyone's -- not just criminals' -- constitutional rights to be free from intrusive and unlawful searches."

Defense attorney Jim Boren said the ruling still limits police to searches in certain circumstances, but still represents a "scary trend

"Hmmm...they could say..."I thought I smelled smoke coming from inside the house...maybe there's a fire...we better go in and have a "look see"."

Not true. You can read the opinion here:

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:4V0x4wjkjhIJ:www.ca5.uscourts.gov/%255Copinions%255Cpub%255C02/02-30629-CV0.wpd.pdf+circuit+appeals+%22kelly+gould%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Don't panic. LA is notorious for its dark ages thinking. This opens them up to serious review and rebuttal. This kind of action is just what this country needs. The apathy that has pervaded for so long is being pushed, and this will, in turn, finally get people off their keysters to stand up, once and for all, and defend what is truly special and sacred about this country.

Enter without warrant, you die. Your wife no longer has a husband, and your children will not have a father.

Repeal whatever you want. If you aren't law enforcement and you "raid"my home, I will kill you before you can say 'pirate'

Seriously. Everyone gripes about some law and how it adversely affects them and life isn't fair and so on. This, however, is way over the line.

Americans have an obligation. The government isn't always right. When they're wrong, you let them know. When they step out of line, you let them know. Usually by voting. But there are times in our past (civil rights, etc) when you must make your message quite clear to everyone.

I cannot be any more clear about this. If you think you are entitled to search my home without a warrant, and you attempt to do so, I will kill you and I will go to jail. And by "kill you", I mean I will make you die. Do we understand each other? Good.

This appears immediately before the Conclusion part on the judges decision...

"In my view the gambit of getting permission to enter
a citizen’s home in order to talk to someone and then conducting a protective sweep search under the guise of sensing danger to the investigating officer will effectively eliminate the need for complying with the Fourth Amendment and at that point we will all
be, literally and figuratively, on the road to hell."

And that is from one of the judges on the 5th Circuit court of appeals...a dissenting judge.

mroop purposely spends his time reading people's comments and looking for some way to correct them or argue with them. What a waste of time.

I think this is a dumb decision. It continues to abridge our rights. It's all about the battle of security vs. individual rights. This country was founded on the latter, not the former. This decision should be reversed.

:-:~ Phantom

mroop...here's a quote from a judge in the case....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0230629cv0p.pdf
( on the link YOU posted, this quote is found on page 60..ie.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:4V0x4wjk jhIJ:www.ca5.uscourts.gov/%255Copinions%255Cp ub%255C02/02-30629-CV0.wpd.pdf+circuit+appeal s+%22kelly+gould%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 )

"But the old adage warns us that “the road to hell
is paved with good intentions.” In my judgment, that is precisely
where the majority opinion wants to put us-by unhooking the
“protective sweep” from its connection with the execution of an
arrest warrant in a home, which is where the Supreme Court framed
the concept. In my view the gambit of getting permission to enter
a citizen’s home in order to talk to someone and then conducting a
protective sweep search under the guise of sensing danger to the
investigating officer will effectively eliminate the need for
complying with the Fourth Amendment and at that point we will all
be, literally and figuratively, on the road to hell.
Conclusion
The majority opinion creates a new exception to the Fourth
Amendment that is overly broad and unnecessary. The district
court’s granting of the motion to suppress in this case should be
affirmed. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent."

Argue with him, ok?

"Argue with him, ok?"

I'm not arguing with anyone. Merely pointing out that your rhetoric was overblown and not substantiated by the court's ruling.

so, mroop, res ipsa...ok? The thing speaks for itself.
This "protective sweep" notion...
"In my view the gambit of getting permission to enter
a citizen’s home in order to talk to someone and then conducting a
protective sweep search under the guise of sensing danger to the
investigating officer will effectively eliminate the need for
complying with the Fourth Amendment and at that point we will all
be, literally and figuratively, on the road to hell."

could, conceivably include officers claiming they thought they smelled smoke...and need to investigate...I know you don't agree with me..but,
in comity, I must continue to disagree. Real world activities of the guys with the gun on their hip, often differ from what is taught in ivory towers, and from your time in the public defender's office you should know that....

For example, here's something from an Austin paper about the way in which police officers apparently, from the stats, differentially treat whites and minorities...

"In cases in which suspects were charged with resisting arrest, police treated whites, blacks and Hispanics about the same, analysis shows. However, when using force in any other situation, from dealing with bystanders to arresting people on charges other than resisting, Austin officers were more likely to show restraint when handling white subjects than when handling minority subjects in similar situations."
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/news_046668099293523a003a.html

From the evidence I see, I respectfully maintain that my rhetoric was not overblown, and my indulgence in a hypothetical was altogether proper. I can literally FLOOD this page with police misconduct cases nationwide if you wish more documentation that abuses occur .

"Austin officers were more likely to show restraint when handling white subjects than when handling minority subjects in similar situations."

It's good to be white. I think we can agree on that. : )

"Enter without warrant, you die. Your wife no longer has a husband, and your children will not have a father."

I would also like to point out that Sherminator's assumption that the police officer is a male is sexist. Would Sherminator kill a woman police officer who legally enters his home? That's harsh!

"mroop purposely spends his time reading people's comments and looking for some way to correct them or argue with them. What a waste of time."

I'm sorry that I posted a link to the opinion. God forbid that someone might actually read it.

"There are many legitimate law enforcement purposesthat may permit officers to do something short of conducting awarrantless search, e.g., enter a home for the purpose of talkingto the person who gave the officers consent and had authority toconsent to the entry. Such a legitimate purpose does not somehowgive the officer carte blanche to then search the house.28In theprotective sweep situation, as defined by Buie, the officers musthave more than a legitimate purpose to be in the home, the officersmust have a compelling reason, i.e., be in the house under theobligation to execute an arrest warrant. This requirement is, infact, the essence of the Buie holding and this requirement is alimiting factor on the officers’ conduct that is missing from themajority’s opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 56
56Second, Buie is not about fear of the person to be arrested.494 U.S. at 328 (noting that Buie was already arrested when theprotective sweep was conducted). Such a fear or concern for officersafety is already sufficiently protected by allowing the officersto actually execute the arrest warrant and search for the personsubject to the arrest if necessary. See, e.g., Chimel v.California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969) (addressing both the threatposed by the arrestee and the scope of a search incident to anarrest). Buie is about a reasonable, articulable suspicion “thatthe area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to thoseon the arrest scene.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 337. Here, there is nosuch fear, and the majority opinion allows the officers to dosomething they normally would need a warrant to do, search aresidence which they do not have consent to search and where theresident is either not present or not interested in talking to them.Again, the majority’s neglect of this requirement leads to an overlybroad new exception to the Fourth Amendment.The majority opinion mentions two temporal limitations on theprotective sweep that were articulated in Buie. These limitationsare: that the protective sweep “last[] no longer than is necessaryto dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event nolonger than it takes to complete the arrest and depart thepremises.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 335-36.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I respectfully believe that the above attempts to establish a case for "officers" to enter a premises without a warrant, under the guise/premise that there is a "danger" and my previous statement about an "officer" asserting he thought there might be smoke (and a corollary could be that there "may" be a person asleep in said house) and thus, a danger to a person in the house, or perhaps a potential danger to neighbors, doesn't seem to be overblown rhetoric...

I cannot speak for the Sherminator, but, we know that often the word "man" is used to indicate "mankind"...and perhaps, TheSherminator was of the opinion that a female, who often are of superior intelligence and have better intuitive functioning, may be too smart to enter his premises in this fashion...but again, that is me speculating on his possible intention for using the masculine pronoun.

We really need a new swat picture....

In all candor mroop, surely you would agree that this decision may certainly be open to abuse, and will probably end up in a Supreme Court appeal, should they accept a future Petition for Writ of Certiorari....

purfus...send me a new one without copyright protection and I will use it.

"Your wife no longer has a husband" mroop...you may know some lesbian marriages have one partner taking a "husband" role, and the other partner
taking a "wife" role...or at least I have heard some saying such a thing...
so maybe theSherminator was not making an assumption....

it all depends on how people in a relationship are defining husband and wife I guess...

lol..some really happy music just came on the talk show I was listening to
(bumper music)...and now...I feel happy...funny how air vibrations can affect your mood...Mark Knoffler music....yeeeeeeeeeeee hah!

mroop..."it's good to be white" is not what I got from that...
but, my view of the seriousness and prevalence of abuse of force by
"police officers", may differ in degree and nature from yours...

"In all candor mroop, surely you would agree that this decision may certainly be open to abuse, and will probably end up in a Supreme Court appeal, should they accept a future Petition for Writ of Certiorari...."

Every decision is open to abuse. You can't base your opinion on a decision on whether it is open to abuse. I guess this might very well go to the SC.

But as I read the facts of the case - they went to the house legally, they entered the house legally with consent. The only question is the protective sweep of the bedroom. In light of the fact that the roommate told them that Gould was in the bedroom then I think it was probably reasonable to do a protective sweep of the room in light of the violent threats made by Gould. All the roomate had to do was deny consent to enter in the first place.

"but, my view of the seriousness and prevalence of abuse of force by
"police officers", may differ in degree and nature from yours..."

Probably. My view would be that the prevalence of abuse is greater than you think it is. : )

lol...at last we reach consensus...
have a super day ....
~Code

You two are so high-strung with each other it's ridiculous...but a great read every time

"I would also like to point out that Sherminator's assumption that the police officer is a male is sexist"

No, you assumed that I assumed the police officer is male. Political correctness is horseshit. The only difference between generalizing with the word "he" and using "he/she" or "he or she" is the perpetuation of awkward sentences that are suddenly everywhere in abundance in our stupid culture.

The fact that someone probably prefers it this way is enough to agitate me for the rest of the day, but for whoever wants it, here it is...

My politically correct statement as a threat to those who endanger my liberties:

Enter without warrant, you die. Your wife or husband no longer has a husband or wife, and your children, child, foster child or children, or orhan(s) will not have a father, mother, and/or parent/guardian."

Wow. I hope that makes you happy =)
I'll bet they're running scared

I actually get along well with mroop...we just occasionally see the world differently...

"Enter without warrant, you die. Your wife no longer has a husband, and your children will not have a father."

Sherminator- this is the most true statement I have read in a couple of months.

I'd like all of you guys who think this isn't a serious problem to look at the number of civilians killed in no-knock raids. that number here in Denver is pretty high (yeah, read the local news sometime) but on a national average it is absurb. now if you give the cops the right to come in without a warrant do you really think that number won't increase even more? there's no justification for this at all. next they'll just drop a couple of cruise missles on your ass because you "look funny"

um....they cops were let into the home.
First mistake!
Once invited in, the case in favor of the cops story got stronger.
Then the defendent allowed them to re-enter his residence?

The police did not enter the home without a warrant, they were invited.
Small distinction but......

Whatever the facts of the case as it happened, this decision that allows them to enter without a warrant, and without being invited in...is the point here.

so sad, land of the brave and hell, come on in if your nosey.

"The police did not enter the home without a warrant, they were invited.
Small distinction but......"

Big distinction. The police have always been able to enter a home if they are given consent by someone with apparent or actual authority.

This decision does not allow the police to enter a home without a warrant or without consent.

Mark Knoffler... Cannibals? Great dinner music.

TheSherminator And by "kill you", I mean I will make you die. Do we understand each other? Good.

I like that too. You may go to prison forever, but they will STILL BE DEAD.. serious stuff! ~pepe~

From the article cited in this thread....
"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."

From the court document...
"Louisiana deputy sheriffs, having received on October 17,
2000, a telephone warning that Gould, known to be a convicted felon
with a reputation for violence, was planning to kill two local
judges, went that same evening to the approximately 14 x 16 foot
trailer where Gould lived to talk to him, not then intending to
arrest him. The officers, who had neither a search nor an arrest
warrant, were admitted by another resident of the trailer, Dennis
Cabral, who said Gould was asleep in his bedroom. The officers
entered and proceeded down the hall towards the bedroom Cabral had
indicated. The bedroom door was open, but the officers did not see
Gould, and they then conducted a brief protective sweep for him,
looking under the bed and opening the door to each of the two
bedroom closets, in one of which they saw in plain view, but did
not then seize, three rifles. They promptly then ran outside and
later found Gould hiding in the woods. In subsequent questioning
Gould stated he was keeping the rifles for their owner, a female
acquaintance. Gould was then arrested, executed a consent to
search, and the rifles were then seized.
The district court, granting the motion to suppress the
weapons, held that although “Cabral had apparent authority to
consent to the search of the mobile home . . . he had no apparent
authority to consent to a search of the master bedroom.”

Don't know if you've ever lived or visited the Fisherman's paradise, but they have their court system based on the French civil code system, the French Code Napoleon, as opposed to every other state, basec on common law...they have parrishes instead of counties...anyway, I know we are talking about federal appeals district courts, but they are in Lousiana, and tthe judges arguably are citizens of Louisiana, and acclimated to the Napoleonic code...which has nothing to do with the issues...I have just always thought it was interesting...

Look, policemen and women are not vampires...they don't have to stand around and wait for an invitation to enter a house....

as far as consent, check this out...
"CAN POLICE ENTER A HOUSE WHEN THE WIFE GIVES CONSENT BUT THE HUSBAND SAYS NO?
When police rely on consent to justify a search, the consent must be given by someone who has actual or apparent authority to allow police entry into the house. However, the consent can be revoked by any other person who has actual or apparent authority to allow (or forbid) police entry into the house and who is present in the house. Once H revokes consent, police cannot obtain consent from W. Neither spouse's ability to consent to a search is more powerful than the other's. The result is a stalemate"
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/arrests_and_searches/police_entry_consent.htm
But this is largely bullhocky, because if the wife calls the cops and complains of domestic assault, the husband can lock the door and they will break it down and come on in with him screaming "No you cannot enter."

and from the same website...we find this silliness:
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/arrests_and_searches/cops_break_door.htm
"CAN THE COPS BREAK DOWN MY DOOR TO ENTER MY HOME?
Yes and no. This area is called the “Knock and Announce” rules. The general rule is that the police officers must announce their authority and purpose in executing a search warrant. Implied in this general rule is that a suspect should be given a reasonable amount of time to come to the door before the police barge in. This purpose of this rule is to allow people an opportunity to respond so that violence can be averted and privacy protected.

On the other hand, the mere failure of the police to announce their purpose does not necessarily violate the Constitution; although, it may be a factor later on as to whether the search was reasonable. Furthermore, the courts have excused the knock and announce rule in drug raids where the officers know the suspect may have large dogs, a security system or a method of disposing drugs down a toilet. These examples may be considered “exigent circumstances”, relaxing the rule to knock and announce"

Look, anyone who thinks that the police are going around following the laws anyone, lives in a world different from the world I live in. I've seen them lie on the stand under oath....

So, in practical terms, this case dealt with police in Louisiana, now, not needing a search warrant to search your house....and that is exactly what the decision will be used as precedent for...

Again, from the television news in Louisiana in New Orleans...
"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."

How clear a statement do you want....
so..when Mroop says:
"This decision does not allow the police to enter a home without a warrant or without consent." , I think we need to understand that cops in the Big Easy are going into houses all the time without consent or a search warrant...for goodness sake...just watch the COPS television program..they've shown cops in Louisiana entering houses without consent or warrants all the time....

If they get a complaint, or allege someone complained, the laws in New Orleans and in Louisiana in general, give cops the ability to go into empty homes, occupied homes, occupied apartments, movie theatres, convenience stores...
so...I think it's silly to pretend that this has nothing to do with entering without a permit, because, unless the New Orleans PD have a working transporter on loan from the Starship Enterprise, it's kind of hard to search a house without a search warrant unless you get in the house.

The potential for abuse far outweighs the need for this to go on and allow someone access to a home that was denied before. There's going to be some poor soul that's going to pay for this ruling either with a long jail sentance or thier life.

Time for us to lock & load.

And this isn't the beginning. Another major hit to the 4th amendment was the popular "DUI roadblock" ruling, where people agreed that DUI was a greater evil than their personal pprivacy. Sorry, I will not consent to a search unless you place me under arrest. Most police have taken "No" for an answer, but on one refusal, I had my vehicle impounded. They were unable to secure a warrant and returned said vehicle, unsearched, 32 hours later. At no time was I ever under the influence, but the roadblock happened to be on the only road between work & home. I was dismayed when the courts ruled that these warrantless searches were allowed. Now a court has ruled legal a warrantless search of my home? I don't ***kin think so! I agree with Sherminator, talk to the shotgun, intruder!

From http://archive.aclu.org/pdf/bustcard.pdf
1. If the police knock and ask to enter your home, you
don’t have to admit them unless they have a warrant
signed by a judge.
2. However, in some emergency situations (like when a
person is screaming for help inside, or when the police
are chasing someone) officers are allowed to enter and
search your home without a warrant.
3. If you are arrested, the police can search you and the
area close by. If you are in a building, “close by” usually
means just the room you are in."

But, they don't mention that if cops actually receive a complaint, or "claim" they have word from an informant,
such as a "CI" or confidential informant, they can and WILL enter your abode without a warrant and without your permission.

Also, for those who don't know it yet, (many do), it has been ruled in courts that cops do not have a duty to protect you personally.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
"Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals"

My very real fear is that this ruling will lead to some poor citizen, who has done nothing wrong, but insists on cops having a search warrant, getting a "warning shot" in the back from a service Glock 9mm, of course, "while resisting arrest" and internal affairs will find that the gendarmes were reasonable in using deadly force because they were in fear for their lives
(like the perp might run backward hard, and hit the back of his head into their hose, and driving a splinter of bone into their brain...or some such nonsense from Mars....)

SuitablyTwisted,

The DUI roadblock is so dumb. They could legalize marijuana and traffic would move steadly at 16 mph on the freeway 3 mph on back roads. But instead they legalize the poison, then block up the road to make sure you didn't drink any. That being said, I don't mind the DUI roadblock. They can waste all the resources they want on it. The more they waste on their own mistakes the less they have to waste on things that are real threats.

"Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals"
"To Serve and Protect"

Uh, what gives?

Fine, let the 2,000 cameras I pass on the way to the store do all the work then. Dissolve the police force.

Bill Hicks the comedian, used to have a great routine on the difference between booze and pot...

I think booze, overall, does more damage than marijuana....but I've never done either, so I have no firsthand experience.

I'm coming in a little later here but I want to say this...

Most police officers don't even know the law. I have run into many police officers, and at least 95% didn't know much of many laws. One time, in relation to this type of story, a couple cops entered a house I was in without consent OR a warrant. Also, there was no probable cause at all. I promptly pointed out that they could not enter the house like this and look around. They immediately told me to leave or they would escort me home. I had to stand outside in the cold with a t-shirt and shorts while they stayed inside and basically wasted time standing around. Then they left, and told me to go home as they got into their car. I told them I didn't live ANYWHERE near there, and getting home without a ride would take days at least. Then they threatened to arrest me for staying at a friend's house.

Another example. They were driving down the street around 8PM and say a light on in the doorway and some of us were sitting on the front stoop. They entered the driveway and told us to go inside or there would be consequences. I told them we were allowed to be outside, and they gave me some shit about the law saying we had to be inside at night. I told them to cite the paragraph where it said that (I have a copy of our current city's laws/regulations). They couldn't and then they told us to let them in the house to search. There was no reason to do so, and nothing inside was incriminating. I told them that if they didn't leave, I would call their superiors and report them. I would make sure they were stuck at a desk for abusing what little power they actually had. They left and I haven't seen them since.

I think this shows that cops will not always follow the rules, and most that I've run into have abused their power, ranging from tiny infractions to the extreme...

Heres a horror story.
I was in my apartment working on my computer when i hear a knock at the door. i go and look through the peephole and see around 6-7 people standing outside my door one of whom was a roomate Bob (names changed) who moved out a month earlier.
He and my friend Carl were the only ones i on lease at the time with my Carl being the primary lease holder and bob the secondary. Now Bob and his friends had vandalized our property doing 3000+ dollars worth of damage. needless to say he had changed the locks. Now bob had left most of his stuff at the apartment but had not contacted us as to when he wanted to retrieve his stuff. Since bob and carl were not on good terms carl had asked me to get him if bob were to come to the door no exceptions. since i was not on the lease i agreed to comply. So when i see bob at the door i yelled that if they would wait i would open the door in a moment. i then went to wake up carl who worked third shift. while i am knocking on carl's room door i hear some indistinct yelling. i repeat my request for them to wait. i then hear someone try to use some keys this of course fails to open the door. i hear another knock and i hear someone say "open the godamn door." growing sick of their impatience i yell "F**CK YOU!" I then am shocked and dismayed when these people start to bust down the door. I fearing for my life go and retrieve my twelve guage shotgun rack it and level it at the door. The door then burst open and guess who?! Its the police! I then realizing my life was in danger laid the shotgun down and get down on the floor. I am then arrested jailed held for 3 days w/o being allowed a phone call untill the last minute when i was arrained. It is important to note that i had no outstanding warrants and there were no cercumstances that would permit them to enter (such as the probable destruction of evidence) Also of not is that they waited about 30 seconds before they busted in. Now their whole reason for busting in was that bob said they could. Now i am facing Count 8 fellony charges 2 fellony assualts (there were two officers) 2 counts of obstructing a police officer and 1 felony use of a firearm attached to each of those charges. I shoud also mention that this has already gone to trail resulting in a hung jury with a 6/6 split. And to ad icing to the cake the prosecuting attorney is running for judge this year and is absolutly unwilling to make a deal. I was under the impression that living in the united states i had freedom from this kind of intrusion. I know know that i am dead wrong this country is going to hell. If you think it isnt a police state THINK AGAIN! My advice: get out of country now while you still can!

your lucky your still alive.

Here a court makes a questionable decision, legislating from the bench, and STILL you question the need for an occasional legislative override of the judicial branch? This does not compute.

You say if the Congress passes a 2/3 override bill, all bets are off. I say if they don't pass it, and we have to submit to the tyrrany of judges-for-life who've gone off half- or even quarter-cocked, then all bets are off.

So I guess the good ole USA is slowly becoming U.S. Nazi of America. Or rather, beginning to use communism tactics.

http://www.state.ia.us/government/dps/isp/photogallery/swat-g.htm

http://csteam.dk/serie/realb.htm

http://www.aess.it/aess_collaborazioni.htm

http://www.originalswat.com/briefingRoom_action_swtCh.shtml

These all look good. Check the copyrights on them, they didn't look too bad to me. Theres a lot of google images.

purfus...thanks...am good to my word

purfus...thanks...am good to my word

dogpile...before long, probably we'll see the name officially changed to AMERIKA

refering to that story a few posts up, i agree, we are in a police state, that just makes me all the more afraid though

My lawyer once advized me to allways speak to the police outside of my house, not to allow the officer's foot to even pass thur the doorway. Cops lie, they can get a warrent easily enough if they can say they were inside the house.
Officers do not have the right to NOT be videotaped or recorded (Niether do welfare case workers), so my lawyer advized to taping my next talk with police. I used Cool Edit 2000 btw and nothing happened to the officer who "misquoted" my statement. (however the statement was tossed out)
$3000 later my first wife took a plea bargain to something I could prove someone else did if I had the resourses the police have.
I can still hit a paper plate at 300 yrds without a scope

Haha, nice Code

If I had recorded the police at the time of my arrest for defending myself, there would be 3 police officers fired or suspended without pay and working at a desk for abusing me. And the others there (4 more) would have been reprimanded for refusing to speak to the only witness and only taking the attacker's false story...

no cop is goin' in my house without a warrent.

Best defense under any and all circumstances:

Fly under the radar in the first place.

It's not an absolute guarantee, but it beats the hell out of having to prove the truth to a not so impartial judge while fending off a bunch of lying pigs in blue.

"dogpile...before long, probably we'll see the name officially changed to AMERIKA"

So true. I guess the U.S. has not learned from its past. People say that those who don't learn, are doomed to repeat history.

It leads me to think that someday, theres going to be civil war in the U.S. Rebels fighting the empire of the U.S. much like when the underground fought the Germans in WWII, or like in other countries where you have small pockets of resistance fighters fighting against the government. Perhaps these para-military groups who we often think as wackos, might be on to something.

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.