Blog Post on Warrants and the Fourth Amendment
This is a discussion on Blog Post on Warrants and the Fourth Amendment within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Constitution: You cannot enter a home for any reason without a warrant. (Fourth Amendment)
Law: You can do anything you want as long as everybody ...
March 12th, 2012 09:20 PM
Constitution: You cannot enter a home for any reason without a warrant. (Fourth Amendment)
Law: You can do anything you want as long as everybody tells the same story for IA.
Conclusion: Constitution has no effect on Law. Law is not based on Constitution.
Constitution was trashed a long time ago in the name of "expediency" and "procedures".
BTW your right to carry arms ,2d Amendment, was on that same piece of meaningless paper.
I am pro LEO, but there was good reason for requiring warrants, it splits the decision making press, forcing clearer thinking.
Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.
March 13th, 2012 12:41 AM
First, pot should not be illegal. It’s bad for you but it’s no worse than alcohol or tobacco.
Second, I think the best way to win the war on drugs is to take all of the money prisons spend on TVs and fluffy nice stuff and use that money to build more prisons.
Then we sentence people who use drugs to tough prison terms and we don't treat them like a brick of gold when they are in there.
If you get popped smoking crack then you get 3 to 5 years. Boom, there will be less recreational drug users and less people likely to start using. It's really just a matter of what we will tolerate. When someone gets caught using and they get a slap on the wrist there is no deterrent for using again and again and again and...
I live for others and I answer to God and sometimes to my wife too.
March 13th, 2012 07:02 AM
The one question I can never get an answer to from the "let's legalize drugs" crowd is exactly how does children abandoned/treated like crap by their doper parents qualify as a victimless crime?
March 13th, 2012 08:33 AM
It is true that happens and it is sad. Children are abused/neglected/and abandoned by parents for other reasons. Apathy, alcohol, selfish parenting. Kids are being abandoned now with or without the legaliztion of drugs so what is the difference.The only reason alcohol is not illegal is becasue it was tried once and it didn't work. It wasn't brought back because it was deemed safe. It was a losing battle to prevent people form getting alcohol. So if you are for booze, then you should be for drug legalization. It is the only rational approach.
Originally Posted by Chad Rogers
Look, the bottom line is this:The drug war is not working, never has, never will. Same reason prohibition did not work. Americans wanted booze. If you can nnot change the appetite for Americans wanting drugs there will always be problems. Look what happened after they got Pablo Escobar. Nothing. Same with all the other drug lords from Mexico and Colombia. And if some guy posts here he is with the DEA and those made an impact I will call him a flat out lier. It mad a small change in production and delivery until the voids were filled by other cartel members.
We don't like it there is legislation infringing on our rights to bear arms because someone MAY shoot someone. You only porsecute when someone DOES shoot someone unjustified. Same with alcohol. You do not make it illegal to drink. But you prosecute when you drink and drive. If you neglect your kids for ANY reason the state will intervene.
So, what makes drugs different?
The other argument is it would cost money for rehabs and stuff like that. That would be such a drop in the bucket considering what we pay every year for prisons and the cost of the DEA and DOD in the war on drugs.
March 13th, 2012 09:03 AM
Legalize pot, tax the crap out of it and build re-hab centers with the revenue. The "system" needs to be able to differentiate between true criminals and drug offenders, and treatment/punishment should be different for each.
By the way....I'm not a pot head, but growing up in the sixties I have been associated with a few. I've never known a pot head who got stoned and then beat the crap out of his wife or started a fist fight with his neighbors.
To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will.
March 13th, 2012 09:25 AM
Change sixties to late seventies and eighties LOL. Just because some want to legalize drugs does not mean that everybody will take them. In fact, most the folks I know now that favor legalizing drugs have no desire to take them. One thing I forgot to add somewhere was this. LEO's and folks that see the aftermath of drug abuse will say "if you can only see what it causes". Well, I know what it causes and have seen it. But the same folks see the aftermath of illegal/irresponisble use of firearms but are still ardent supporters of the ownership of firearms.
Originally Posted by Rotorblade
March 13th, 2012 09:41 AM
The one question I have for those opposing drug legalization, who claim legalizing drugs would lead to a huge spike in drug use, is this: who are these people who are not using drugs now, but would tomorrow if they were legalized? No one ever admits that they themselves would use drugs were they to be legalized. No, it's those other people out there. The ones who are only clean because it's against the law to be otherwise. I can't think of a more condescending, elitist mentality.
I don't use drugs because I don't want to. Not because they're illegal. I also don't kill people, but I don't need a law to tell me not to.
"Your mind is the weapon, all the rest are just tools." --gasmitty
March 13th, 2012 09:58 AM
I have read the Fourth Amendment many times. It simply does not say that. What it says comes reasonably close to that, but what you are claiming is simply not what the Fourth actually says. It doesn't say what you are claiming any more than the First Amendment says "separation of church and state", as we hear ad nauseum.
Originally Posted by wjh2657
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.
March 13th, 2012 10:02 AM
The other thing I think is a hoot is folks who say that if drugs were legalized, and thus presumably would cost less, that suddenly tweakers and crack heads would stop cooking meth, and robbing and stealing to support their drug abuse habits. All that tells me is that these folks have never actually met a criminal/drug addict outide of TV, movies and books.
March 13th, 2012 10:32 AM
I have never really heard that argument before, or at least not to such a degree that it was a valid reason to legalize drugs. But those crimes are committed for other reasons. People still make beer in their houses and wine. People break into stores to steal cigarettes and booze and guns and lottery tickets. Folks hold up pharmacies for LEGAL prescription drugs. So I do not see an increase in crime because it is legal. As far as the part in bold: That has no place in an intelligent debate about the issue. It is a poor tactic that implies I am right, you are wrong, I know what I am talking about, you do not. In other words, it is an argument that says I will not listen to you and I have made up my mind.
Originally Posted by Chad Rogers
March 13th, 2012 07:56 PM
It doesn't. Child abuse would not be legalized if drugs were legalized. The act of injecting a bad substance into your body is clearly victimless. Child abuse is not victimless. Following the logic that we need to outlaw drugs to prevent that (which, by the way, is very clearly not working) is the same as any other argument for government interference to "influence" people. In the end, you need to do no-knock warrants, freeze peoples' bank accounts, seize their assets with no conviction, and various other violations of the Constitution, to enforce a law that was never constitutional in the first place. Remember, the prohibitionists of the 1920s at least understood they had to amend the Constitution to tell people they can't put something into their own body. The modern drug warrior refuses to even acknowledge that, and so the pathway to all kinds of other violations is just that much easier to follow.
Originally Posted by Chad Rogers
March 13th, 2012 09:14 PM
The video in your blog is very interesting to me. I sure would not call it a stealthy entry. The yelling and the sirens kinda mess that up.
So is your problem with the reason for the search or they tactics used to gain entry into the house to conduct the search?
As far as legalizing drugs, how would that work?
Would all drugs be legal?
Would the manufacture of them be regulated?
Would you need a prescription for them?
Would medical professional be able to to prescribe a drug / medication for no other reason than it makes me feel good?
What would their liability be if the person overused, became addicted, had a allergic reaction to medication that has no other purpose than to make me feel good?
Could we just walk into a store and buy it?
If I can buy pot, meth and cocaine, do I still need a prescription for my antibiotic?
Don't do things you don't want to explain to the Paramedics!
Stupidity should be painful.
March 14th, 2012 12:50 AM
Back to the original subject of the OP, I have not seen any metrics to show how many warrants are served that end up being false pretenses w/innocents getting hurt. I'm sure there are many, but don't have an idea at how many are failures. I do know that with anything that is human, mistakes will be made. Sad, but it does happen even when intentions are good.
No-knock warrants have their place. I would entertain the thought that some judges have relationships with officers seeking warrants and will issue them without due diligence and I think this is wrong. Busting someone for drugs, despite the amount of time and resources invested in investigation, should not always justify a no-knock warrant. Potential death of an officer or citizen is not worth it. I do want to see scum bag dealers get put away for their crimes and know it is difficult to "put them away properly" without evidence, catching them in the act. If the criminal poses and imminent threat to the safety of the public, then I could see the use of "No-knock" warrants.
I am not a criminal. I have wondered how I would respond if police came through my front door. Being that I do not participate in activities that would bring them to my home, I would be alarmed at someone busting down my door and think I would go into a natural defense mode. If it were a "no-knock" situation, and seconds count for both sides, I don't know if there would be enough time to verify the identity of the police. Say I saw their shadow on my front window, and before I investigate the shadow, I grab my firearm and am locked and loaded. Before I make it to look out the window, the door bust open and I am disoriented by a flashbang, I start shooting at the front door and I'm fired upon as well.
Scary thought, that I bet has happened. If that happened in my home because of bad intel, and my family or I were injured or killed, I would still be "criminalized" by the police and media. Say I justifiably shot the 1st guy coming through my door in self-defense, and after turned out to be a police officer......holy ***** would it hit the fan.
I also have wondered if criminals have ever thought to buy police gear online from GALLS or something, and perform robberies on other drug dealers using these same police tactics. They usually have intel on their competition and spending a couple grand to outfit a 5-6 man robbery crew, and taking the competitions money & drugs, and then intimidating them could be effective. Maybe I should write a Hollywood Movie for Bruce Willis.
Last edited by discoboxer; March 14th, 2012 at 03:45 AM.
“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
― Albert Einstein
March 14th, 2012 07:20 AM
Any politician who willy nilly supports the legalization of drugs won't ever see me press the button next to his name in a voting booth. That's the bottom line.
March 14th, 2012 08:24 AM
As a former medic, I was part of a raiding/warrant team. My crew was kept near the scene on standby in case things went south. Our orders were to attend to any of their team members before the BG's. I always believed that it would be smarter to catch the BG away from the house then waltz in without the grenades and destruction of property. Unfortunately, smarter does not replace the andrelaline rush these guys seem to need. I say save the SWAT teams for terrorists who have already forsaken their constitutional rights.
Kimber PCII .45
Springfield XD9mm SC
Kel-Tech P-11 9mm
Search tags for this page
homeland security no knock warrant
how can the fourth amendment to the constitution hurt you when dcs comes to your home?
texas law enforcement rules on use of stun grenades narcotics search warrants
Click on a term to search for related topics.