PDA

View Full Version : Searches Without Warrants


yvette7ica
31 Mar 2004, 10:59 PM
Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

UPDATED: 4:27 PM 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.

One judge, Judge Grady Jolly, said he concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. Judge Jerry Smith, however, completely disagreed with the majority ruling, saying: "I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed that they were acting reasonably and with good intentions. But the old adage warns us that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'"

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.

Link (http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html)

No, sir...I don't like it.

Any thoughts or opinions?

Fitz
01 Apr 2004, 01:11 AM
i see this not going on for long.

hey lawyers, yeah you know who i'm tlaking to, com'on i want to hear what you have to say. i don't think this will last. if it will the damn us all to hell.

RichmondVA
01 Apr 2004, 02:34 AM
]Here are my quick thoughts:

Police have the ability to take reasonable measures in searching your home as part of a "protective sweep." The idea here is obviously that they need to ensure their safety and the safety of others. One thing that isn't mentioned is that the house was a trailer home. So from a policy standpoint they really would have to secure all parts of the house for safety.

I don't have a huge problem with the idea that police might need access to areas without the homeowner's permission. The problem is that if the police can access an area of your home as part of their "protective sweep" duties, then anything they find is allowable evidence. If you search my car for weapons and find drugs, that's legal evidence.

The question is to whether this an allowable "protective sweep?" The expansion of the law in this case it that it was previously held that it is only a "protective sweep" if the sweep occurs during the course of an arrest. In this case it was not. That's definitely troubling though we will have to see how it plays out. It may be that they define the danger requirement of a protective sweep requirement so rigorously that in order to meet the satisfy the standard you'd have enough there that you could get a legal search warrant anyway.

I guess my view is that the court clings to tightly to the doctrine that evidence discovered during authorized activity is permissible. You end up with weird legal fictions like "probable cause," "protective sweep," and "knock and "notice."

To me, it should have been okay for the policemen to access all those areas of the home for security, but not use anything they found as evidence. We should be able to freely say that their presence was necessary BUT authorized presence does not neceassirly meant that discover evidence is admissible.

The Engineer
01 Apr 2004, 07:20 AM
I second RVA.

mikeatthemadfro
01 Apr 2004, 08:20 AM
yeah, safety of police is important, and so are protecting constitutional rights of search and siezures which have been stripped over the last 30 years by the war on people who use drugs...

Megs79
01 Apr 2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by mikeatthemadfro
yeah, safety of police is important, and so are protecting constitutional rights of search and siezures which have been stripped over the last 30 years by the war on people who use drugs...

Not to mention the Patriot Act, which has been increasingly used to get evidence for prosecuting things that are NOT national security related.

dcXhc
01 Apr 2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Megs79
Not to mention the Patriot Act, which has been increasingly used to get evidence for prosecuting things that are NOT national security related.

Links?

Megs79
01 Apr 2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by dcXhc


Links?

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1594302

Duemellon
01 Apr 2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by dcXhc
Links? It's been talked about to death. Or am I misconstruing your astonished statement?

It sounds to me like you're saying "Prove that the Patriot Act allows for non-constitutional search, seizure, and imprisonment".

If you aren't asking that, then I apologize. But if you are, we have talked about this already.

Megs79
01 Apr 2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Duemellon
It sounds to me like you're saying "Prove that the Patriot Act allows for non-constitutional search, seizure, and imprisonment".


I don't know why you sound so offended. I'm not, and he was asking me to back up what I posted. Can we not turn this into another flamewar? I already posted a link to a source.

tobedawg
01 Apr 2004, 10:26 AM
This sets another scary precedent.. But is pretty typical in these post 9/11 times , especially given the ultimate abuse of power by the White House.

dcXhc
01 Apr 2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Megs79
I don't know why you sound so offended. I'm not, and he was asking me to back up what I posted. Can we not turn this into another flamewar? I already posted a link to a source.

Thanks for the link Megs.

Due -- The fact that the Patriot Act has the potential to be abused has been talked about a great deal (as it should have been). But lots and lots of things have that potential. I hadn't heard about cases where it had actually been abused. Hence, I asked for the link.

Duemellon
01 Apr 2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by dcXhc
Due -- The fact that the Patriot Act has the potential to be abused has been talked about a great deal (as it should have been). But lots and lots of things have that potential. I hadn't heard about cases where it had actually been abused. Hence, I asked for the link. and thank you for the clarification as to why you asked.

and Megs? see how this works when ppl respect each other? He said something that I took different than what he meant, he explained it, and it's over.

yvette7ica
01 Apr 2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Duemellon
see how this works when ppl respect each other? He said something that I took different than what he meant, he explained it, and it's over.

If only all of the minor conflicts in threads could be resolved this easily. I'm so proud of you guys!

We should be able to freely say that their presence was necessary BUT authorized presence does not neceassirly meant that discover evidence is admissible.

That is what I thought when reading the article. I'm all for the safety of officers, but this incident/decision crosses the line for me. I'm relieved that no one has thrown out the "what do you have to worry about if you do nothing wrong" arguement.

BS...just like a cop, never around when you need or want their assistance. :D

Fitz
01 Apr 2004, 04:26 PM
a dog/computer children would be cool. i want the first pup.

yoshomon
02 Apr 2004, 02:18 PM
I have friends in California whose house was searched, computers were taken, books were taken, and cds were taken by the FBI. They were never charged with a crime but were searched because they were animal rights activists and the ELF had been partying at a $50million apartment complex weeks before the search. They got all their books and cds back, but the computers were fucked with (aka hard-drives were never returned). Thanks to the Patriot Act, the FBI could have done all of that when they weren't home.

As someone with radical (anti)politics, the Patriot Act hits pretty close to home. Of course, it only makes legal what law enforcement has been doing for decades...