Are you saying that cops going from house to house and searching homes of people who give consent is not right?
Are you saying that cops going from house to house and searching homes of people who give consent is not right?
While I agree that legality is not the same as ethical or moral, I have to agree with blank in regards to your proposed scenario. There is not a judge in the country who would rule that to fall under exigent circumstances. There would be a lot of successful lawsuits against the police in that scenario.
I understand your point was that vagueness in laws can be exploited. Certainly this is true but it is also anticipated. This is one of the primary purposes of the judiciary branch; to interpret and apply laws. So while the police can theoretically claim whatever outrageous interpretation they want, as in your exaggerated scenario, they will ultimately be checked by the judiciary. There is nothing about the Boston event that leads me to believe that our system of checks and balances have failed in this regard.
Ok, I think that we need to understand the Fourth Amendment in regards to reality in a situation like Watertown's searches.
The Fourth Amendment is there to protect the citizens from being unfairly prosecuted by the government for an illegal search/seizure. It does not physically prevent the officers from entering your premises/property if they decide to.
In the case of Watertown, the vast majority of citizen's knew who the officers were looking for, and gave their consent to search. In their cases, if the officers found anything illegal, they could legally arrest and charge them with a crime, and seize anything that they found, and the court would uphold it.
If they did not give consent, that did not mean that the officers could not enter their houses. The officers had to choose to balance out what was more important, and they clearly considered an armed and dangerous terrorist to be of more concern than a little pot or an illegal gun. In their cases, the officers could still enter and search, and even seize anything they found; however, by not giving consent to a search, their lawyers could get any evidence that was seized dropped in court. This is how our system is designed to work. You should never give consent to a search, but you cannot physically prevent the officer from entering and searching without "obstructing an officer" - which is another charge.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Maybe the third try is the lucky number...
What do you propose we do about it?
LOL. If you only understood how "liberal" Ronald Reagan was. It would blow your feeble little mindOriginally Posted by Sinfix_15
Right but that is how our constitution is set up. Everyone gets to vote no matter how ignorant, lazy, or stupid they are. That's why I asked what is the proposed alternative that is better? Certainly a benevolent dictator could be much better but it could also be much worse because dictators don't have track record of being benevolent. Sinflix seems to advocate anarchy or at least something much closer to it. I see that as creating as many problems as it solves. Personally, I think we should be dumping way more effort into education. That could at least help with the ignorant part.