Hey Folks,
The following stories are from two different court cases that have to do with searches and seizures. The first case, from 2011, has to do with an officer entering the apartment of a drug user. The reason the officer claimed to make the entry without a warrant was because the officer thought the people inside the apartment was destroying evidence. The officer created his own exigent circumstances.
Many Social Conservatives chided me for espousing the idea that this ruling by the Supreme Court will effect everyone, not just lowlife druggies.
Well, the second story, from 2014, is about a court case in the 7th District involving an officer violating the 4th amendment rights of a gun activists. The cop, using exigent circumstances as the justification, entered the department of a gun activist and seized guns without a warrant. The ruling demonstrates that the Drug War and Drug Laws are about eliminating civil liberties, not about stopping drug use. The destruction of individual rights is an exercise in government egalitarianism......Rob T.
The following stories are from two different court cases that have to do with searches and seizures. The first case, from 2011, has to do with an officer entering the apartment of a drug user. The reason the officer claimed to make the entry without a warrant was because the officer thought the people inside the apartment was destroying evidence. The officer created his own exigent circumstances.
Many Social Conservatives chided me for espousing the idea that this ruling by the Supreme Court will effect everyone, not just lowlife druggies.
Well, the second story, from 2014, is about a court case in the 7th District involving an officer violating the 4th amendment rights of a gun activists. The cop, using exigent circumstances as the justification, entered the department of a gun activist and seized guns without a warrant. The ruling demonstrates that the Drug War and Drug Laws are about eliminating civil liberties, not about stopping drug use. The destruction of individual rights is an exercise in government egalitarianism......Rob T.
Kentucky v. King,
563 U.S. ___ (2011), is a legal dispute that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, holding in an 8-1 opinion that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.
The facts of the King case differ from the typical “knock, announce, hear movement behind the door, and enter without a warrant” fact pattern of most exigent circumstances cases. The situation began when police set up a controlled sale of crack cocaine outside the apartment complex where the defendant, Hollis King, lived.[8] For clarity, it should be noted that the controlled sale involved a suspect and transaction entirely unrelated to King. After the sale, an observing officer radioed to other nearby officers to “move in on the suspect.”[9] He noted that the suspect was “moving quickly toward the breezeway of an apartment building”[10] and told them to hurry.[11] As the officers arrived at the breezeway, they heard one of the rear apartment doors shut but did not see which door the suspect entered.[12] They noticed a strong odor of marijuana issuing from the left rear apartment, which led them to believe that the door had recently been opened and shut and that the suspect had entered that apartment.[13] The officers knocked on this door and identified themselves as police.[14] After the knock, they heard things being moved around inside.[15] Believing that the people inside were in the process of destroying evidence, the officers entered the apartment.[16] The officers found the defendant and two others but not the suspect of their pursuit.[17] One of the individuals in the apartment with King was smoking marijuana.[18] While conducting a protective sweep of the apartment, officers found marijuana and cocaine in plain view.[19]
King was charged with trafficking a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and being a persistent felony offender.[20] The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search on the basis that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.[21] King appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the search of his apartment was “conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was unsupported by probable cause and an exigent circumstance.”[22] The state intermediate appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.[23]
King was charged with trafficking a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and being a persistent felony offender.[20] The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search on the basis that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.[21] King appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the search of his apartment was “conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was unsupported by probable cause and an exigent circumstance.”[22] The state intermediate appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.[23]
7th Circuit upholds warrantless entry, seizure of gun rights activist
Milwaukee police who forced their way into a gun rights advocate's home without a warrant, took her for an emergency mental evaluation and seized her gun were justified under the circumstances and protected from her civil rights claims, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Krysta Sutterfield, who twice made news because of her practice of openly carrying a handgun — at a Brookfield church and outside a Sherman Park coffee shop — drew police attention in 2011 after her psychiatrist reported a suicidal remark Sutterfield made during a difficult appointment.
Sutterfield, 45, claimed police violated her rights against unreasonable search and seizure and Second Amendment rights to keep a gun, but a district judge dismissed the case.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 75-page opinion analyzing existing law about when police may act without search warrants, upheld the decision but suggested there might be better ways to balance personal privacy rights in the context of emergency mental health evaluations.
"The intrusions upon Sutterfield's privacy were profound," Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel. "At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one's home."
But the court also found, that on the other hand, "There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm."
In a short concurrence, Judge Daniel Manion said he hoped state legislatures will "provide for a judicially issued civil warrant process that would authorize law enforcement to enter someone's home when there is probable cause to believe that she poses a risk to herself or others because of mental illness."
Krysta Sutterfield, who twice made news because of her practice of openly carrying a handgun — at a Brookfield church and outside a Sherman Park coffee shop — drew police attention in 2011 after her psychiatrist reported a suicidal remark Sutterfield made during a difficult appointment.
Sutterfield, 45, claimed police violated her rights against unreasonable search and seizure and Second Amendment rights to keep a gun, but a district judge dismissed the case.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 75-page opinion analyzing existing law about when police may act without search warrants, upheld the decision but suggested there might be better ways to balance personal privacy rights in the context of emergency mental health evaluations.
"The intrusions upon Sutterfield's privacy were profound," Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel. "At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one's home."
But the court also found, that on the other hand, "There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm."
In a short concurrence, Judge Daniel Manion said he hoped state legislatures will "provide for a judicially issued civil warrant process that would authorize law enforcement to enter someone's home when there is probable cause to believe that she poses a risk to herself or others because of mental illness."
Related Posts:
OR Supreme Court---LOC Celebrates the Fact the Property Owners lose more rights
SCOTUS---Is it a fish or an incriminating document?
SCOTUS: Google believes Snagging Data over Unsecured WI-FI Is Not Illegal
SCOTUS---Oregon Protest Case Heard by the Supreme Court Marsh 26, 2014
SCOTUS---Court Upholds Property Rights in Rails-to-Trails Case
SCOTUS----Amazon workers' suit for paid search waits
SCOTUS---Rejects Appeal of Victim Disarmament Legislation
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming
SCOTUS---Court grants reprieve to death row inmate over pentobarbital
SCOTUS---Case on Obama Recess Appointments
SCOTUS---Interstate Pollution Case
SCOTUS---The Supremes decline illegal NSA phone spying case
SCOTUS---The Supreme Court lets Oklahoma abortion law fail
SCOTUS---Narrow ruling in Michigan affirmative action case expected
SCOTUS---Anti-prostitution pledge in AIDS law violates free speech
SCOTUS---U.S. top court bars patents on human genes unless synthetic
SCOTUS---Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Collection of DNA by Police/5-4 Ruling
SCOTUS---The American Police State
SCOTUS showdown over Voting Rights Act
SCOTUS---Farmer vs. Monsanto
SCOTUS---Dog's sniff was up to snuff
OR Supreme Court---LOC Celebrates the Fact the Property Owners lose more rights
SCOTUS---Is it a fish or an incriminating document?
SCOTUS: Google believes Snagging Data over Unsecured WI-FI Is Not Illegal
SCOTUS---Oregon Protest Case Heard by the Supreme Court Marsh 26, 2014
SCOTUS---Court Upholds Property Rights in Rails-to-Trails Case
SCOTUS----Amazon workers' suit for paid search waits
SCOTUS---Rejects Appeal of Victim Disarmament Legislation
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming
SCOTUS---Court grants reprieve to death row inmate over pentobarbital
SCOTUS---Case on Obama Recess Appointments
SCOTUS---Interstate Pollution Case
SCOTUS---The Supremes decline illegal NSA phone spying case
SCOTUS---The Supreme Court lets Oklahoma abortion law fail
SCOTUS---Narrow ruling in Michigan affirmative action case expected
SCOTUS---Anti-prostitution pledge in AIDS law violates free speech
SCOTUS---U.S. top court bars patents on human genes unless synthetic
SCOTUS---Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Collection of DNA by Police/5-4 Ruling
SCOTUS---The American Police State
SCOTUS showdown over Voting Rights Act
SCOTUS---Farmer vs. Monsanto
SCOTUS---Dog's sniff was up to snuff
RSS Feed
