Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Supreme Court Rules 8-0 for Police in Major Fourth Amendment Case, Eliminates Provocation Doctrine
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2992732" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>The police did <em>not</em> knock and/or announce their presence at the structure in question, and they did <em>not</em> have any sort of warrant covering the premises. Jesus, I gave you the canonical link to the Court's opinion--which recites the factual background, as every SCOTUS opinion does--and you didn't bother to read it before telling us why it's right. If you had, you'd realize your assumed facts are wrong.</p><p></p><p>Here, let me quote the relevant paragraph. Please at least read this much; I'll even boldface the extra-important bits:</p><p></p><p>Now, if the deputies had <em>bothered</em> to knock and announce themselves, I'd bet money Mendez would have been awake when they entered and would not have groggily swept them. <em>That</em> is the whole point of the claim: the police <em>created the situation themselves</em> when they <em>illegally</em> entered the shack <em>without a warrant and without knocking</em>.</p><p></p><p>Reading is fundamental.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2992732, member: 13624"] The police did [I]not[/I] knock and/or announce their presence at the structure in question, and they did [I]not[/I] have any sort of warrant covering the premises. Jesus, I gave you the canonical link to the Court's opinion--which recites the factual background, as every SCOTUS opinion does--and you didn't bother to read it before telling us why it's right. If you had, you'd realize your assumed facts are wrong. Here, let me quote the relevant paragraph. Please at least read this much; I'll even boldface the extra-important bits: Now, if the deputies had [I]bothered[/I] to knock and announce themselves, I'd bet money Mendez would have been awake when they entered and would not have groggily swept them. [I]That[/I] is the whole point of the claim: the police [I]created the situation themselves[/I] when they [I]illegally[/I] entered the shack [I]without a warrant and without knocking[/I]. Reading is fundamental. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Supreme Court Rules 8-0 for Police in Major Fourth Amendment Case, Eliminates Provocation Doctrine
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom