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: 2992983" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>Nope. They can knock anywhere they want, with or without a warrant of any type. They may not, however, enter without either permission or a search warrant. The arrest warrant gives them the authority to arrest the named subject, but not to enter any structure. A search warrant (different from an arrest warrant) gives them the authority to search property within the scope of the warrant. If it gives a specific structure, they can only enter that structure; if a general address, it would cover any structure thereon. That said, the search authority only extends to places where they can actually find that for which they're searching. If they're looking for a person, they can look in the rooms of the house, but not open the silverware drawer, because a person couldn't possibly be found in the silverware drawer. If they're looking for a stolen car, they could look in the garage, but not the main house (unless they can find an opening in the main house large enough to admit a car).</p><p></p><p>Remember, the Fourth Amendment is very specific about the form of warrants: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That language was deliberate; in colonial times, it was common for the King's courts to issue "general warrants," authority to search homes in a general manner looking for anything illegal. The framers wanted to put a stop to that.</p><p></p><p>For a really good explanation of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, read <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks" target="_blank"><em>Arizona v. Hicks</em>, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)</a>. The linked Wikipedia article covers it at a high level, but I <em>strongly</em> suggest reading the actual opinion, as it really gets into the details of a number of important concepts; it can be found at <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html" target="_blank">https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html</a> . The majority opinion isn't terribly long, and Justice Scalia wrote it, so it's a pretty clear, straightforward read (say what you will about his jurisprudence--I run about fifty-fifty on him--the man could damn well write).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2992983, member: 13624"] Nope. They can knock anywhere they want, with or without a warrant of any type. They may not, however, enter without either permission or a search warrant. The arrest warrant gives them the authority to arrest the named subject, but not to enter any structure. A search warrant (different from an arrest warrant) gives them the authority to search property within the scope of the warrant. If it gives a specific structure, they can only enter that structure; if a general address, it would cover any structure thereon. That said, the search authority only extends to places where they can actually find that for which they're searching. If they're looking for a person, they can look in the rooms of the house, but not open the silverware drawer, because a person couldn't possibly be found in the silverware drawer. If they're looking for a stolen car, they could look in the garage, but not the main house (unless they can find an opening in the main house large enough to admit a car). Remember, the Fourth Amendment is very specific about the form of warrants: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That language was deliberate; in colonial times, it was common for the King's courts to issue "general warrants," authority to search homes in a general manner looking for anything illegal. The framers wanted to put a stop to that. For a really good explanation of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, read [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks'][I]Arizona v. Hicks[/I], 480 U.S. 321 (1987)[/URL]. The linked Wikipedia article covers it at a high level, but I [I]strongly[/I] suggest reading the actual opinion, as it really gets into the details of a number of important concepts; it can be found at [URL]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html[/URL] . The majority opinion isn't terribly long, and Justice Scalia wrote it, so it's a pretty clear, straightforward read (say what you will about his jurisprudence--I run about fifty-fifty on him--the man could damn well write). [/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
