Police can now enter homes

[MSGT]

(AP) SAN FRANCISCO Police may enter Californians' homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case testing the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 6-1 decision follows similar rulings in about a dozen other states. A dissenting justice said the majority handed authorities a "free pass" to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest people without warrants.

http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_152182332.html

[Rhino]

"In holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry here, we need not decide, and do not hold, that the police may enter a home without a warrant to effect an arrest of a DUI suspect in every case," Baxter wrote.Makes sense.

[Wolfcounsel]

For example, if a police car is following you home, and it makes no indication for you to stop, and you pull into your driveway, get out of the car, get inside your house, the officer can still go in to check if you were DUI? If so, then chalk up another mark for overstepping for the public servants. I can't get the link.

[Rhino]

For example, if a police car is following you home, and it makes no indication for you to stop, and you pull into your driveway, get out of the car, get inside your house, the officer can still go in to check if you were DUI?No. It requires exigent circumstances, like probable cause.

If so, then chalk up another mark for overstepping for the public servants. I can't get the link.Strange. It still works for me.

[Wolfcounsel]

I get a blank header, and if I click on the topics on the left side, I get other news. Is there a way to get just that DUI bit?

[MSGT]

No. It requires exigent circumstances, like probable cause.
probable cause comes in many ways....... real or not

[Rhino]

I get a blank header, and if I click on the topics on the left side, I get other news. Is there a way to get just that DUI bit?Not that I can find. Are you using IE?

[Rhino]

probable cause comes in many ways....... real or notWhich makes this no different than anything else. Still makes sense to me.

[ConspiracyBuff]

Not cool to me.

[Rhino]

Why not? Without this ruling, the drunk could run over a couple of light poles, run home and claim he wasn't drunk when he did it. "Why no, your honor. I drank all that liquor while they were outside my house for three hours waitin fer a search warrant. That's why my blood alcohol was high!"

[Wolfcounsel]

"Are you using IE?" --Rhino

Yes. It could be my server?

Without this ruling, the drunk could run over a couple of light poles, run home and claim he wasn't drunk when he did it. "Why no, your honor. I drank all that liquor while they were outside my house for three hours waitin fer a search warrant. That's why my blood alcohol was high!" --posted by Rhino


If a police officer sees all that lousy driving, he will not hesitate to signal for the driver to stop, and he will call it in. Possible DUI incident reported. Now that gives the police probable cause, especially if a video covers the officer. I am talking about like if a police officer is tailgating me (it's happened a few times), and I lead him on a tour of the city using impeccable driving skills, and I head home, enter my driveway and park, and I go inside and have a rum and coke waiting for me. Can the, uh, police, without having signaled me to stop, then proceed to knock, enter, and give me a breathalyzer test? That was my question.


<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[DesertFox]

Shoot to kill. There's armed animals out there dressed up like dogs and weevils and other stuff.

[Wolfcounsel]

I never, ever, shoot to wound.

[MSGT]

Why not? Without this ruling, the drunk could run over a couple of light poles, run home and claim he wasn't drunk when he did it. "Why no, your honor. I drank all that liquor while they were outside my house for three hours waitin fer a search warrant. That's why my blood alcohol was high!"sounds good on paper

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Police can now enter homes

Not THIS Homes, or my husband will kill them!
Homes(choolrsRUs)
:smirky:

[Rhino]

I am talking about like if a police officer is tailgating me (it's happened a few times), and I lead him on a tour of the city using impeccable driving skills, and I head home, enter my driveway and park, and I go inside and have a rum and coke waiting for me. Can the, uh, police, without having signaled me to stop, then proceed to knock, enter, and give me a breathalyzer test?No. This ruling doesn't allow that. They have to have probable cause.

[Rhino]

sounds good on paperAs always, it's subject to the determination of a court, and we all know that not every court makes smart decisions. However, if we use that as an excuse not to pass new laws, render new decisions, etc., then we'd never have any.

[Wolfcounsel]

"This ruling doesn't allow that. They have to have probable cause." --Rhino, re post #11

Okay. But would not probable cause mean the officer has to make a signal to stop you before you pull into your driveway and get inside the house? That is my question, since the link is still a puzzle to me.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Rink]

This is just more evidence of further erosion of our personal liberties, to allow police to just waltz into our homes without a warrant, without a reason other than a 'suspicion' opens the door to ALL kinds of abuses by the authorities.

I do remember the seatbelt laws were originally based on ' we wont pull you over just for the seatbelt it will have to be a secondary offense, if you are pulled over for some other infraction and are found to be not wearing your seatbelt THEN we can cite you' to 'we can pull you over solely on non-seatbelt use'.

Creeping incrementalism will make it so that you cannot go into your home without police harrassment as they WILL find ways around the letters of the law and/or find a way to change the law once this is established to give them more leeway to just enter your home without any due cause or reason whatsoever over Anything.

Give it time.

Have fun with the new Police State, from California it gets imported to everywhere else.

[Rhino]

"This ruling doesn't allow that. They have to have probable cause." --Rhino, re post #11

Okay. But would not probable cause mean the officer has to make a signal to stop you before you pull into your driveway and get inside the house? That is my question, since the link is still a puzzle to me.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->Not necessarily, I would think, though I'm sure a court would rule on that circumstance. It's not carte blanche by any means.

This is just more evidence of further erosion of our personal liberties, to allow police to just waltz into our homes without a warrant, without a reason other than a 'suspicion' opens the door to ALL kinds of abuses by the authorities.The ruling doesn't say that, so you can rest easy.

[Teenager]

I don't like this. Seriously, I don't. I think it's sliding down a slippery slope...

[Rink]

They said the same thing about the seatbelt laws, o no nothing to worry about nobody's rights will be violated we'll follow the strict letter of the law.... to traffic stops just solely for seatbelts only and cops hiding as bums at intersections to snoop on you to see if you're wearing seatbelts and nailing you and more.

Ya right this ruling wont open another pandoras box ful when it comes to the incremental creep of the 'police statism'

Just another law, move along sheeple, nothing to worry bout the cops are doin this for your own good.

If you have nothing to hide then their entering your home without permission, warrant or justification will not worry you any.

Take a few other laws on the idea that cops can enter ones home without a warrant in case of 'emergency' and a few others and then link em together.

I dont trust our govt, as our govt does NOT have our best interests in mind, if you couldnt tell.

[uncommon1]

Does this mean that if the person driving wasn't drunk and the police enter a home, only to find a drunk in there, then they can arrest the person who wasn't driving and say that he/she was actually driving? As an aside, if the poiceman doesn't have a gun drawn, can you kick the policeman's ass, since he probably broke into your house and is therefore a trespasser?

[Teenager]

Does this mean that if the person driving wasn't drunk and the police enter a home, only to find a drunk in there, then they can arrest the person who wasn't driving and say that he/she was actually driving? As an aside, if the poiceman doesn't have a gun drawn, can you kick the policeman's ass, since he probably broke into your house and is therefore a trespasser?

If you attacked a policeman, even in your own home, that'd be "assaulting a law-enforcement officer," which has some pretty hefty fines, I believe...

[Wolfcounsel]

"As an aside, if the poiceman doesn't have a gun drawn, can you kick the policeman's ass, since he probably broke into your house and is therefore a trespasser?" --uncommon1

Any intruder breaking into my house, will get his ass handed to him in Hell. I am not a law breaker. And if I do receive a room paid for by the taxpayers for a certain length of time, I will do it again if the action is repeated.