Use justica its free.
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
- Thread starter BleedBlueOval
- Start date
- Status
Use justica its free.
Never tried it. Have a link?
I always thought the police had to have "reasonable cause". Meaning, if they believe a crime is being committed right now, they have the legal right to enter.
Years ago I was throwing a huge party at my house and the local cops came by under the claim of a "noise complaint". I have two garages, the floors are done, and during parties we use the big garage as a smoking lounge. The garage door was open a few inches to air the place out and the cops are there like "We smell pot". So from the outside and without warning I use the keypad to open up the garage. The cops found nothing of interest.
I don't fear the police. If they want to come inside my house, they are more than welcome. Any time.
Years ago I was throwing a huge party at my house and the local cops came by under the claim of a "noise complaint". I have two garages, the floors are done, and during parties we use the big garage as a smoking lounge. The garage door was open a few inches to air the place out and the cops are there like "We smell pot". So from the outside and without warning I use the keypad to open up the garage. The cops found nothing of interest.
I don't fear the police. If they want to come inside my house, they are more than welcome. Any time.
Not to kick the thread offtrack but that is an inaccurate statement, smell is much more indicative of potency and/or specific strain not amount. An 8th of high quality properly cured cannabis from your local dispensary is more likely to have a stronger odor when compared to say a lb of mexican brick weed
I believe Adam is referencing a bit more than a pound of Mexican brick weed.
I served a warrant on a residence once where we could smell the dope from nearly a block away. Of course, they had a growing operation with over 200 plants and just a shade over 100 lbs of processed dope.
His statement may be inaccurate if you take his words literally, however in the real world, odor is a crutial element, potency is not.
I served a warrant on a residence once where we could smell the dope from nearly a block away. Of course, they had a growing operation with over 200 plants and just a shade over 100 lbs of processed dope.
His statement may be inaccurate if you take his words literally, however in the real world, odor is a crutial element, potency is not.
^^ agreed but nevertheless still an inaccaruate statement, the 100 lbs of processed "female" dope you speak of is still going to have alot stronger odor than 500lbs of some lower quality cartel product. Odor in no way can accurately indicate how much is behind closed doors
perhaps not; but unless you are a true connoisseur (and the courts are not) the precedent has been long-established, linking a very strong odor to volume.
Keep in mind, the dope you speak of did not exist in any real quantity until after such precedent was established.
Good for law enforcement, bad for dopers, since based on your theory, they don't need to be holding near as much to get the same level of sensory scrutiny.
Keep in mind, the dope you speak of did not exist in any real quantity until after such precedent was established.
Good for law enforcement, bad for dopers, since based on your theory, they don't need to be holding near as much to get the same level of sensory scrutiny.
Congratulations of the perspective of a drug user. No one is speaking of a pound. I am speaking of large quantities. Whether it be 100 pounds or 500 pounds the dealers use the same potentially lethal methods of protection. Therefore smell is a strong indicator of whether there needs to be a more tactical approach, if that is the only indicator you have.
Comment as to why the dept went out of their way to seal the warrant 4 days after the raid?
The purpose of the warrant is for transparency, is it not?
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
^^^^ should be very interesting how the Arizona case with the Marine turns out based on this. Should also be interesting how similar cases like the one the op cited on the Court side will hold up if and when it gets up to the SC.
No, the purpose of the warrant is not transparency. Under the Fourth Amendment to the US constitution a warrant is needed for this type of search unless you have a warrant exception. If police have intel and want to move on it, it is easier to obtain a warrant, based on PC, than to wait for an exception to arise.
Congratulations on your amazing google skills. This was posted on page one. None of these cases are from this century. None are within the last 20 years. Further, all have been overturned by newer rulings or obviated by statute.
Reposting someone elses diatribe without updating the sources or the information does no good.
It will be awhile before any meaningful information is released on that case. The press (especially the doper rags) are having a field day with it, despite the evidence already on record.
It is not unusual at all for warrants to be sealed after the fact. Happens all the time.
wow, i wrote a long piece describing why its transparency, all gone because I needed to sign in again.
i'll just keep it short, if you remove transparency from warrants, you are left with what we now know as... the patriot act.
Secrecy.
warrants have never had a guaranteed transparency. You need to spend some time studying the process and case law associated with obtaining, executing and after-actions associated with warrant service. Cases like the Arizona shooting are the press's dream. They rush in and whip the public into a frenzy, then once the facts come out - they slide back into their holes and look for another tragedy to exploit.
It is clear to me that you do not understand our jurisprudence system or the purpose of a warrant. You are assigning a meaning to the warrant process that has never been the purpose of a warrant. See Mark's post below for further clarification.
purpose of a warrant is to make sure governments cannot write their own warrants and essentially get their own authorization to enter homes, obtaining documents, etc, at will, without presenting evidence under oath to a judge. it is my understanding that on majority of warrants, they are presented prior to their execution. am i right? I can imagine there are some exceptions, but I cannot fathom that many. if you invade my home with a warrant, I would like to see it as you execute it. are you not entitled to view the judge's signature as they execute the warrant? patriot act takes that privileged away, but as far as i know, thats what use to happen.
as I've requested, why do they seal warrants after the fact?
as I've requested, why do they seal warrants after the fact?
Last edited:
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
