INDIANA KILLS OFF 4TH AMENDMENT, US SUPREME COURT BURIES IT

The enemy is really rushing to finish off the Bill of Rights-not that decades of dumbing down in their schools and by their cultural and media partners hasn't reduced the first 10 Amendments to a near-forgotten myth in the eyes of the oath traitors.

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/05/16/scotus-flushing-your-toilet-negates-your-4th-amendment-rights/

SCOTUS: Flushing your toilet negates your 4th Amendment rights

Monday, May 16th, 2011

In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cops do not need a search warrant to enter a home if, after banging on the door, they hear sounds that suggest evidence is being destroyed.

Residents who “attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Here is my translation:  “Cops who wish enter a home without a warrant may now do so by claiming after the fact that they heard the sound of evidence being destroyed”.
Because, there is no such thing as the sound of evidence being destroyed.  It’s not like a gun shot or a scream or loud music.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. “Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down,” she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

Is anyone still under the delusion that the government is there to protect your freedom?
RIP Fourth Amendment.
Thanks to Agitator reader Buddy Hinton for the link.
[Posted by Dave Krueger]

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/05/16/supreme-court-grants-cops-power-to-follow-their-noses-ears-without-warrant-a-farewell-post/

Supreme Court grants cops power to follow their noses, ears without warrant (a Farewell Post)

Monday, May 16th, 2011

[UPDATE: I see that Dave Krueger wrote about this same issue just moments before I hit "publish." Please enjoy a second helping of 4th Amendment absurdity.]

Much thanks to Radley for the opportunity to blog here at the Agitator over the past several days, and to the Agitator community for all the lively and thoughtful discussion in the comments section. I was apprehensive at first to start blogging here, since criminal justice is definitely not my beat, but I suppose Radley knew that when he asked me to guest-blog, and he must have had his reasons for wanting to expose his readers to my style of femmi-libertarian thought. I thank those of you who took time to reach out through my blog, twitter, or email to express support or encouragement. I had fun, I hope you all did too.
Now then, onto business: It seems that police do not need a warrant to kick in a door if they smell marijuana and suspect the occupants are destroying evidence. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that as long as cops knock loudly, announce themselves, and then hear the sound of evidence being destroyed, it’s totes gravy for them to kick in the door and enter.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches by kicking down a door after the occupants of an apartment react to hearing that officers are there by seeming to destroy evidence.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the majority had handed the police an important new tool.

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

Justice Alito asserted that this decision only concerns the suppression of evidence when the police themselves create exigent circumstances. According to the Times, Alito wrote that the police merely knocking on a door and announcing themselves would not create a circumstance that would pressure an occupant to destroy evidence. However, police knocking on the door and threatening to enter without a warrant (or in an otherwise unlawful manner) would. But then, doesn’t this decision essentially grant police the power to do exactly that? Knock, announce themselves, hear literally anything that could be construed as “destroying evidence,” and then enter without a warrant and search for evidence of illegal activity? I’m no legal scholar, so if there’s a logical explanation for such Kafkaesque legal reasoning, I’m all ears.

In any case, this decision leaves a lot of discretion up to police to judge which actions sound like “destroying evidence” and which do not. Does flushing the toilet count? What if the resident had actually had Chipotle for dinner? Isn’t just continuing to smoke or consume marijuana technically “destroying evidence?” Does this allow for cops to announce their presence, wait fifteen seconds, claim they can still smell marijuana, and then break down the door?
[Libby]

So how do your public servants react to this?  From the stalwart defenders of your rights at Officer.com:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?165133-Warrants-no-longer-necessary-Indiana

Go ahead and click on the link, get even more pissed off.

The solution is YOU. 

YOU must remove the oath traitors-the prosecutors, the cops, the judges that write their own laws.  They're one big happy family... and it's past time to take that happiness away.  Along with their jobs.

The only solution that works is the one arrived upon by the brave GIs of Athens Tennessee in 1946; form a full campaign ticket, run out the rats in elected positions then fire en masse the oath traitors.  Or fire upon the oath traitors, but mind you you'd better have a plan on what to do after that.

I'd opt for the recall election, but hone your marksmanship and combat skills nonetheless.