WI court: 4th amendment? What 4th amendment?

[Underseer]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wi...s-single-vote-justice-appointed-scott-walker/

Seriously, Wisconsin?

Worse, the Walker-appointed judge who cast the deciding vote didn't even hear the arguments and ruled anyway.

 

[zorq]

I agree, the police had no idea what was in the locked room. They had no reason to believe that there were marijuana plants growing there . We know they weren't looking for the plants because they claimed they were looking for injured people. But of course they had no reason to believe other injured people were in there either. Their decision to enter the room without a warrant or permission of the resident was not based on reasonable suspicion or even "community caretaker" responsibilities at all.

Another example of cops lying and breaking the law and this time (not the first time or the last time) the court went along with it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wi...s-single-vote-justice-appointed-scott-walker/

Seriously, Wisconsin?

Worse, the Walker-appointed judge who cast the deciding vote didn't even hear the arguments and ruled anyway.

I thought you conservatives were all gung-ho on law enforcement.

 

[untermensche]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wi...s-single-vote-justice-appointed-scott-walker/

Seriously, Wisconsin?

Worse, the Walker-appointed judge who cast the deciding vote didn't even hear the arguments and ruled anyway.

I thought you conservatives were all gung-ho on law enforcement.

How can something be "law" enforcement when it is breaking the law?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Why'd he let them in in the first place if he had a grow going on? Dumbass. Is one allowed to customize their permission to search?

Around 3:00 a.m. police were called to help a man who was bleeding. He gave inconsistent versions about how he was beaten. He said that he lived nearby with his brother. Police followed a trail of blood to the house of the defendant (the brother), knocked on the door, and were allowed inside. The defendant told the police that he lived alone, that he had just defended himself in a fight with his brother, and that his brother had just left. The defendant permitted the police to enter the house to confirm that no other injured persons were there. The police observed blood splattered about. They ordered the defendant to stay in the living room and went to the second floor where they spotted drug paraphernalia and encountered a locked door with a few drops of blood on it. They smelled marijuana and heard a fan running behind the door. They told the defendant to give them the key, and he refused. Somehow they got it anyway, opened the door, and discovered marijuana plants.

http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/scow-expands-community-caretaker-doctrine-lets-justice-r-bradley-break-tie-vote/

 

[Valjean]

Why couldn't they have arrested the man for the marijuana in plain sight and obtained a search warrant subsequently?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wi...s-single-vote-justice-appointed-scott-walker/

Seriously, Wisconsin?

Worse, the Walker-appointed judge who cast the deciding vote didn't even hear the arguments and ruled anyway.

I have no idea, is this ruling Unconstitutional without even needing SCOTUS to be involved? Or did they create a new gray area that needs to be whacked away by SCOTUS?

 

[dismal]

This "people may be in danger" exception to the 4th Amendment is not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

 

[SimpleDon]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wi...s-single-vote-justice-appointed-scott-walker/

Seriously, Wisconsin?

Worse, the Walker-appointed judge who cast the deciding vote didn't even hear the arguments and ruled anyway.

Pretty much by definition, conservatives ignore reality or they wouldn't be conservatives. In this case it doesn't matter if she heard the arguments.

The question to ask these strict constitutionalists and textualists is when can't police search a person's home without a warrant? In what situations does the 4th amendment actually apply?

Politically conservative judges also show an almost total disregard for following precedent. I have to say a "politically conservative" justices because the very definition of a conservative justice is one that invariably follows precedent.

And they also show a complete disregard for the principle that overturning long standing precedent requires a supermajority of the court.

The “community caretaker” exception to the requirement for warrant has in the applied only to vehicles, not to homes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This "people may be in danger" exception to the 4th Amendment is not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

The case decided Wednesday involved a Kenosha police action in 2012. Officers went to Charles Matalonis' house to investigate a possible beating of his brother, who was found bloodied at a nearby residence.

link

So with the brother known not to be in any danger, exigent circumstances don't exist.

 

[SimpleDon]

This "people may be in danger" exception to the 4th Amendment is not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

So if they do apply "exigent circumstances" and the “community caretaker” role to home searches, then exactly when and where does the 4th amendment apply to require a warrant?

 

[coloradoatheist]

This "people may be in danger" exception to the 4th Amendment is not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

So if they do apply "exigent circumstances" and the “community caretaker” role to home searches, then exactly when and where does the 4th amendment apply to require a warrant?

It would apply in places where there was no reason to suspect anything, but hasn't it always been a fine line? But we'll see if the Supreme Court rules on this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if they do apply "exigent circumstances" and the “community caretaker” role to home searches, then exactly when and where does the 4th amendment apply to require a warrant?

It would apply in places where there was no reason to suspect anything, but hasn't it always been a fine line? But we'll see if the Supreme Court rules on this.

Like this case. The victims of the attack was known to not be in any danger. There was absolutely no reason to suspect any one else was in danger. It isn't as if the brother said his brother attacked him and someone else could still be trapped in the home.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

This "people may be in danger" exception to the 4th Amendment is not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

This may or may not qualify as exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances exist when there is a danger to human life (basically), or, which may justifiable in this case, there's a danger that evidence could be removed or destroyed. But really, the analysis has to end there because there are a lot of missing facts here. The news article isn't trustworthy. The vast majority aren't anyway when it comes to legal interpretation, but this one appears especially bad.

There is an "in plain sight" rule where the police aren't required to ignore something they can see right in front of them. In this case, they were invited in to the house whereupon they saw an illegal substance in plain sight. But what's missing is why they believed the inhabitants of the house were growing marijuana.

So anything beyond that is speculation. The 4th AM may have been violated, or it may not have been.

 

[dismal]

This "people may be in danger" exception to the 4th Amendment is not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

This may or may not qualify as exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances exist when there is a danger to human life (basically), or, which may justifiable in this case, evidence could be removed or destroyed. But really, the analysis has to end there because there are a lot of missing facts here. The news article isn't trustworthy. The vast majority aren't anyway when it comes to legal interpretation, but this one appears especially bad.

There is an "in plain sight" rule where the police aren't required to ignore something they can see right in front of them. In this case, they were invited in to the house whereupon they saw an illegal substance in plain sight. But what's missing is why they believed the inhabitants of the house were growing marijuana.

So anything beyond that is speculation. The 4th AM may have been violated, or it may not have been.

Yeah, I agree with everything you said there. They did see blood in the house already so there may have been some rationale to search for other victims, not for a grow operation. In any case, it seems to me they could have easily got a warrant to search the room based on what they had. They just would have had to wait a few minutes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm going to 180 here. Based on the details of the case, as presented in the appeals court decision, there was reason to check. The victim lied about how he got hurt and based on the presence of blood, it was not unreasonable to want to check a locked room.

The appeals court sets the threshold as needing to know that there is someone in need. They feel this was addressed when they find the victim and then the person who attacked him. The attacked victim did not indicate multiple victims, therefore the police don't have an objective reason for suspecting any one else is in danger. However, the victim clearly lied about the circumstances of the injuries, so the fact he doesn't indicate multiple victims is, in my mind, not as relevant.

If there was a victim in the locked room, and that person died because the Police had not checked... that would have been viewed as a terrible error in judgment.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What’s more, the decision was made by a single, newly-appointed judge who was not even present when arguments were made in court.

In a 4-3 decision, the state’s highest court ruled...

"Decision was made by a single, newly appointed judge" and "4-3 decision" don't quite match up in my opinion. Why blame the one judge when three others agreed with them?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why'd he let them in in the first place if he had a grow going on? Dumbass. Is one allowed to customize their permission to search?

Around 3:00 a.m. police were called to help a man who was bleeding. He gave inconsistent versions about how he was beaten. He said that he lived nearby with his brother. Police followed a trail of blood to the house of the defendant (the brother), knocked on the door, and were allowed inside. The defendant told the police that he lived alone, that he had just defended himself in a fight with his brother, and that his brother had just left. The defendant permitted the police to enter the house to confirm that no other injured persons were there. The police observed blood splattered about. They ordered the defendant to stay in the living room and went to the second floor where they spotted drug paraphernalia and encountered a locked door with a few drops of blood on it. They smelled marijuana and heard a fan running behind the door. They told the defendant to give them the key, and he refused. Somehow they got it anyway, opened the door, and discovered marijuana plants.

http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/scow-expands-community-caretaker-doctrine-lets-justice-r-bradley-break-tie-vote/

Yeah, his mistake was letting them in at all.

Once the police saw blood splattered about I don't have a problem with them checking for injured people, even behind locked doors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It would apply in places where there was no reason to suspect anything, but hasn't it always been a fine line? But we'll see if the Supreme Court rules on this.

Like this case. The victims of the attack was known to not be in any danger. There was absolutely no reason to suspect any one else was in danger. It isn't as if the brother said his brother attacked him and someone else could still be trapped in the home.

And they knew for sure there were no other victims??

Without the blood the police would have no reason to look further. However, blood + resistance to a line of inquiry = suspicion there might be more victims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm going to 180 here. Based on the details of the case, as presented in the appeals court decision, there was reason to check. The victim lied about how he got hurt and based on the presence of blood, it was not unreasonable to want to check a locked room.

The appeals court sets the threshold as needing to know that there is someone in need. They feel this was addressed when they find the victim and then the person who attacked him. The attacked victim did not indicate multiple victims, therefore the police don't have an objective reason for suspecting any one else is in danger. However, the victim clearly lied about the circumstances of the injuries, so the fact he doesn't indicate multiple victims is, in my mind, not as relevant.

If there was a victim in the locked room, and that person died because the Police had not checked... that would have been viewed as a terrible error in judgment.

Exactly my reasoning on this. Once a witness has been found to lie once their testimony is considered basically worthless. Thus the cops had no reason to trust that there weren't more victims.