Don't Flush!

In the latest batch of freedoms being curtailed, cops can now bust your doors in if they even THINK you're doing something that would destroy evidence.

In other news, door manufacturers are anticipating brisk summer bushiness now.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6746878.story

I gotta love the 'someone else broke the law, and this guy gets busted' mentality. Maybe it's just me, but this feels like they're giving cops the legal right to break in, and search and seizure w/o warrant.|||I suggest the police pays for broken doors etc if they find nothing. Allow it, but provide an incentive for not breaking stuff (and an insurance to the wrongfully damaged).|||Oh? So can police be held liable for items damaged in wrongful entering and search and seizure currently?

Because I was under the impression that they couldn't.|||That's a good question... I feel like the city/county/state would have to reimburse you if they damaged your property for no reason.... But I don't actually know. I could ask my dad.|||One might say that thusly are our freedoms removed, one bit at a time. As the one judge who dissented said:


Quote:




In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.
|||It is imperative that police not be allowed to be above the laws they swear to uphold.|||Quote:




Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.




Well that's f-ing scary. As much as random people might sometimes joke about having nothing to fear if you're innocent, it's an entirely different story when the guys who are supposed to be protecting the Constitution take the same line.|||I welcome our Gestapo friends!|||Quote:








Well that's f-ing scary. As much as random people might sometimes joke about having nothing to fear if you're innocent, it's an entirely different story when the guys who are supposed to be protecting the Constitution take the same line.




The fact that I find myself in agreement with an infanticide-promoting communist from the ACLU shows just how bad I think this decision is.

8-1.

WTF? This borders on being as wrong-minded as Kelo.

I suppose the assertion was that deciding <against> could inhibit the ability of the police to conduct 'hot pursuit', but I can't see how that would make sense in a real world environment. If a cop hears you beating up someone, he's entitled to "serve and protect".

However, from what I'd heard, this was based on smell and a flushing toilet. Are we to assume that the police will behave in a sacrosanct fashion, and only kick down doors when they truly believe a clear & present danger exists? If so, how did this constitute such a danger?|||Quote:








smell and a flushing toilet.




*ba-ba-dich*







Ahem.





Anyways, not really surprised but still disgusted with some people's (judges) willingness to bend over just to make the police's job more "convenent". Newsflash: the police should not get authorities based on what is more convenient, they should get authorities based on what is compatible with, well, human rights, assumption of innocence and the right to privacy. It really should not have to be pointed out.