Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warr

[BA]

<H1 class=Headline></H1>



<DIV class=posted><TEXT id=txt_posted>POSTED:</TEXT> 3:55 pm CST March 26, 2004</DIV>
<DIV class=updated><TEXT id=txt_updated>UPDATED:</TEXT> 4:36 pm CST March 26, 2004</DIV>



<DIV class=StoryBody><B class=Dateline>NEW ORLEANS -- [/B]It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.


Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.


The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000.


New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.


"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.


But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has big problems with the ruling.


"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition.


Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.


"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.</DIV>

[edgien]

HopfuLLy they will take it to the Supreme Court of the USA because that kind of law is 100% unconstitutioniaL and trust me it wiLL be abused. In the words of Benjamin Franklin..."those who would give up essential freedoms for security , deserves niether Freedom nor Security".......Im sure Law Inforcement in LA. are having a grand party over that stupid ruling, those that ruled in favor of itshould be publicly flogged.Im getting mighty sick of Law inforcement infriging on our rightsin order tokeep them safe.It is this kind of lawthatcauses American citizensto be at risk of Law Inforcement because they wont think twice about shootingyou. In my small town we had asuicidaL man shot and killedby our local COP THUGS after shootinghim with rubber bullets causing his body to fall in their directionafter which they shot him dead, he never pointed a weapon nor didhe imply he was ever going to he was just a very toubled man upset by his ex~wife taking their son. In a town not far away, a college student(unarmed) but intoxicated was shot 4 times in the chestkilling him becauseit was alledged he charged the officer.Many ofthese copthugs are the reaL criminals. NEVER consent to a search and if they have a warrantprotest the warrant, they can still do thier search but it will be on record you did not agree to it........

[butter]

That's stupid, I would move out of that state if that was the case. Probably is the reason why we have so many peeps moving from there.

[manda]

Has anyone ever heard of "probable cause"? That's like if they have reason to suspect you are engaging in illegal activity, they can search without your consent. Is this in every state, or just mine?

[edgien]

"The right of the People to be secure in their persons,houses,papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particulary describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized" This is the 4th Amendment andis the backbone of our Justice systemand one that has been violated in part or whole many timesby the courts on many occasions, but never resolve it to be dead. The reason the framers of the Constitution included the probable cause requirement was to protect the New Country from the days of English rule where the powers-to-be at that time could excercise unwarranted "writs of assistance" or general warrants to search for anything illegal that they deemedas suchwithout restraint having only the power to believe for cause. It is important to grasp this one fundamental point in that the framers were not defining nor debating the issue of what was illegal but rather insuring protection to the people that unless upon probable cause supported by Oath of affirmation then the people would not be violated in regards to their persons, houses, papers, and effects with unreasonable search and seizure. In that time probable cause was defined as being "where known facts and circumstances of a trustworthy nature are sufficent to justify a man (or person) of reasonable caution or prudence in the beliefthat a crime has been or being committed".meaning a common person of integrity and good character. If you ask10officers onthe meaning of probable cause you will most likely get10 differentopinionsbutall leaning to the Colonialperiodopinion of power to believe. Law Inforcement has their own standard definition which is "is the sum total layers of information and synthesis of what Police have heard, know, or as trained officers", leave it to Law Inforcment to f**k something so simpleinto something with no actual defintion.Webster's defines probable as "capable of being proved; having more evidence for then against; supported by evidence which inclines to believe but leaves room for some doubt; likely". Many have said the Constituion failed to actuallydefine probable causebut most likely theoriginal framersnever invisionedtheir latter counterparts could and would complicate the matter with utter stupidity. My feeling isthat theyonly errored by leaving outtwo Amendments that would read something like (1)"andno goverment nor agencycreatedthereof,shall not violate the People withany intrusion ofunreasonable means, with any law, or penaltyby which would intrudeupon theprivcity and sanctity of the People in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"and(2). and if any such government or agency created therof,in violationof the former, that the person or persons who, by leading or instruction,through conspiracy and treacherynot excluding unwarrantedpropaganda, and deceit,in that leading that government or agency thereof in violation of the People, that upon conviction shall be hung by their testicles forpublic display, for such atime, by which the People shall administerusingdefintion of probable cause as in defining the length of time thatthe person or person are to remain on display"............so for some it is a good thing my G~G~G~G~G~grand pappy was to busy planting the fieldsand thusmissed outofferinghis input to the group........