Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And this is an example of someone willing to surrender our rights and protected liberties for ‘security.’
If law enforcement ‘assumes’ criminal conduct, they need to take their evidence to a judge and secure a warrant consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
Indeed, in this case there was neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances – and being black is neither probable cause nor an exigent circumstance.
Wrong.
The lawsuit was perfectly valid the very second the officer lawlessly entered the home absent a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
We have laws against what the police did.Looks like lawsuit is BS to me. Furdge should not have sued. He was not abused while the put cuffs on for the protection of everybody involved and even checked with Furdge if the cuff fit was ok and it was. Officer were not abusive in speech. It was quickly resolved as probably proper and OK. Cuffs were removed while awaiting confirmation. By the end, Furdge was conversational and smiling while talking. Officer apologized for the intrusion. Yep. Lawsuit was BS and the judge full of BS.
What was the reasonable suspicion? That he was black?It had nothing to do with race. Read the OP. It clearly states that the dispatcher didn't relay the race of the people in question so they had no idea who they were going to run into.
There is no violation of rights given the court has already recognized reasonable suspicion as a reason for police to serarch.
The harm he suffered was the unlawful violations of his 4th Amendment rights.
This mindset, that he suffered no harm or worse yet, even if he did "so what" is why the police have been allowed to get away with these and even more egregious violations all this time.
What was the reasonable suspicion? That he was black?
Do you want them charged with a criminal act or do you just want a payday?We have laws against what the police did.
Do we not?
A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?Home
Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.www.uscourts.gov
Sorry, you lose. No constitutional rights were violated here.
We have laws against what the police did.
Do we not?
A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?
Home
Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.
Sorry, you lose. No constitutional rights were violated here.
A neighbor called on a man sitting on the patio doing nothing.My Lord, another public educated person here. You are responding to a post where I said THE OFFICERS HAD NO IDEA THE RACE OF THE SUSPECTS BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER RELAYED TO THEM BY DISPATCH and you ask such a stupid question.
Clear violation of the 4th Amendment, seems pretty clear.No we don't.
Was the karen who called in anyway in charge of the property? Was it in anyway her responsibility to manage it?Yes it is because it was an old lady that lived there, not a young guy.
Clear violation of the 4th Amendment, seems pretty clear.
So does the 100K.
The judges ruling not withstanding.Talking to you leftists is like talking to the wall. I posted two sites that state it was not a violation of his Forth Amendment rights, and I get the same response as if I were discussing this withy a pet dog. It's like you don't understand a thing I said.
Was the karen who called in anyway in charge of the property? Was it in anyway her responsibility to manage it?
The judges ruling not withstanding.
Yep. Karen Srikes Again. Sew her. The Officers just did their job.A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?
