Police being reigned in by the Court

The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops canā€™t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasnā€™t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes donā€™t play that.
You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?
You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?

I believe it is unreasonable to claim ā€œHot Pursuitā€ for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.

But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanorā€™s? A cop sees a guy park illegally and run into a house. The cop chases him down and kicks in the door? Where do we draw the line?
The article example was a drunk driver.

Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they canā€™t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Not there.

Where. The Court says Misdemeanor is the line. You donā€™t like that. Where do we draw the line?
I would need to see the list of misdemeanors before i could make an accruate judgement.

So somewhere in the Misdemeanor section.

Disturbing the peace is a Misdemeanor. What if a cop comes up on a guy shouting in his front yard and the guy goes inside and shuts the door. What then? Is the cop justified in taking the door claiming hot pursuit?

Prostitution is a Misdemeanor. If a guy takes a hooker into a closed room should the cops be able to take the door claiming hot pursuit?

Or is it just DUIā€™s you want to have the cops able to use for an exception?

Notice. I am not arguing the exception for felonies is unreasonable. I believe there should be a limit. And I can live with the limit on misdemeanor.
Are DUI's a misdemeanor? If so, that should definitely not be allowed.

DUI is a Misdemeanor. So your problem with the ruling is it covers DUI?
 
The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops canā€™t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasnā€™t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes donā€™t play that.
You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?
This is a lie.

No one wants any such ā€˜rule.ā€™

There must be compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing before government can seek to arrest and prosecute a citizen.
Refusing to pull over doesnt count?
There was no compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing to justify a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
 
The ruling makes perfect sense given the fact that law enforcement pursued the driver in bad faith, entered the home without a warrant, absent any evidence that the driver was driving while intoxicated.
Only if failure to stop/comply for a blue light is not against the law. If the driver was driving erratically, then the cop has reasonable suspicion that the driver is impaired and should be stopped. Also, since the cop witnessed the suspect enter the house, the cop had 100% knowledge of the suspects location.
The search was unwarranted, unlawful, and un-Constitutional.
But it wasn't a search! The cop saw the perp that did not stop for the blue light drive into the garage, so there was no searching involved.

At any rate, the SCOTUS has ruled; therefore, I am wrong because the court says so. I wonder how long it would take for a cop to get a warrant in such a situation.
 
The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops canā€™t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasnā€™t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes donā€™t play that.
You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?
You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?

I believe it is unreasonable to claim ā€œHot Pursuitā€ for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.

But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanorā€™s? A cop sees a guy park illegally and run into a house. The cop chases him down and kicks in the door? Where do we draw the line?
The article example was a drunk driver.

Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they canā€™t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Not there.

Where. The Court says Misdemeanor is the line. You donā€™t like that. Where do we draw the line?
I would need to see the list of misdemeanors before i could make an accruate judgement.

So somewhere in the Misdemeanor section.

Disturbing the peace is a Misdemeanor. What if a cop comes up on a guy shouting in his front yard and the guy goes inside and shuts the door. What then? Is the cop justified in taking the door claiming hot pursuit?

Prostitution is a Misdemeanor. If a guy takes a hooker into a closed room should the cops be able to take the door claiming hot pursuit?

Or is it just DUIā€™s you want to have the cops able to use for an exception?

Notice. I am not arguing the exception for felonies is unreasonable. I believe there should be a limit. And I can live with the limit on misdemeanor.
Are DUI's a misdemeanor? If so, that should definitely not be allowed.

DUI is a Misdemeanor. So your problem with the ruling is it covers DUI?
Some DUIs are felonies, probably if not the first offense. Of course the cop would not know unless able to complete the stop.
 
The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops canā€™t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasnā€™t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes donā€™t play that.
you obviously donā€™t know much about the supreme court if you think thatā€™s the case.

this follows well established precedent
 
The fallout of the summer of rage 2020 has been more people questioning the claims and actions of the police. Further the courts are even starting to reign in excessive actions.


Here is the story. A cop saw a guy who he thought was driving under the influence. The cop puts on the lights. The guy drives on another hundred yards and pulls into his garage. The automatic door starts closing. The cop runs and ducks under the door.

The argument made by prosecutors was that this was an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The officer was in Hot Pursuit.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously and said no.

All nine Justices. All of them said no. The cops canā€™t claim that on a simple misdemeanor.

For most of my life the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp. Approving pretty much anything the cops want to do. Now after all the misconduct and abuses are being exposed the Courts are reigning in the Cops. It wasnā€™t that long ago the Court said the Cops traffic stop was legal even if he was enforcing a non existent law.

Now. The cops had better start thinking more conservatively about their power and authority. It seems the Supremes donā€™t play that.
You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?
You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?

I believe it is unreasonable to claim ā€œHot Pursuitā€ for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.

But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanorā€™s? A cop sees a guy park illegally and run into a house. The cop chases him down and kicks in the door? Where do we draw the line?
The article example was a drunk driver.

Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they canā€™t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Not there.

Where. The Court says Misdemeanor is the line. You donā€™t like that. Where do we draw the line?
I would need to see the list of misdemeanors before i could make an accruate judgement.

So somewhere in the Misdemeanor section.

Disturbing the peace is a Misdemeanor. What if a cop comes up on a guy shouting in his front yard and the guy goes inside and shuts the door. What then? Is the cop justified in taking the door claiming hot pursuit?

Prostitution is a Misdemeanor. If a guy takes a hooker into a closed room should the cops be able to take the door claiming hot pursuit?

Or is it just DUIā€™s you want to have the cops able to use for an exception?

Notice. I am not arguing the exception for felonies is unreasonable. I believe there should be a limit. And I can live with the limit on misdemeanor.
Are DUI's a misdemeanor? If so, that should definitely not be allowed.

DUI is a Misdemeanor. So your problem with the ruling is it covers DUI?
Yes. Now drunk drivers have incentive to drive home without stopping.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top