Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…thehill.com
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
The article says that the case will now return to California state court for further proceedings. The guy was three times over the legal limit and could have killed someone.
I would be surprised if the lower court threw out his conviction.
This is a lie.You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
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.The only way this ruling makes sense to me is if the cops didn't turn on his lights in time for the driver of the car to know he was to pull over.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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
The article says that the case will now return to California state court for further proceedings. The guy was three times over the legal limit and could have killed someone.
I would be surprised if the lower court threw out his conviction.
They have to.
They have to exclude all evidence gained as a result of the now illegal search and seizure. So any statements to the cop are inadmissible. And the results of the tests when the arrest was made after the illegal search and seizure would be inadmissible.
He’s going free.
And that is what the Constitution calls for.
Fourth Amendment
www.law.cornell.edu
And suppressing evidence is the remedy. The proper remedy for an illegal search.
Lots of examples there.
So the police weren’t reigned in by the court. The police were wanting to expand their power and the court said no. They didn’t have the power to begin with and they still don’t Good call 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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
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 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.
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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
The article says that the case will now return to California state court for further proceedings. The guy was three times over the legal limit and could have killed someone.
I would be surprised if the lower court threw out his conviction.
They have to.
They have to exclude all evidence gained as a result of the now illegal search and seizure. So any statements to the cop are inadmissible. And the results of the tests when the arrest was made after the illegal search and seizure would be inadmissible.
He’s going free.
And that is what the Constitution calls for.
Fourth Amendment
And suppressing evidence is the remedy. The proper remedy for an illegal search.
Lots of examples there.
The idiot probably will kill someone next time. That's just great.
So the police weren’t reigned in by the court. The police were wanting to expand their power and the court said no. They didn’t have the power to begin with and they still don’t Good call 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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
The article example was a drunk driver.You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.
But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’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?
Refusing to pull over doesnt count?This is a lie.You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
No one wants any such ‘rule.’
There must be compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing before government can seek to arrest and prosecute a citizen.
The article example was a drunk driver.You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.
But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’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?
Well at least we have that.So the police weren’t reigned in by the court. The police were wanting to expand their power and the court said no. They didn’t have the power to begin with and they still don’t Good call 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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
There were conflicting Appeals Court decisions. So in some areas it was legal. In others. Not. So the Supremes just clarified it for everyone. It’s not legal.
Not there.The article example was a drunk driver.You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.
But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’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?
Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they can’t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Not there.The article example was a drunk driver.You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.
But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’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?
Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they can’t race into a house in hot pursuit?
I would need to see the list of misdemeanors before i could make an accruate judgement.Not there.The article example was a drunk driver.You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.
But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’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?
Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they can’t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Where. The Court says Misdemeanor is the line. You don’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.Not there.The article example was a drunk driver.You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.
But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’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?
Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they can’t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Where. The Court says Misdemeanor is the line. You don’t like that. Where do we draw the line?
Are DUI's a misdemeanor? If so, that should definitely not be allowed.I would need to see the list of misdemeanors before i could make an accruate judgement.Not there.The article example was a drunk driver.You believe its unreasonable for an officer to arrest someone who evades them long enough to get inside their home?You want a rule that says that criminals wont be prosecuted if they are able to get inside their house before being arrested?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.
Supreme Court declines to expand police power to enter home without warrant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant police more authority to enter the home of a fleeing suspect following a minor offense.The unanimous ruling adopts a legal test that involves weighi…
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 can’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 wasn’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 don’t play that.
I believe it is unreasonable to claim “Hot Pursuit” for a misdemeanor exception to the Fourth Amendment.
But for the sake of argument. Where do we draw the line if not as Misdemeanor’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?
Ok. We draw the line at that? Where do we draw the line to tell the cops they can’t race into a house in hot pursuit?
Where. The Court says Misdemeanor is the line. You don’t like that. Where do we draw the line?
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 DUI’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.
The search was unwarranted, unlawful, and un-Constitutional.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 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.
