Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting ……great news for civil libertarians
Supreme Court balks at automatic warrantless searches when police are in 'hot pursuit' for lesser crimes
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to give police the automatic power to enter homes without a warrant when they're in "hot pursuit" for a misdemeanor crime, ruling against an officer who charged a man with DUI after slipping under his garage door.
That's been in place for decades. The main point was the state contended when he was "lit up" by the police car before he entered his garage, he was arrested, and a suspect arrested can not void it by retreating into a non public place. The SC basically said he was not arrested. Additionally, since it was a Misdemeanor charge, that narrowed the exigency exception to the warrant requirement.
That's been in place for decades. The main point was the state contended when he was "lit up" by the police car before he entered his garage, he was arrested, and a suspect arrested can not void it by retreating into a non public place. The SC basically said he was not arrested. Additionally, since it was a Misdemeanor charge, that narrowed the exigency exception to the warrant requirement.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but turning the lights on/pulling someone over does not constitute an arrest, right? Can a DWI arrest be made from the cop's car?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but turning the lights on/pulling someone over does not constitute an arrest, right? Can a DWI arrest be made from the cop's car?
No, an arrest can not be made from a light up in and of itself.
The crux of the dispute, as shown in the article linked in the OP:
Quote:
In situations when an officer doesn't have time to get a warrant, police – and courts – must review the circumstances on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming that a warrantless search is permitted, the court held.
"The need to pursue a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing home entry, even absent a law enforcement emergency," Kagan wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a concurring opinion joined by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, agreed with sending the case back to lower courts to reassess the specific circumstances in the case. But he disagreed with the conclusion that a police officer chasing a suspect needed to evaluate constitutional principles in real-time.
Could it be that, with President Trump's appointment of three strong Constitution-supporting to the Supreme Court as well as hundreds to lower Federal courts, the few remaining leftist justices have resigned to the fact that they can no longer use the courts to put unconstitutional agenda into place? And have started actually evaluating cases according to the law, rather than according to what they wished the law said?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
