| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Lousiana police can now search without warrants |
| 2004-03-28 |
| Hat tip: Drudge. 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." 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. Um... Fourth Amendment, anyone? Hello? Amendment IV Now, while I’m not a lawyer, that seems pretty damn clear... |
| Posted by:Dar |
| #5 I told you not to play in the sink trap. It's all scuzzy and dirty. Now go take a shower! |
| Posted by: Fred 2004-03-28 8:46:53 PM |
| #4 Ahhhhhh! cingold's stuck in the sink trap! Get him out! Somebody . . . get him OUT!!! A troll he is not. What he meant to post was: "This looks like a Circuit Court decision just waiting for the Supreme Court to crush it. The Search and Seizure laws of the United States are very well developed, and don't need to be tinkered with. Safety searches have always been permitted, but the officer has to have had probable cause in the first place to get into a situation that requires a safety search. To be able to comment more meaningfully, I'd have to read the actual decision (which sounds like work on a weekend), but the decision seems pretty stupid on the face of it." You owe me one, cingold! |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-03-28 8:14:53 PM |
| #3 This looks like a Circuit Court decision just waiting for the Supreme Court to crush it. The Search and Seizure laws of the United States are very well developed, and don't need to be tinkered with. Safety searches have always been permitted, but the officer has to have had probable cause in the first place to get into a situation that requires a safety search. To be able to comment more meaningfully, I'd have to read the actual decision (which sounds like work on a weekend), but the decision seems pretty stupid on the face of it. |
| Posted by: cingold 2004-03-28 7:58:41 PM |
| #2 Fred, you saved me the trouble of digging out Amendment IV. Someone suggested a while back that instead of Iraq going to all the trouble of writing a new constitution they should just take ours - - we're not using it anyway. |
| Posted by: GK 2004-03-28 5:44:50 PM |
| #1 Firing Up the Signle 'O Justuce Rite Now Squire Cingold! Squire Cingoldd! BTW it all swings on particularly and what it is. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-03-28 5:34:56 PM |