Dangerous Precedent
Thanks to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, police in Louisiana no longer need a warrant to search your home or business. All that's necessary is for one officer to desire the search to ensure his safety.
I sincerely hope this bus to hell runs head-on into the IV Amendment and burns spectacularly, as the implications for future law enforcement abuses are horrifying. The last thing this country needs is for police and citizenry to solidify and deepen their mutual antagonism and distrust. I'm a law abiding well educated and morally upright good taxpayer, and that doesn't stop me from feeling queasy every time I think the flashing lights are coming for me. I don't think I'm alone in that. If this precedent stands and becomes wider practice, you better bet this country will be an uglier and more authoritarian place as civil disobedience against casual searches becomes more commonplace and accepted.
Anyway, remember the IV Amendment? It was an important one. Pretty g-d d--n clear about things too, much more so than the vexed 2nd...
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[wik] Eugene Volokh links to the opinion. As with most of these instances, the case in question presents a situation in which a casual police search might be considered reasonable-- a known felon was believed to be threatening the lives of two judges-- but, of course, most situations are much more complicated. Devil, details, immanence.
on
| § 1
§ One Comment
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Yeah, while the finding of
Yeah, while the finding of the majority in this case is more than a little troubling, the case in question doesn't even seem to apply to its own ruling. Police acted on a tip, had reasonable suspicion based on the suspect's priors, were given permission to search first by someone in the house and then by the suspect -- who signed a waiver allowing them to search. I don't see a Constitutional problem with that, but I see a big one with allowing warrantless searches for the reasons described in the opinion.