Supreme Court to determine if police can enter a house and take guns without obtaining a warrant

[G22]

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...arch-of-homes/

WASHINGTON, DC – In a case that could have wide-ranging effects on policing in America, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments next month to decide if police can make warrantless searches of a private residence under the “community caretaking” doctrine.

[CircuitRider]

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...arch-of-homes/

Amendment IV

The 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.

[DP425]

Amendment IV

The 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.

"unreasonable" ends up being the get out of jail free card on violating the 4th.

lets how they determine this to be unreasonable.

[fatskater]

Amendment IV

The 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.

The left doesn't care about the Constitution. They take an oath to uphold it and probably laugh on the inside while they do it.

[Leader]

The left doesn't care about the Constitution. They take an oath to uphold it and probably laugh on the inside while they do it.

I've come to believe that "taking an oath" means different things to different people.

[G22]

"unreasonable" ends up being the get out of jail free card on violating the 4th.

lets how they determine this to be unreasonable.

That seems to be the point of the article. The SCOTUS has already upheld (in contrast to the Fourth Amendment) warrantless searches for situations other than 'exigent circumstance', by wrapping them around pretty words like 'community protection exception' and 'community caretaking doctrine'.

Those exceptions, as ruled by the SCOTUS were specifically meant for vehicle searches, but the lower courts have been interpreting them to extend inside your home as well.

The SCOTUS will be ruling on the lower courts interpretation. This will have huge ramifications on the Fourth Amendment.

[Leader]

That seems to be the point of the article. The SCOTUS has already upheld (in contrast to the Fourth Amendment) warrantless searches for situations other than 'exigent circumstance', by wrapping them around pretty words like 'community protection exception' and 'community caretaking doctrine'.

Those exceptions, as ruled by the SCOTUS were specifically meant for vehicle searches, but the lower courts have been interpreting them to extend inside your home as well.

The SCOTUS will be ruling on the lower courts interpretation. This will have huge ramifications on the Fourth Amendment.

The people of this country elected J. Biden, thats a mandate to TRASH the constitution.

[Bikenut]

The coup has been successful. Now comes the victors very cleverly warping the definition of words and/or coining new words with carefully crafted definitions in order to fundamentally transform America.

[GreaseMonkeySRT]

If it hasn't already, it's becoming even more increasingly clear that defeating the 2A is the launching pad for the rest of the Bill of Rights to fall.

[Corsten]

I discovered some years back that the development of law in the UK within my field of practice was 15-20 years ahead of where it was in the US. So I bought some law textbooks from the UK and did some reading. I found it helpful, particularly in confronting questions of first impression or in forming policy-focused appellate arguments.

I think that one could apply a similar principle to studying our evolving treatment of civil rights questions where public/state/community interests are being balanced against individual rights. The slope is slippery and we are already on it and building steam. Perhaps with a better understanding of what our British friends have done and why they did it, we can formulate better arguments against the present trajectory we seem to find ourselves on.