Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

SCOTUS rules 8-1 police can violate the 4th amendment. Does the constitution mean nothing anymore?



In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and …forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.

An expert on criminal searches said the decision would encourage the police to undertake "knock and talk" raids.

"I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along," said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark.


9 Answers

  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    That's pretty ridiculous its one thing if you hear someone screaming or a gunshot or something but this is ridiculous that gives them the power to walk up to someonea door and say we smelt drugs then we herd movement so we kicked down their door ? that logic is fcking retarded

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    What do you think the moral of this story is? The odor of an illegal substance (marijuana) has for a very long time constituted probable cause as it pertains to the vehicle exception. So maybe just maybe, people should take note of that and realize that if they would preserve the sanctity of the 4th amendment they should consider the legalization of a wildly popular vice. There is no downside to this. Does removing 60% of the funding from Mexican drug cartels not sound like a good cause?

    I was a cop, and I can tell you that the American attitude toward drugs, at least as it pertains to how they vote, is the reason for the militarization of the police,and the erosion of rights. What is left out of this article is that they found the original guy they were looking for and no charges were pursued. I cannot believe the SCOTUS upheld this search especially by this margin. Get wise people.

  • 10 years ago

    First of all don't get it twisted. Police could always circumvent the 4th Amendment via the exigent circumstances clause, which means that if they know for certain that a crime is being committed then they can barge the hell in. In this case they thought that dude was burning massive amounts of chronic, to get rid of evidence and the Supreme Court sided with the cops. I think its funny that the one justice who didn't is considered one of the more liberal justices. Hey CONservatives, how does that feel?

  • Cindi
    Lv 5
    10 years ago

    They already have the 'authority' to override the 4th amendment, and a search warrant, by crying "probable cause". Not to mention the Patriot Act allows them to take full control over populations.... including your home and bank account. TYVM.

    *** they don't even have to knock and talk. They could simply walk by your home and say they heard something inside. The only 'evidence' they have to provide is, one officer saying he heard it.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Nope - yet I do love how swiftly the Democrats become Constitutional scholars just to guard Terrorist and the little black kenyan muslim emperor obama. while on different themes which will stomp everywhere in the form. humorous huh.

  • Teekno
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Can you tell me what part of the 4th Amendment gives someone the right to destroy evidence?

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Hey Primo, FAIL!

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    in that case it sounded like the cops had ample probable cause.

  • 10 years ago

    i guess it doesn't

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.