4th Amendment in trouble?

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/...

While it doesn't affect me (yet), being in the 9th Circuit, I was wondering what you guys thought about this ruling. I'm usually on the side of civil liberties on these issues, but on this one I'm not so sure.

We've all heard the horror stories of police search abuse (if you need some, I'm sure I can dig them up for you). But the real question, for me at least, is whether this decision is allowed by the following:

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.

Was there probable cause here? Assuming that the testimony of the officers was correct, I would agree that their account:

When officers went to question Gould, they were told he was asleep. The officers asked if they could look inside for Gould, and were allowed to enter.

The officers testified that that they believed a search of the home was necessary to ensure their safety, given the allegations by Gould's employee and Gould's criminal history, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

Gould's bedroom door was ajar, and officers testified they peered inside and saw no one. Thinking Gould could be hiding, the officers looked in three closets. In one of the closets, the officers found three firearms, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

was indeed both reasonable and had probable cause. He was most likely done when someone allowed the cops inside.

The problem I have is that all an officer in this region of the country has to do is say he 'felt threatened' to search a house. I can certainly see this being abused. What do you guys think?

They should have gotten a warrent and just staked out the place.

They were allowed to access the house, presumably by someone who lives there. My Law And Order legal knowledge says they didn''t need a warrant at that point. Then there''s the part where the suspect himself gave them verbal and written permission to search the house.
The police still can''t just go in to your house without a warrant, unless someone who actually has the legal power to do so says they can. If you live in an apartment, that normally does NOT include your landlord or building manager, IIRC.

Then there''s the part where the suspect himself gave them verbal and written permission to search the house.

This happened afterthey found the guns inside the house. The defense was trying to get this evidence excluded as ''forbidden fruit'' of an illegal search. I''m still pretty torn over this one. If, as Ulairi says, they had just staked out the place or called a freaking judge and gotten permission, they would have found him without having to check out his house. However, the officers in this case appeared to have acted very reasonably once they were allowed in the house. We''ll have to see if the Supreme Court will weigh in on this one, I guess.

''forbidden fruit''

I think you mean ""poisonous fruit.""

It isn''t really a complicated case. They didn''t need to get a warrant, since they were invited in. Given that they stated they were searching for a suspect who might be hiding, it isn''t unreasonable for them to have searched closets, etc. And as long as they had a valid reason for being there and searching - which they did, based on all of that - anything they found is fair game, even if it was unrelated to the original search.

It''s kind of like being pulled over for speeding at night and saying ""yes"" when the cop asks to search your car. You don''t have to let him search, but if you do, anything he finds may be admitted as evidence.

The problem is that the cops probably didn''t feel they were sufficiently covered, and took the extra step of getting permission to search after they knew the guns were there. This makes it look like eventheydidn''t think their search was legal or appropriate, although I would argue that it was.

The court should have just ruled that the cops had the right to search, since they had been invited in with the express purpose of doing so, and not ruled that the officers'' feelings of being threatened had anything to do with it.

I tend to agree with Ral, but one scenario bothers me. It would be pretty easy to replicate this with anyone who lives in a house with a suspect. For example, the officers suspect someone of dealing drugs.

""Hi, we''re here to see John.""

""Oh, well, he''s not here.""

""You sure? Why don''t we just look in his room and see?""

There''s an intimidation factor at work here, with cops at the door.

Once they are in the house, if that works, then they can do the warrantless search, because it can always be asserted that they feared John was hiding. If they can''t get in, or if there is no find, they can still get a warrant, I''d think, and go back for the whole show.

I think that may be excessive, but it should also be easy for the courts to deal with. I hope.

Robear

They didn''t need to get a warrant, since they were invited in.

That''s true. But the article does not mention if they received consent to search the residence - they were limited to what was in ''plain view'', which does not include closed closets.

There''s an intimidation factor at work here, with cops at the door.

A lot of abuses by police come when they assume you have something to hide when you excercise your 4th amendment rights. They will then attempt to pressure you and try and trick you in hopes of gaining permission. A rule of thumb is to never allow the cops inside without a warrant - don''t even let them get a look inside when you open the door. They can also look through mail slots - anything that, say, a mailman could use to look inside is fair game for the fuzz. I''ve had a underage friend in college get in trouble like this when their friends left unfinished beer bottles around the apartment. They allowed the cops in because they wanted to help - but got nailed for it when the cop thought that they ''weren''t being helpful''.

"Robear" wrote:

There''s an intimidation factor at work here, with cops at the door.

Too bad. In that case, every numbskull crook who agreed to let the cops search his car or house can later claim ""intimidation."" Ignorance isn''t an excuse. If you don''t think enough people know their rights, maybe they should learn about them in public school instead of spending all that time on self-esteem...

"Minase" wrote:

That''s true. But the article does not mention if they received consent to search the residence - they were limited to what was in ''plain view'', which does not include closed closets.

There are a lot of gradients in allowable searches. Personally I think that if the cops say they are seaching for someone, and they are let in to do so, they really don''t need a warrant anymore.

Kind of like inviting vampires in, ala The Lost Boys.

Careful who you invite into your home kids! Never know what could happen!

"Ralcydan" wrote:

If you don''t think enough people know their rights, maybe they should learn about them in public school instead of spending all that time on self-esteem...

I think we should have more education on our government, laws, and citizens'' rights as part of our school system. Taking one civics class in high school doesn''t cut it.

We live in this nation, we should learn how it works. I''ve had a lot of catching up to do on these matters, and am still learning more every day. So often I find how naive I am about legal matters.