Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without Warrant

[printcraft]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evange...seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=6d5694875bb4

The “community caretaking” exemption to the 4th Amendment needs to be stricken.
There is really no excuse for it in a free society.

 

[foszoe]

Yeah...Screw the it takes a village crap.

 

[rooster]

Why even talk about it on here? We know where this ends.

btw where is the “the police won’t follow unlawful orders crowd”?

 

[foszoe]

Why even talk about it on here? We know where this ends.

btw where is the “the police won’t follow unlawful orders crowd”?

That's another crowd that I consider deluded

 

[DadSmith]

We will see what kind of SCOTUS we have when they hand down this ruling.

 

[Twangbanger]

Not optimistic on this one. IANAL, but it sounds like the deal was already done back when the Court crossed the red line of exigent circumstances and allowed warrantless searches of private property in non-exigent situations. After that, deciding whether it extends from cars to domiciles seems like just a technicality.

And of course, this case involves a "woman in distress," so you've got that.

I'd like to be optimistic, and believe the justices will hold that the police had time to get a warrant in this case. But I think that line in the law has already been crossed. Woman in distress, psychiatric issues with the husband, the Constitutionally Sacred Right of Cops to Lie...all the boxes they need to "check," to hand one more defeat to the individual. Perfect case, signed, sealed, delivered. Hope I'm wrong, but it looks like they "did their shopping" on this one.

 

[Ark]

btw where is the “the police won’t follow unlawful orders crowd”?

Getting clubbed in the face and arrested for not wearing masks.

 

[JTScribe]

There's a huge difference between taking a gun out of a car in the impound lot and going into someone's house. Hopefully the court recognizes that.

 

[jwamplerusa]

My bet is justice Roberts, has already had " the talk " with an emissary of Joe and the ho. As with Roosevelt I am sure it went something along the lines of, we own both houses and the executive branch you will kneel and perform the act or the supreme Court will be made up of 18 justices nine picked by me. Get the hint? Oh, and by the way there'll be a change in how the Chief Justice is selected.

Restoration of a balanced judiciary system was only partially accomplished. It would have taken a second Trump term and more of the circuit and appellate courts to have been realigned for their to have been a lasting effect.

Further, in the absence of divided government, coercion of the judicial branch is always a risk. Though I believe the vast majority of our judges are not as corrupt as the professional politician / bureaucrat class they are appointees with an effectively lifetime income so long as they play the game. If you like your life, and you want to continue with your power and income, you play the game. The game is controlled and directed by the professional politician / bureaucrat class.

 

[BigRed]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evange...seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=6d5694875bb4

The “community caretaking” exemption to the 4th Amendment needs to be stricken.
There is really no excuse for it in a free society.

"Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns."


What? The police lied?