Gocka, thanks, I think that's pretty much what I'm saying. The legal implications and consequences mostly concern me.. along with the potential precedence it could set.
First, you said I haven't stated what an appropriate response would be. Then I stated any response that didn't include warrant-less searches and pat-downs without the necessary level of suspicion would be fine. Now you're saying I haven't proposed an alternative course of action...yet, I'm still saying any alternative action that doesn't encroach on constitutional liberties and rights. What are you missing?
You may not be a constitutional law expert. But I do have two different law degrees; and while I don't think that is any support or justification for my argument, it should at least demonstrate that my concerns are mainly legal (and policy) in nature and not conspiracy-based. I am legitimately concerned about the precedent this sets; and I've read and seen enough about the American legal atmosphere to know that certain legal and political institutions are pushing some boundaries that Americans have struggled to set for many decades.
(And as a side note, I never said my liberties were taken away.)
As far as not letting the cops in and walking the streets in defiance, that's beside the point because I never gave my opinion on what I would do in that situation. I'm stating the limits that the Constitution sets on government and government agencies to do such things. The test is usually exigent circumstances for when an officer can skip the Fourth Amendment and search a house:
What I'm saying is this: First, there wasn't a threat of imminent danger, legally defined. Imminent means immediate in the sense that there's a gun pointed at somebody. That clearly did not exist here. Second, imminent escape did not exist here, as in how can there be the threat of an imminent escape from a particular house when the officers don't even know the particular house the suspect could be in? Doesn't apply here.
And even if the above, for argument sake, one can argue that imminent danger and imminent escape did exist, then what does that say about the other one million fugitives that are in America? That's how many warrants are out there...most aren't dangerous criminals, but thousands are dangerous. So why not employ the same tactics and the same ignorance of the Constitution? The reason must be, in part, political.
Originally posted by Phoenix
View Post
You may not be a constitutional law expert. But I do have two different law degrees; and while I don't think that is any support or justification for my argument, it should at least demonstrate that my concerns are mainly legal (and policy) in nature and not conspiracy-based. I am legitimately concerned about the precedent this sets; and I've read and seen enough about the American legal atmosphere to know that certain legal and political institutions are pushing some boundaries that Americans have struggled to set for many decades.
(And as a side note, I never said my liberties were taken away.)
As far as not letting the cops in and walking the streets in defiance, that's beside the point because I never gave my opinion on what I would do in that situation. I'm stating the limits that the Constitution sets on government and government agencies to do such things. The test is usually exigent circumstances for when an officer can skip the Fourth Amendment and search a house:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence.
And even if the above, for argument sake, one can argue that imminent danger and imminent escape did exist, then what does that say about the other one million fugitives that are in America? That's how many warrants are out there...most aren't dangerous criminals, but thousands are dangerous. So why not employ the same tactics and the same ignorance of the Constitution? The reason must be, in part, political.
Comment