If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Gazette)   Problem: College students who know their legal rights are refusing to let the police enter their homes when they knock. Solution: Make that a civil offense, with fines up to $1000 per offense   (thegazette.com) divider line 255
    More: Scary, Iowa City, Iowa, local ordinance, Iowa City Press-Citizen, disorderly house, police Chief Sam Hargadine  
•       •       •

20604 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2012 at 2:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

255 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
2012-08-23 03:32:05 AM

Tumunga: I remember the good old days when the cops would come to the front door, teenage drinking all about, and tell you the neighbors are complaining, turn the noise down, then leave. Also, I remember when you got pulled over, open booze containers in the car, and the cops would make you pour your booze out, then tell you to drive straight home.

What the fark happened?

/onion on my belt, etc.

Civil lawsuit lottomania happened.

Those kids drinking unsupervised at home? Well guess what, if one of those drunk kids does something stupid later that night, gets hurt, or dies from alcohol poisoning - and the parents find out the PD/city knew about the situation and did nothing about it - lotto time! The city will be sued for millions, and the cop will be sued for every penny he has ever earned in his adult life in addition to never working again. It's just not worth the risk of a $20 million dollar lotto payout.

Same with letting a "only slightly tipsy" driver go straight home. Nowadays if that driver hits someone on the way home, the cops life is ruined permanently. And the city will lose it's entire budget for the next 5 years.

Vote for whichever of your representatives who supports tort reform.
2012-08-23 09:33:09 AM

RandomRandom: Giltric: Solution.....talk to all local landlords and ask them for a key to the house/apartment and permission to enter their property to answer a complaint.

That's not how US law works.

The resident of a house has 4th amendment rights, not just the landlord. Even if the landlord gives the police a key, they still need a warrant. (And thank god we don't have a 2-class 4th amendment, one for home owners and another for renters. We have enough class division as it is.)

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 4th Amendment, it's your friend.

The 4th is antiquated like the 2nd.
I'm sure the founders couldn't see a future world where people play loud annoying dubstep throguh a 1000 watt stereo system keeping everyone around the neigborhood awake.
Electricity hadn't been invented yet.....neither was dubstep

Jefferson would have probably been the first to complain.....by putting a .60 caliber ball round through the hipsters forehead.
2012-08-23 01:17:19 PM

fnordfocus: MycroftHolmes: You understand that the police chief is not advocating breaking the constitution, right? He is basically telling the city that he will not waste his men's time trying to get a search warrant for a noise complaint. Which is why the city had to use code enforcement to do an end around on the search warrant. Nowhere in the article did it state or imply that the police were advocating warrantless searches.

Sounds like that's exactly what they're advocating.

Either you let them into your house without a warrant or you get a $1000 fine.

So, do you believe that all code enforcement is a violation of the 4th amendment? If I get ticketed in absentia for a decrepit house, do you consider that a constitutional violation? If not, how is this different?
2012-08-23 04:50:30 PM
Well.... 275 comments. I'm glad we all chipped in to settled this one and came to an amicable agreement.

/ The Power of Farktm. behold
2012-08-24 12:40:24 PM

MycroftHolmes: The implication in this statement is that the police feel that civil rights are a waste of time.

Exactly. Getting a warrant is not worth the time of the police so they decided to change the law. That's what the article was about.

MycroftHolmes: The questionable law enforcement is not being performed by the police. The police are not taking any actions that compromise civil rights. Municipal code enforcement is a separate entity from the police department.

The police and city council are changing a criminal law to a civil law so they don't have to get a warrant. That's what this is about. Again, the 4th amendment is annoying because warrants are annoying to get, therefore they changed this law. I don't get how you can possibly miss the civil rights implication here. What other new civil laws should we write so we can bypass the constitution?
Displayed 5 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »