Skip to content
 
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.

(Time)   Constitution: You need a warrant to search a home. Police: But we're trying to be community caretakers. 9-0 SCOTUS: Yeah, that's not how that works   (time.com) divider line
    More: News, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court, American Civil Liberties Union, nonpartisan coalition of civil liberty advocates, Justice Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court, civil tasks  
•       •       •

5267 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2021 at 11:28 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-05-17 8:02:31 PM  
You know you're wrong when you can get these nine justices in particular to declare unanimously that you are wrong.
 
2021-05-17 8:40:22 PM  
Write a law that says you can in those circumstances and try again.
 
2021-05-17 8:47:19 PM  

felching pen: You know you're wrong when you can get these nine justices in particular to declare unanimously that you are wrong.


9-0 is actually the most common SCOTUS result. The better thing is the ACLU joining forces with the ACU and Cato Institute.
 
2021-05-17 8:58:48 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-17 9:58:51 PM  
Okay what sucks here is that this is one of the few cases where the police did the RIGHT thing but in the wrong way.
 
2021-05-17 10:01:01 PM  
Also the ruling here is absolutely correct.

Sadly until gun nutters are no longer nutty, you DO have to go through hoops to take someone's guns.
 
2021-05-17 10:43:46 PM  
The cops can still steal all your stuff, but they can't just break into your home to do it.  After all, it's a free country.
 
2021-05-17 11:30:08 PM  

puffy999: Also the ruling here is absolutely correct.

Sadly until gun nutters are no longer nutty, you DO have to go through hoops to take someone's guns.


Work for repeal.  Until that happens, yes, you get to jump through hoops.  This is a good thing.
 
2021-05-17 11:32:16 PM  
But they did side with the crazy person with a gun, which is very on brand for America as a whole.
 
2021-05-17 11:32:58 PM  

puffy999: Okay what sucks here is that this is one of the few cases where the police did the RIGHT thing but in the wrong way.


As opposed to the rest of the time, when they do the wrong thing in the wrong way?
 
2021-05-17 11:33:22 PM  
Will pigs who tried to argue that no warrant is required to search a home lose their job? Of course not
 
2021-05-17 11:37:04 PM  
B-B-But we just want to see if you're ok!

I SMELL WEED
 
2021-05-17 11:43:14 PM  

cretinbob: Write a law that says you can in those circumstances and try again.


Statutes do not obviate constitutional rights. That's why it's the highest law in the land, as it should be.
 
2021-05-17 11:45:24 PM  
The "community caretaking" exception originated from a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which an officer took a gun out of an impounded car without a warrant.

How is that even remotely close to entering someone's house without a warrant?
 
2021-05-17 11:46:22 PM  
Rudy furiously jotting down  Note: check with lawyer to see if FBI are Community Caretakers.  Could be a loophole
 
2021-05-17 11:47:49 PM  

cretinbob: Write a law that says you can in those circumstances and try again.


That's not how constitutional rights work.
 
2021-05-17 11:51:04 PM  

Corvus: cretinbob: Write a law that says you can in those circumstances and try again.

That's not how constitutional rights work.


Exactly, since it'd just be judiciously slam dunked again.
 
2021-05-17 11:51:48 PM  

cretinbob: Write a law that says you can in those circumstances and try again.


That's not how it works, the law would be just as unconstitutional.
 
2021-05-17 11:52:35 PM  
holy shiat, even thomas
 
2021-05-17 11:57:11 PM  
It's nice to know that law enforcement is so convinced they naturally have the right to just walk into your home that they are willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Cops hate the 4th Amendment.
 
2021-05-17 11:58:03 PM  

Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: It's nice to know that law enforcement is so convinced they naturally have the right to just walk into your home that they are willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Cops hate the 4th Amendment.


Pretty sure they hate the entire Constitution.
 
2021-05-17 11:58:14 PM  

cretinbob: Write a law that says you can in those circumstances and try again.


Amend the Constitution and try again. Otherwise, the Court just tends to say "did we farking stutter?"
 
2021-05-18 12:03:34 AM  

puffy999: Okay what sucks here is that this is one of the few cases where the police did the RIGHT thing but in the wrong way.


I think that one of the more important ethics that our country is based in is that the end doesn't justify the means.

Unrelated, but contrary to the views of many on the alt right, the means also don't justify the end.
 
2021-05-18 12:04:30 AM  

shinji3i: Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: It's nice to know that law enforcement is so convinced they naturally have the right to just walk into your home that they are willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Cops hate the 4th Amendment.

Pretty sure they hate the entire Constitution.


Which makes 9-0 all the more shocking.  You'd think Frat Boy and Barrett would've dissented at minimum.  But this sounds pretty cut and dry Constitutionally.
 
2021-05-18 12:05:36 AM  
I have a case on appeal right now that could be affected by this ruling. Police seized his firearms from the home after a domestic dispute. Note: not domestic violence. He was eventually charged with resisting arrest. He was not in the house, he was not armed, and he didn't threaten anyone with any weapon. Despite that, the police went into the house, took his 2 pistols, and a shotgun.

At his sentencing, judge ordered his firearms to be forfeited and destroyed by the police.

Where my case differs most, is that the State farked up. Where I live, in order to subject a property to forfeiture in a criminal matter, the specific items to be forfeited have to be named, and why they are to be forfeited. The State did not do that, but the judge seemed to either not care that the state didn't meet their statutory duty, or didn't know that the state was required to put that demand in the charging document.

As an aside, one of the first things you learn after law school is that judges often do not know the law. At least not as much as you think they should know.

Anyway, after filing my brief, and citing to numerous cases, and statutes that the State had no right to forfeit the weapons, I was sure that the State would respond with a "yeah, appellant is right, we farked up, and will not file a brief in opposition". That does happen on occasion. Now, I won't go into the details, but the State did not take that option. They came back with the most hare-brained reply, filled with inapplicable hypotheticals, (as if an applicable hypothetical situation should even apply in a appeal on verifiable facts, but I digress) and more misstatements/misunderstandings of law, and outright pig-ignorance than I've ever seen in any reply in 20 years of practice. I would have been embarrassed to even think about putting something like that on paper, let alone actually doing it, and submitting it to an appellate court.

My response was brutal.
 
2021-05-18 12:09:22 AM  

bluorangefyre: shinji3i: Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: It's nice to know that law enforcement is so convinced they naturally have the right to just walk into your home that they are willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Cops hate the 4th Amendment.

Pretty sure they hate the entire Constitution.

Which makes 9-0 all the more shocking.  You'd think Frat Boy and Barrett would've dissented at minimum.  But this sounds pretty cut and dry Constitutionally.


It was a tough choice between "cops can do no wrong" and "guns!".
 
2021-05-18 12:10:47 AM  

Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: It's nice to know that law enforcement is so convinced they naturally have the right to just walk into your home that they are willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Cops hate the 4th Amendment.


Damn straight. I used to be a prosecutor. Prosecutors are often just as hostile to the 4th amendment as police, but at least they usually know when there's an obvious violation.

The look that I got from a fellow prosecutor when I said, "Why do cops so often seem to think that "doing the right thing" is for the arrested individual to give up all his constitutional protections" made me realize that I was on the wrong side of the criminal justice system.
 
2021-05-18 12:13:45 AM  

danvon: I have a case on appeal right now that could be affected by this ruling. Police seized his firearms from the home after a domestic dispute. Note: not domestic violence. He was eventually charged with resisting arrest. He was not in the house, he was not armed, and he didn't threaten anyone with any weapon. Despite that, the police went into the house, took his 2 pistols, and a shotgun.

At his sentencing, judge ordered his firearms to be forfeited and destroyed by the police.

Where my case differs most, is that the State farked up. Where I live, in order to subject a property to forfeiture in a criminal matter, the specific items to be forfeited have to be named, and why they are to be forfeited. The State did not do that, but the judge seemed to either not care that the state didn't meet their statutory duty, or didn't know that the state was required to put that demand in the charging document.

As an aside, one of the first things you learn after law school is that judges often do not know the law. At least not as much as you think they should know.

Anyway, after filing my brief, and citing to numerous cases, and statutes that the State had no right to forfeit the weapons, I was sure that the State would respond with a "yeah, appellant is right, we farked up, and will not file a brief in opposition". That does happen on occasion. Now, I won't go into the details, but the State did not take that option. They came back with the most hare-brained reply, filled with inapplicable hypotheticals, (as if an applicable hypothetical situation should even apply in a appeal on verifiable facts, but I digress) and more misstatements/misunderstandings of law, and outright pig-ignorance than I've ever seen in any reply in 20 years of practice. I would have been embarrassed to even think about putting something like that on paper, let alone actually doing it, and submitting it to an appellate court.

My response was brutal.


how many thesaurus entries did you use per page?
 
2021-05-18 12:19:09 AM  

Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: It's nice to know that law enforcement is so convinced they naturally have the right to just walk into your home that they are willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Cops hate the 4th Amendment.


Y'know, it's not actually the cops that argue these cases in court, it's the State Attorney's office. Most of the time they're just seeking clarification of existing law, as in this case The cops don't usually care one way or another how the courts rule, they just want to know how they should act the next time this situation comes up.

Now they know. Leave the guns there so the guy can kill himself.
 
2021-05-18 12:22:13 AM  
Perhaps they can also ban warrantless invasion of women's reproductive system.
 
2021-05-18 12:27:17 AM  

Fart And Smunny: Unrelated, but contrary to the views of many on the alt right, the means also don't justify the end.


This specific case also illustrates why broader rules need to be on the books for mental illness and particularly domestic abuse. His actions toward his wife were an implicit threat.

In the end, this guy should have been removed from guns by whatever means. There gets to be a point where, as a country, we're gonna have to put our big boy pants on and nip things like this in the bud before it becomes a murder-suicide.

But... yes, by the book. This ruling could have opened way too many bad doors toward illegal searches, which the cops already have in their favor.
 
2021-05-18 12:33:48 AM  

puffy999: Fart And Smunny: Unrelated, but contrary to the views of many on the alt right, the means also don't justify the end.

This specific case also illustrates why broader rules need to be on the books for mental illness and particularly domestic abuse. His actions toward his wife were an implicit threat.

In the end, this guy should have been removed from guns by whatever means. There gets to be a point where, as a country, we're gonna have to put our big boy pants on and nip things like this in the bud before it becomes a murder-suicide.

But... yes, by the book. This ruling could have opened way too many bad doors toward illegal searches, which the cops already have in their favor.


I really hope that we can start seeing progress on a solution sooner rather than later. Lately, it feels like the US is an increasingly hostile place to live.
 
2021-05-18 12:39:52 AM  
Good to see all the justices ruling to protect 2nd and 4th amendment rights.

Now do civil forfeiture next.

And fark the Biden administration for arguing to uphold the lower court ruling of warrantless home entry and gun seizure. Not yours.

Not yours.
 
2021-05-18 12:39:58 AM  

puffy999: Okay what sucks here is that this is one of the few cases where the police did the RIGHT thing but in the wrong way.


No. Just because you're doing a welfare check doesn't doesn't allow you to see things you shouldn't be seeing you don't get to arrest people for something to see in their house when you're not in there on a warrant.
 
2021-05-18 12:41:50 AM  

cretinbob: Write a law that says you can in those circumstances and try again.


Why do you gotta shoot my lead balloon like that?
 
2021-05-18 12:42:23 AM  

aleister_greynight: The "community caretaking" exception originated from a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which an officer took a gun out of an impounded car without a warrant.

How is that even remotely close to entering someone's house without a warrant?


Wait does this mean they no longer get to secure your car when they're arresting you for a minor traffic offense and claim that they now have the right to toss the entire car like a f******ag****t that they are
 
2021-05-18 12:45:15 AM  

waxbeans: puffy999: Okay what sucks here is that this is one of the few cases where the police did the RIGHT thing but in the wrong way.

No. Just because you're doing a welfare check doesn't doesn't allow you to see things you shouldn't be seeing you don't get to arrest people for something to see in their house when you're not in there on a warrant.


We need to redefine what "welfare check" is then.

Putting a gun on a table and telling someone to shoot you is the kind of behavior that needs a temporary state restraining order from weapons, at a minimum.

And "my rights" aren't affected if "my brain" isn't doing shiat like that.

The issue is they didn't even gp through the processes which may exist locally. My problem is those more strict laws don't exist EVERYWHERE.
 
2021-05-18 12:46:03 AM  

aleister_greynight: The "community caretaking" exception originated from a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which an officer took a gun out of an impounded car without a warrant.

How is that even remotely close to entering someone's house without a warrant?


Both are private property
 
2021-05-18 12:47:23 AM  

BlazeTrailer: aleister_greynight: The "community caretaking" exception originated from a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which an officer took a gun out of an impounded car without a warrant.

How is that even remotely close to entering someone's house without a warrant?

Both are private property


I mean, I'm sure the impound lot gave the cop permission...

/kidding
//mostly
 
2021-05-18 12:49:18 AM  

Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: It's nice to know that law enforcement is so convinced they naturally have the right to just walk into your home that they are willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Cops hate the 4th Amendment.


Cops hate humans.
 
2021-05-18 12:52:39 AM  

danvon: I have a case on appeal right now that could be affected by this ruling. Police seized his firearms from the home after a domestic dispute. Note: not domestic violence. He was eventually charged with resisting arrest. He was not in the house, he was not armed, and he didn't threaten anyone with any weapon. Despite that, the police went into the house, took his 2 pistols, and a shotgun.

At his sentencing, judge ordered his firearms to be forfeited and destroyed by the police.

Where my case differs most, is that the State farked up. Where I live, in order to subject a property to forfeiture in a criminal matter, the specific items to be forfeited have to be named, and why they are to be forfeited. The State did not do that, but the judge seemed to either not care that the state didn't meet their statutory duty, or didn't know that the state was required to put that demand in the charging document.

As an aside, one of the first things you learn after law school is that judges often do not know the law. At least not as much as you think they should know.

Anyway, after filing my brief, and citing to numerous cases, and statutes that the State had no right to forfeit the weapons, I was sure that the State would respond with a "yeah, appellant is right, we farked up, and will not file a brief in opposition". That does happen on occasion. Now, I won't go into the details, but the State did not take that option. They came back with the most hare-brained reply, filled with inapplicable hypotheticals, (as if an applicable hypothetical situation should even apply in a appeal on verifiable facts, but I digress) and more misstatements/misunderstandings of law, and outright pig-ignorance than I've ever seen in any reply in 20 years of practice. I would have been embarrassed to even think about putting something like that on paper, let alone actually doing it, and submitting it to an appellate court.

My response was brutal.


/
Sound a safe in a house be subject to opening because a houseguest ended up being wanted?
 
2021-05-18 12:53:09 AM  

waxbeans: aleister_greynight: The "community caretaking" exception originated from a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which an officer took a gun out of an impounded car without a warrant.

How is that even remotely close to entering someone's house without a warrant?

Wait does this mean they no longer get to secure your car when they're arresting you for a minor traffic offense and claim that they now have the right to toss the entire car like a f******ag****t that they are


No. They can still search the areas in the immediate area of control. Which basically means the interior. I cannot remember if that includes containers in the car, but I suspect it does. This area of law changes quite often, at least compared to others. Basically, IIRC, everything but the trunk.

Now, the way around that is for the police to get a canine on site within 20-30 minutes, do an "open-air" sniff, and when the dog alerts (that's a whole other problem) your whole car, and whatever is in it, is fair game.
 
2021-05-18 12:55:06 AM  

puffy999: Fart And Smunny: Unrelated, but contrary to the views of many on the alt right, the means also don't justify the end.

This specific case also illustrates why broader rules need to be on the books for mental illness and particularly domestic abuse. His actions toward his wife were an implicit threat.

In the end, this guy should have been removed from guns by whatever means. There gets to be a point where, as a country, we're gonna have to put our big boy pants on and nip things like this in the bud before it becomes a murder-suicide.

But... yes, by the book. This ruling could have opened way too many bad doors toward illegal searches, which the cops already have in their favor.


????? What????
You don't automatically get to search my house just because you're arrested me what the fark are you talking about?
 
2021-05-18 12:58:45 AM  

waxbeans: danvon: I have a case on appeal right now that could be affected by this ruling. Police seized his firearms from the home after a domestic dispute. Note: not domestic violence. He was eventually charged with resisting arrest. He was not in the house, he was not armed, and he didn't threaten anyone with any weapon. Despite that, the police went into the house, took his 2 pistols, and a shotgun.

At his sentencing, judge ordered his firearms to be forfeited and destroyed by the police.

Where my case differs most, is that the State farked up. Where I live, in order to subject a property to forfeiture in a criminal matter, the specific items to be forfeited have to be named, and why they are to be forfeited. The State did not do that, but the judge seemed to either not care that the state didn't meet their statutory duty, or didn't know that the state was required to put that demand in the charging document.

As an aside, one of the first things you learn after law school is that judges often do not know the law. At least not as much as you think they should know.

Anyway, after filing my brief, and citing to numerous cases, and statutes that the State had no right to forfeit the weapons, I was sure that the State would respond with a "yeah, appellant is right, we farked up, and will not file a brief in opposition". That does happen on occasion. Now, I won't go into the details, but the State did not take that option. They came back with the most hare-brained reply, filled with inapplicable hypotheticals, (as if an applicable hypothetical situation should even apply in a appeal on verifiable facts, but I digress) and more misstatements/misunderstandings of law, and outright pig-ignorance than I've ever seen in any reply in 20 years of practice. I would have been embarrassed to even think about putting something like that on paper, let alone actually doing it, and submitting it to an appellate court.

My response was brutal.

/
Sound a safe in a house be subject to opening because a houseguest ended up being wanted?


Are you asking "should a safe in a house be subject to opening because a houseguest was wanted"? I assume autocorrect got you.

As in a safe, located in a person's house, who neither has a warrant for his/her arrest, nor has a search warrant on their property? Can the police break open that safe when the police arrest a guest in that home, with or without a search warrant? Is that a fair summary of what you are asking?
 
2021-05-18 12:59:02 AM  

waxbeans: puffy999: Okay what sucks here is that this is one of the few cases where the police did the RIGHT thing but in the wrong way.

No. Just because you're doing a welfare check doesn't doesn't allow you to see things you shouldn't be seeing you don't get to arrest people for something to see in their house when you're not in there on a warrant.


The police didn't arrest anybody, they just took the weapons.
 
2021-05-18 12:59:26 AM  

puffy999: waxbeans: puffy999: Okay what sucks here is that this is one of the few cases where the police did the RIGHT thing but in the wrong way.

No. Just because you're doing a welfare check doesn't doesn't allow you to see things you shouldn't be seeing you don't get to arrest people for something to see in their house when you're not in there on a warrant.

We need to redefine what "welfare check" is then.

Putting a gun on a table and telling someone to shoot you is the kind of behavior that needs a temporary state restraining order from weapons, at a minimum.

And "my rights" aren't affected if "my brain" isn't doing shiat like that.

The issue is they didn't even gp through the processes which may exist locally. My problem is those more strict laws don't exist EVERYWHERE.


Naaaaaaa.

I've been in a similar situation.

I supposedly fired a gun.

The cops came to my house I did not invite them in they walked in as I tried to close the door on them and when I demanded to know whether or not I was under arrest and why they were in my house without a warrant they ended up arresting me and taking me to jail.

Interesting thing is they found no evidence of this alleged gun firing.

To avoid taking a protracted fight over this alleged gun firing thing I ended up allowing my probation for a whole other matter to be revoked.

My point is no that was fair and another thing in this case seems fair either.

At the end of the day no matter what either you have a warrant or you don't have a warrant and that determines whether or not what you find can be used against someone in court those are important things that we shouldn't brush off for anything whatsoever.
 
2021-05-18 1:00:16 AM  
They decided this one correctly, but you have to wonder how it would have went if they had found large bags of weed in his house instead of a couple guns.
 
2021-05-18 1:00:42 AM  
One time I had a super super shiatty landlord and he decided it was cool to just start showing the place once a week. We got shiatty back. Like not leaving, as was our right, when he showed the place. So he had the cops come one time. We still exercised our 1st amendment rights and he shouted at the cops "silence them"
 
2021-05-18 1:03:06 AM  

Sumo Surfer: And fark the Biden administration for arguing to uphold the lower court ruling of warrantless home entry and gun seizure. Not yours.


The Biden administration had zero involvement in this case. Probably not even aware it existed.
 
2021-05-18 1:08:09 AM  

flappy_penguin: One time I had a super super shiatty landlord and he decided it was cool to just start showing the place once a week. We got shiatty back. Like not leaving, as was our right, when he showed the place. So he had the cops come one time. We still exercised our 1st amendment rights and he shouted at the cops "silence them"


I found the best thing to do is leave my computer on, with a bottle of astroglide next to it, and the PornHub website open. It seems to keep the landlords from showing the property to prospective renters.

YMMV.
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.