Lucky...

We said that 4 years ago.... then the people supposedly wanted more of the same corporate immunity, warmangerring and massive deficits and debt out of control spending.

You're right. it is our duty to defend the world at the cost of thousands of our lives and trillions of dollars to the point where we trash our economy. Hmmmm, off to China to stop human deprivations..... oh, wait, we need to stop that to our own first

Can I have 666:1 odds?

I htink the reason the FF did the seperation thing was more to avoid Jesus-based coercion than to keep God sacred, but either way, it's a good thing.

No, in the law, common sense and your opinion and/or mine mean squat. I was asking for some precedent. The ones addressed to you or to Viperpilot. Essentially, the issue of this series of posts within the thread comes down to this: Can a cop enter your house for a reason other than exigency or a fleeing felon? My initial statement was that formerly they could not, now they can. So to post precedent referring to that is inline with the arguments. You posted one, and I posted a couple. I researched your and found that they had a warrant and a right to be in the house, but searching for something else. My initial statement was that the cops couldn’t breech the threshold of the doorway in the past, now they can. Can you support or refute either? By all means, study and screw this argument. I hope to see you do well and graduate. What year are you in? Hopefully not the first. If you can find time and energy, just brief it and look at my above statement of the overview of the argument. Sure, but you can’t legislate common sense and the law doesn’t try to. I would like to read some precedent on this matter if you know of any - past and present. Ahhh, but the detention wasn’t the biggy, it was the warrant that stemmed from the whole mess. Of course the Exclusionary Rule would taint the entire process and all fruits, so there is a correlation.

Oh yes I am. I got caught up in this topic, and as you see, I don't just post 3-minute one-liners, so my posts take a while to compose. I will get to that tomorrow, but in the mean time, instead of talking discretionary spending, maybe think of a reason to explain the massive increase in debt since Bush2. Also, explaion how Reagan, Bush, Bush is responsible for 60% of the total debt. Explain how they cut social programs, increase military spending and how we are better off for it. Explain how discretionary spending is the enemy when the debt seems to slow and the annual deficit actually turned around into the black from red when we had more liberal, social discetionary spending, the opposite as it did when we had less D.S. and more military spending. Work on those while I get to the rest of the post.

Woaw, how do they get that data? I'm going to go to the DMV to sign a privacy disclosure, just as the site says to keep my license off.

I feel several ponts more intelligent after reading your input. Thx much

Come on Nightingale, I believe you are a lwa student, if I recall you writing that - correct me if I'm wrong. You posted the caselaw, I refuted it, now address mine. I'm not saying you are wrong, but to post personla opinions on what the appelate courts find is not scientific. The threshold is God, and then the cops violate it to see how far the courts will allow them to continue to violate. It's a silly game that decides how much police intrusion is acceptable. What do you think of the cases I posted, especially where the cops forcibly entered just on the smell and then arrested everyone, obtained a search warrant and was eventually thrown out? And you know as well as I do, especially since I posted more cases that establish changes in the system/rules, that these laws and definitions of REASONABLE[/B] change. There was a case in the 60's where the cops pumped a suspect's stomach to find a heroine ballon; the court threw it out because it, "Shocked the conscious of teh court." Today they will forcibly draw blood on a DUI stop if the suspect won't volunteer it or breath and the courts buy off on it. So where I'm going is this: What is reasonable? That is such a subjective word that is disguised as objective. An unreasonable search doesn't mean an illegal search, unless the courts define that search as unreasonable, then it is illegal. Just because a search is warrantless doesn't make it illegal or unreasonable. But the house's protection is supreme, perhaps more than even the suspect's body. I think it's probably easier for a cop to get a telephonic warrant to draw blood on a DUI stop than it is for a cop to get a warrant to search a house. Bring in more caselaw and weigh in on mine if you wish....

Deepest sympathies to all who are affected.

We don't have to execute innocent people, but I know what you're saying. There is enough uncertainty in the process that executing innocent people is a real possibility. If there ever was a case where the death penalty was warranted, though, this would be it. I'm ok with it, *if* the news reports are correct, but we all know that the news media are often wrong. Torture was mentioned. I don't see the point in it. Mental hospital? Hell no. Prison? Yeah, I'd be ok with it, buy why pay to keep him alive? Walt Well, it's a circular argument. If we give him extensive appeals then execute him, we've spent twice or more what it would cost to support him forever. If we curtail the appeals, we kill more innocent people using the same system on others. Most of the rest of the world has woken up, but we still love vengance, which is what CP is. As for errors, it's unbelivable that we haven't made any ever. Even current-day, it's hugely unlikely.

I'm not a lawyer, but I sure know a hell of a lot more than the average person...and in this case, apparently more than you too. I have the education, you don't...or so it seems from your baseless arguments. Ok, sorry for making an incorrect assumption... Absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act first of all (which is what we were discussing), and secondly, if LE officers have probable cause (e.g. see some dude toking up in his open doorway or think a driver may have drugs in his car b/c the guy is acting all kinds of weird), then they have the right to go into the house, car, etc. and do whatever they need to do to stabilize the situation and then get a warrant. That's been law for fucking ever...nothing new about that one. So it still stands...complete bull shit. Here's a case that establishes the change of a system, the change of laws w/o legislative action, or in the case of the Patriot Act, change with legislation: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/198/ KATZ vs US This is a simple case about Katz using a telephone as a mediaum to wager bets interstate. The court found that, "People not places" have rights to privacy. Now we have Bush advocating and authorizing warrantless wiretaps, so how is it things don't change?

I do enjoy sparring with you, Nightingale! After researching the case I find that the phrase I emboldened, "To rely on this exception, the officer must be in a lawful position to observe the evidence, and its incriminating character must be immediately apparent." In reading the Horton case I find that there was a warrant issued and the cop was legally inside the house searching for other items. I find the cops not in a lawful position to enter the house and seize evidence if they are just on the porch w/o a warrant. But my original point was: Cops can enter a house thru the threshold, remove the occupants and obtain a search warrant if they see drugs inside. I find this a violation of the 4th, but the courts do not - that was my point.

Here is teh Chimel case: Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752 (1969) - authorizes the landmark "Chimel rule": police may search the area within a person's immediate control (arm's reach) incidental to an arrest. The justification for the search is the arrest. Anything seized does not have to be related to the crime arrested for.

..."if the officer has a right to be where the evidence or contraband is first spotted." This is key and the real question here. Does a cop have the right to subvert a house's inherent 4th w/o exigency or a fleeing felon? I've found a couple key peices of precedent; let's see what you say. OK, what if it's thru a skylight in the livingroom of a house? Backyard, sure, but inside the sacred house? Hmmmm, what do you think? I found a piece of caselaw that supports that, but it uses exigency to circumvent the warrant requirement. I will look up the Horton case and get back.

I'm not a lawyer, but I sure know a hell of a lot more than the average person...and in this case, apparently more than you too. I have the education, you don't...or so it seems from your baseless arguments. Ok, sorry for making an incorrect assumption... Absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act first of all (which is what we were discussing), and secondly, if LE officers have probable cause (e.g. see some dude toking up in his open doorway or think a driver may have drugs in his car b/c the guy is acting all kinds of weird), then they have the right to go into the house, car, etc. and do whatever they need to do to stabilize the situation and then get a warrant. That's been law for fucking ever...nothing new about that one. So it still stands...complete bull shit. Uh, I’m positive you don’t know more than me, but let’s stop making this about you and me and more about the current legal system. I don’t have education? Good one…. Not only the assumption that I wrote nothing about kicking in of doors, but of the Patriot Act as well. I wrote nothing of the Patriot Act or of the impact it has had on the 4th. So how can you hold me to that? OK, the thread asks if others like Bush, so the thread has deviated from that to the Patriot Act and now the 4th; I didn’t address the PA, so don’t hold me to that. First fundamental error is in comparing a car to a house. In a car you have virtually no expectation of privacy, whereas a house and its curtilige are paramount. When a lawyer reads this he/she would laugh; cars and houses are worlds apart when it comes to the 4th. In fact, there have been several 4th discussions about motorhomes; are they motors or homes? The US Sup Ct has concluded, last I checked, that unless the motorhome is up on blocks or otherwise disabled, it is a motor and is subject to pretty much any warrantless search and seizure or search subsequent to impound. One case that comes to mind is the Chimmel case. This case is used as law for searching the immediate area of the driver’s ‘bubble.’ They call it the, “Chimmel bubble.” Now, I will post Texas caselaw where the cops did burst into a house, arrest him and……. http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/102200a.htm Texas statute: Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 14.01(b) provides that "[a] peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view." Facts of the case: On April 21, 1998, the Abilene Police Department received an anonymous tip that drug dealing was taking place at the residence of Ian and Leo Steelman, appellees. (1) In response, the department dispatched three officers to the scene. Upon arrival, the officers proceeded to the front door of the residence. Before they got to the front door, however, the officers peered into the house through a crack in one of the window blinds. They observed no illegal activity. They merely saw four men sitting in a living room. (2) The officers then proceeded to knock on the front door. Ian opened the door, stepped outside, and closed the door behind him. When Ian opened the door, the officers smelled the odor of burnt marijuana. The officers asked Ian for identification. Ian informed the officers that he would have to retrieve his identification from inside the house. He then opened the door, walked back through it, and attempted to close it behind him. At that point, one of the officers placed his foot in the doorway and prevented Ian from closing the door. The officers then burst through the doorway, handcuffed all of the occupants, including Leo, and placed them all under arrest. At that point, the officers contacted narcotics agent David Varner. Varner arrived at the scene and smelled marijuana inside the residence. After asking for, but not receiving, appellees' consent to search the residence, Varner left to obtain a search warrant. In his search warrant affidavit, Varner asserted that probable cause existed to believe that the occupants of the residence were in possession of marijuana. Approximately two hours after the officers initially entered the residence, Varner obtained a search warrant, searched the residence, and found marijuana. Finding: Given the evidence before it, the trial court in the instant case could have reasonably concluded that the arrest of Ian was not lawfully made without a warrant because the arresting officers did not have probable cause to believe that Ian had committed an offense in their presence. Since the officers had no authority to make a warrantless arrest under article 14.01(b), they had no authority (under article14.05) to enter the residence without a warrant and conduct a search, and any evidence seized as a result of those illegalities was tainted and subject to suppression. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's decision to grant the appellees' motion to suppress. Here is another fundamental error: the law via caselaw is progressive, sometimes regressive, but always dynamic and changing. Very little lasts forever. In fact, it used to be a crime (in the 1950’s) to have Communistic propaganda or adult pornography (Mapp v Ohio). It used to be illegal in 16 states up until 1968 for people of different races to marry (loving v Virginia). See what a nice guy I am? I even posted the caselaw before you further embarrass yourself. So when I hear/read that it has always been that way / always will be that way, I realize I am conversing with a layperson. Ooops, perhaps not….. ------> I'm hoping you reply with less sarcasm and more substantive evidence-based argument.

If we execute him, we also have to execute innocent people, so no to execution; yes to forever living in a hole.

Not inside a doorway though. There is nothing exigent about smoking pot. That's my point, the US SUp Ct has crossed tha line and diminished the "Threshold" provision fro nin-exigency. Aren't you in law school? I found some precedent online, show us your stuff.

It's her job to follow the orders of the president. On her own, one could only guess how she'd do. Plenty of subordinates have diverged from their superiors when it appears they are harming teh mission. Powell did and was essentially fired for it, so they looked for a puppet. Doing your duty and being a head-nodder are different and she is the latter.

Before you calling bull and spouting off when you have no education in the law, research or ask someone first. 1) I didn;t write that they could kick down your door, but I won;t eliminate that possibility - again, didn;t write that. 2) There was a Texas case about 5 years ago where a guy had some drugs in plain view, the cops walked up and saw it, they then crossed the doorway, I think the door was open or unlocked, and they entered, removed all people from the house, they then secured the door and obained a warrant. Maybe Lawrocket can weigh in in this, and I will see if I can find the case. Formerly, the only reasons the cops could execute a warrantless search was in cases of: 1) Exigency (fancy way to say 'emergency') - fire, rape distress, domestic abuse, etc 2) A felon fleeing thru your house - cops can chase and admit whatever they see along the way thru your house But formerly you could stand in your doorway and blow pot smoke outthe door at them and they couldn't do a thing w/o a warrant. I don't care if you believe me - this is why you need an attny if you get into trouble - no clue of the law

She's got a brain, and she's extremely articulate -- how can she be a clone? Becuae she follows whatever orders Bush barks.....care to differ???

Lucky has a good point. Libertarians really need to get out there and make a case for themselves, addressing the issue of how to replace certain government services with alternatives. - another problem with Libertarians is that they generally just don't like politicians very much, so they're not really up on getting out there and, well, polticking for their own position. Couldn't have written it better I have read the Libertarian doctrine and in fact, did so last night after posting the message about Libertarians. ..... it furthered my stance on them. I took a test which I will post later, that confirmed I'm a moderate Democrat. Again, they have this, "wave a majic wand for social disorders" mentality that would leave litterally millions w/o room, food, medicine and many other basics. If the Libertaians were elected and stood by their platform we would have to get dump trucks to pick up the bodies out of the streets. It's noble and idealistic to think these *CHARITIES*, aka church groups, could raise enough public money to take care of teh sick and old, but it is fantasy island.....

I wrote: Brought to us from the corrupt party that gave us Ollie North and..... I don't recall 500,000 times. So how is it that Hillary said that????

Brought to us from the corrupt party that gave us Ollie North and..... I don't recall 500,000 times. Yawn....we need an yawn emote! Well, exactly. Republican corruption is as rare as a Washington dollar bill.

Libertarians are generally disgruntled Repubs. They are supposed to stand for small government and maintain individual rights. I think we need more taxes that go to social reform, welfare, education, medical aid, etc.... We are so far behind the world and a Libertarian would try to all but eliminate social programs. To me, Libertarians live in this fantasy world where the church is going to wave a majic wand and heal everyone. I have yet to see real answers to social issues from the Libertarians, but I am not an expert on them.