Ouch, new ruling: cops can judo chop your door if they smell marijuana burning

[headiez247]

Granted they also have to 'think they hear evidence being destroyed' but man are they gonna take advantage of this big time.

WASHINGTON — The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision.

The issue as framed by the majority was a narrow one. It assumed there was good reason to think evidence was being destroyed, and asked only whether the conduct of the police had impermissibly caused the destruction.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches by kicking down a door after the occupants of an apartment react to hearing that officers are there by seeming to destroy evidence.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the majority had handed the police an important new tool.

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

The case, Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1272, arose from a mistake. After seeing a drug deal in a parking lot, police officers in Lexington, Ky., rushed into an apartment complex looking for a suspect who had sold cocaine to an informant.

But the smell of burning marijuana led them to the wrong apartment. After knocking and announcing themselves, they heard sounds from inside the apartment that they said made them fear that evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door in and found marijuana and cocaine but not the original suspect, who was in a different apartment.

The Kentucky Supreme Court suppressed the evidence, saying that any risk of drugs being destroyed was the result of the decision by the police to knock and announce themselves rather than obtain a warrant.

The United States Supreme Court reversed that decision on Monday, saying the police had acted lawfully and that was all that mattered. The defendant, Hollis D. King, had choices other than destroying evidence, Justice Alito wrote.

He could have chosen not to respond to the knocking in any fashion, Justice Alito wrote. Or he could have come to the door and declined to let the officers enter without a warrant.

“Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame,” Justice Alito wrote.

Justice Alito took pains to say that the majority was not deciding whether an emergency justifying an exception to the warrant requirement — an “exigent circumstance,” in legal jargon — actually existed. He said that the Kentucky Supreme Court “expressed doubt on this issue” and that “any question about whether an exigency actually existed is better addressed” by the state court.

All the United States Supreme Court decided, Justice Alito wrote, was when evidence must be suppressed because the police had created the exigency. Lower courts had approached that question in some five different ways.

The standard announced Monday, Justice Alito wrote, had the virtue of simplicity.

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote, “warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed.”

But “there is a strong argument,” Justice Alito added, that evidence would have to be suppressed where the police did more than knock and announce themselves. In general, he wrote, “the exigent circumstances rule should not apply where the police, without a warrant or any legally sound basis for a warrantless entry, threaten that they will enter without permission unless admitted.”

Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, said the majority had taken a wrong turn.

“The urgency must exist, I would rule,” she wrote, “when the police come on the scene, not subsequent to their arrival, prompted by their own conduct.”

Justice Ginsburg then asked a rhetorical question based on the text of the Fourth Amendment.

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?” she asked.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html?_r=1

 

[Stress_test]

I fear now that many people will fortify their homes and doors, making forced entry difficult or dangerous.

This ruling will most likely cause a new epidemic of home invasions nation wide. Criminals can now knock, say they are cops and kick your door down. Citizens won't know whether to shoot or submit.

 

[igrowone]

this is why i use sites like this, wouldn't of heard of this otherwise
hopefully, not going to cause a widespread LEO change, but pays to keep our eyes wide open on this

 

[supermanlives]

my door is already reinforced and i have a security door. but i got a rec anyhow. in my experience they use a window real quick if a door entry looks to be challanging. expect a bang too

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

I fear now that many people will fortify their homes and doors, making forced entry difficult or dangerous.

This ruling will most likely cause a new epidemic of home invasions nation wide. Criminals can now knock, say they are cops and kick your door down. Citizens won't know whether to shoot or submit.

For as long as i known people always yell police when they kick in doors..... looks like we need to the bar across the door again... i know thats how my home will be....

 

[supermanlives]

and they get the same response as real cops . fuck you

 

[SMOKE-ONE]

This ruling is SO unconstitutional!!!!Police can just lie and say they knocked and heard noises that led them to believe that evidence was being destroyed.They might as well give the pigs keys to everyones homes while they're at it!!!!!They are taking more and more of our rights,freedoms and liberties.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

wow....8 to 1 decision. Somebody didn't get their payoff....

 

[supermanlives]

gonna need more than a judo chop to get in my pad

 

[stonedwarrior]

Man, I'm australian and your pigs are gettin me buggin... Time to reinforce the doors and Windows, methinks.

 

[Stress_test]

I really like the idea of a steel cage at the door, when they bust in the door and rush the room they're trapped in a steel cage.

I am going to have to get the welder out of the garage and head to the steel yard for some bar stock.

I like this one but I wonder how big to make it for best results?

 

[paladin420]

I really like the idea of a steel cage at the door, when they bust in the door and rush the room they're trapped in a steel cage.

I am going to have to get the welder out of the garage and head to the steel yard for some bar stock.

I like this one but I wonder how big to make it for best results?

Sweet it needs to hold 5 plus gear. I've been thinkin buckshot at foot level. But the cage??

 

[paladin420]

Since leo can obviously tell the difference between me unassin my couch to comply, and destroying evidence. We sure should be able to hear the diff between a real cop and a ripper.. fuck them I am tryin to be legal. We get ripped can we call 911? This little slice of heaven is protected by a pissed off piece of white trash.Wanna test my security???

 

[DankasaurusRex]

I thought that cops could already bust in if they smell mj. Now they just have the "I heard destruction sounds" lie to add to the arsenal. This is another erosion of our rights, but as long as I've been alive it's pretty much been the situation that cops will find a way to mess with you if you pop up on their radar for any reason. So continue to lay low people. Bush's legacy lives on through his supreme court appointments.

 

[ak-51]

Granted they also have to 'think they hear evidence being destroyed' but man are they gonna take advantage of this big time.

Don't they already abuse the whole "I detected the smell of marijuana" line?

Anyway one thing, among many, I find troubling about this specific case is that they equate marijuana smoke with the destruction of evidence. If they report to a home on suspicion of underage cigarette smoking is the smell of cigarette smoke enough to reasonably suspect that evidence is being destroyed?

I think police should have the ability to enter a home if they think a serious crime is being committed (mainly violent crimes). I just don't think that suspicion of drug use, any drug, necessitates warrantless entry.

 

[Stress_test]

Sweet it needs to hold 5 plus gear. I've been thinkin buckshot at foot level. But the cage??

Yeah I thought about the buckshot rat-traps too, but they could be considered booby-traps which are as serious as having weed.
But that cage would trap the bastards at least for a few seconds, and that few seconds would be enough to make the fuckers shit all over themselves knowing they are sitting ducks. They would know that the ONLY reason they aren't horizontal and covered with flags is because I "CHOOSE" to let them continue breathing.

Would be even more fun to have speakers set up above the cage and crank about 10,000 watts of AC-DC's Hell's Bell's on em at the same time 20K spotlight hit em from all directions.

Fear is the tactic they use; I figure the cage would allow them to share in the excitement also.

 

[supermanlives]

and some serious electricity. what good is a cage without being electrified. toast em

 

[paladin420]

I thought that cops could already bust in if they smell mj. Now they just have the "I heard destruction sounds" lie to add to the arsenal. This is another erosion of our rights, but as long as I've been alive it's pretty much been the situation that cops will find a way to mess with you if you pop up on their radar for any reason. So continue to lay low people. Bush's legacy lives on through his supreme court appointments.

8-1 yep Bushes fault

 

[SMOKE-ONE]

8-1 yep Bushes fault

Who are really to blame are all the fuckheads who voted for him and got him elected.

 

[Stress_test]

Prohibition began long before Bush. The fault lies with our parents and ourselves if we pass it on to our children without correction.

Remember that other part of the Constitution: "We the People"? Many sacrifices were made so that it could be written, many more will be required to keep it there.