Supreme Court further limits 4A protections

[renalp]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (8-1) in the case of a 2005 Kentucky drug bust that police were justified in a warrantless, forced-entry search based on a whiff of pot smoke and the sound of a toilet flush: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html

As I understand (not a lawyer, etc), courts have previously ruled that the risk of evidence destruction creates an "exigency" that justifies warrantless search. To me, that's already highly invasive, but what's different here is that the police, chasing a suspect, wound up banging on the wrong apartment door. Justice Alito wrote in the majority opinion that the residents didn't have to answer the door. However, making "suspicious" sounds gave police the right to kick in the door, even though the police had no valid reason to be there in the first place,

The idea of people huddling silently in their homes, in fear of police invasion if they make a noise, is something I find truly chilling.

Firearms related? Not explicitly, but I believe that the 2nd and 4th Amendments are intertwined. And in PA, we have the special catch-22 of the firearm "non-registry," which has been used to seize legally owned weapons: all the more reason for law abiding citizens to guard their privacy.

[twoguns]

Yeah, flushing the toilet is considered "suspicious" by the Supremes. Wow!

Further evidence that the war on (some) drug is in reality a war on liberty and Constitutional protections.

I would also point out that it is not just the 2nd and 4th Amendments "intertwined". It is the Bill of Rights in it is entirety intertwined and supposed to be the cornerstone of our very system of law. It was added as an explicit enumeration of items the government was not permitted to violate. Sadly, we have allowed the gov to usurp power at every turn over many decades. We are now faced with an ever growing leviathan lusting after control of every aspect of human endeavor all in the name of keeping us safe from ourselves!

This will not end well for liberty lovers.

Prepare and resist.

[The_War_Wagon]

Wellll... look on the bright side. You'll be able to flush with impunity, once you're INSIDE the FEMA Re-ejumakayshun Camp!

I mean,

[Pat T]

From the NYT:

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.

Just so you know, Hell has frozen over. I never thought I would ever agree with Ginsburg. She was the dissenting opinion.

[Valorius]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (8-1) in the case of a 2005 Kentucky drug bust that police were justified in a warrantless, forced-entry search based on a whiff of pot smoke and the sound of a toilet flush: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html

As I understand (not a lawyer, etc), courts have previously ruled that the risk of evidence destruction creates an "exigency" that justifies warrantless search. To me, that's already highly invasive, but what's different here is that the police, chasing a suspect, wound up banging on the wrong apartment door. Justice Alito wrote in the majority opinion that the residents didn't have to answer the door. However, making "suspicious" sounds gave police the right to kick in the door, even though the police had no valid reason to be there in the first place,

The idea of people huddling silently in their homes, in fear of police invasion if they make a noise, is something I find truly chilling.

Firearms related? Not explicitly, but I believe that the 2nd and 4th Amendments are intertwined. And in PA, we have the special catch-22 of the firearm "non-registry," which has been used to seize legally owned weapons: all the more reason for law abiding citizens to guard their privacy.

8-1??????

The republic truly is dead.

[knight0334]

Just remember when we got tired of this about 240 years ago? ....history can repeat itself.

If I'm sitting on my toilet and flush it, and ANYONE busts into my house - I'm shooting first and asking questions later. Sure, you may kill me.. But I'm taking you and all your buddies with me.

When enough officers die, or when the people have had enough of this crap - things will change.

[B.A.]

do i have to file form number 2 in order to posses a flush suppressor?

but on a serious note. its probably time to start taking a stand on stuff like this. personally you knock on my door and don't have a warrant your not coming in period. and if you try to force your way in, force will be met with force. with out a warrant how do i know you're really a LEO. wouldn't be the first time some one dressed up like a cop and broke into some ones house.

[IronSight]

Now if only people would actually read these opinions.

I'm reading through the opinion now.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

This stood out to me:

For these reasons, we conclude that the exigent circum*
stances rule applies when the police do not gain entry to
premises by means of an actual or threatened violation of
the Fourth Amendment. This holding provides ample
protection for the privacy rights that the Amendment
protects.
When law enforcement officers who are not armed with
a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any
private citizen might do. And whether the person who
knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak
is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no
obligation to open the door or to speak. Cf. Florida v.
Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497–498 (1983). (“[H]e may decline
to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way”).
When the police knock on a door but the occupants choose
not to respond or to speak, “the investigation will have
reached a conspicuously low point,” and the occupants
“will have the kind of warning that even the most elabo*
rate security system cannot provide.” Chambers, 395
F. 3d, at 577 (Sutton, J., dissenting). And even if an occu*
pant chooses to open the door and speak with the officers,
the occupant need not allow the officers to enter the prem*
ises and may refuse to answer any questions at any time.
Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitu*
tional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evi*
dence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless
exigent-circumstances search that may ensue.

The real problem so far is I haven't read anything yet describing what can be considered sounds that are related specifically to destruction of evidence.

However, the ruling is clearly not giving officers carte blanche to enter a residence without a warrant.

Edit to add: Found it

We need not decide whether exigent circumstances
existed in this case. Any warrantless entry based on
exigent circumstances must, of course, be supported by a
genuine exigency. See Brigham City, 547 U. S., at 406.
The trial court and the Kentucky Court of Appeals found
that there was a real exigency in this case, but the Ken*
tucky Supreme Court expressed doubt on this issue, ob*
serving that there was “certainly some question as to
whether the sound of persons moving [inside the apart*
ment] was sufficient to establish that evidence was being
destroyed.” 302 S. W. 3d, at 655. The Kentucky Supreme
Court “assum[ed] for the purpose of argument that exigent
circumstances existed,” ibid., and it held that the police
had impermissibly manufactured the exigency.
We, too, assume for purposes of argument that an exi*
gency existed. We decide only the question on which the
Kentucky Supreme Court ruled and on which we granted
certiorari: Under what circumstances do police impermis*
sibly create an exigency? Any question about whether an
exigency actually existed is better addressed by the Ken*
tucky Supreme Court on remand. See Kirk v. Louisiana,
536 U. S. 635, 638 (2002) (per curiam) (reversing state*
court judgment that exigent circumstances were not re*
quired for warrantless home entry and remanding for
state court to determine whether exigent circumstances
were present).

So, they aren't ruling on whether the exigency existed or not, since the lower courts either agreed that it did, or assumed that it did. The Supreme Court is telling the Kentucky Supreme Court now that that is a question for them to address. If the exigency existed, search is lawful, if not ... then well this case may come back again.

This is hardly a case of the Supreme Court killing the fourth amendment, and I can see now why it was nearly unanimous.