So much for those pesky little search warrants...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 27, 2004, 2:22 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... su/2069324

It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.

Holy Shit...

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 27, 2004, 2:32 pm

What the hell? Their excuse of having a reason to be there in the first place gives them justification? So I'm throwing a party and playing music too loudly, a neighbor calls the cops, and now they can come in and search my home and guests? How in the hell did this pass?

My wife once had a cop that had a crush on her and would follow her around and always shine his light on her when he drove by her job. Basically he was a stalker until I joined the service a month later and we moved out of state (we were both teenagers). It gives me chills knowing guys like him have this kind of power now. Won't be abused my ass.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 27, 2004, 2:44 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:What the hell? Their excuse of having a reason to be there in the first place gives them justification? So I'm throwing a party and playing music too loudly, a neighbor calls the cops, and now they can come in and search my home and guests? How in the hell did this pass?

My wife once had a cop that had a crush on her and would follow her around and always shine his light on her when he drove by her job. Basically he was a stalker until I joined the service a month later and we moved out of state (we were both teenagers). It gives me chills knowing guys like him have this kind of power now. Won't be abused my ass.

Let's see US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals...Pickering...nuff said?...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 27, 2004, 3:11 pm

The Dissenting Opinion wrote:"I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions," Judges Harold DeMoss Jr. and Carl E. Stewart wrote. "But the old adage warns us that `The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' "

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 27, 2004, 5:09 pm

Oh come on what is the big deal. they said they won't abuse it.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » March 27, 2004, 6:44 pm

Wait isn't Texas under the 5th circuit as well? So this would apply to all the states covered by the 5th circuit, correct?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 27, 2004, 6:49 pm

Crav wrote:Wait isn't Texas under the 5th circuit as well? So this would apply to all the states covered by the 5th circuit, correct?

Bingo...Mississippi as well...

Deward · Post by **Deward** » March 29, 2004, 11:48 am

This is pretty bad but I don't think it will hold up if it went to a higher court. This is a serious atack on the Bill of Rights. At the very least I am sure the ACLU will jump on this.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 12:52 pm

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KELLY DONALD GOULD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-30629

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

March 24, 2004, Filed

OPINION:

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:

In this felon-in-possession prosecution (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), the Government appeals the district court's granting of the motion to suppress filed by defendant-appellee Kelly Donald Gould (Gould).

Louisiana deputy sheriffs, having received on October 17, 2000, a telephone warning that Gould, known to be a convicted felon with a reputation for violence, was planning to kill two local judges, went that same evening to the approximately 14 x 16 foot trailer where Gould lived to talk to him, not then intending to arrest him. The officers, who had neither a search nor an arrest warrant, were admitted by another resident of the trailer, Dennis Cabral, who said Gould was asleep in his bedroom. The officers entered and proceeded down the hall towards the bedroom Cabral had indicated. The bedroom door was open, but the officers did not see Gould, and they then conducted a brief protective sweep for him, looking under the bed and opening the door to each of the two bedroom closets, in one of which they saw in plain view, but did not then seize, three rifles. They promptly then ran outside and later found Gould hiding in the woods. In subsequent questioning Gould stated he was keeping the rifles for their owner, a female acquaintance. Gould was then arrested, executed a consent to search, and the rifles were then seized.

If this can be believed, it is important to note that (a) the officers entered the trailer WITH CONSENT from one resident (while in search of GOULD), (b) performed a basic search to locate the other resident by looking under the bed and in the closet, (c) saw three rifles IN PLAIN SIGHT in the closet while looking for GOULD, and (d) did NOT take the rifles at that time.

I think the media hype may somewhat exceed the actual facts that I have dug up so far.

While I appreciate the importance of Fourth Ammendment protection, I am significantly less concerned by this ruling now that I have found some concrete facts about the case.

Links:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/cir ... 30629p.pdf
http://www.lamd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2001/01-105.pdf

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2004, 1:03 pm

is having rifles in plain view in rural Louisiana atypical?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 1:06 pm

Voronwë wrote:is having rifles in plain view in rural Louisiana atypical?

For convicted felons?

Deward · Post by **Deward** » March 29, 2004, 3:15 pm

Having actual information on the case does make a difference. The fact that the police were allowed into the house by someone doesn't make it illegal in my opinion. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing searches of people known to have a violent criminal background, i.e. were convicted of a felony assault, murder, etc.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 29, 2004, 4:34 pm

A 'friend' of mine is going through a similar process right now. Police were called and admitted to his house by a tenant. A search warrant issued to him was received and signed by the same tenant who then used a copy of my 'friend's' room key to open his room and admit the officers to conduct the search.

The issues he's bringing up are that 1. he was not home at the time and the police exercised the warrant under the signature of a tenant, not the homeowner. 2. the scope of the warrant was to search "public areas" of the house, not private ones, although the tenant admitted the police to a locked bedroom to continue the search. 3. the warrant was executed under "time sensative" conditions, meaning that if delayed, evidence would probably be gone or disturbed to the point of not being viable for a case. My 'friend' had been out of the country for 3 weeks prior to the warrant being served and was not due home for another 10 days.

I'm intersted in seeing how this all pans out.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 29, 2004, 4:52 pm

Pahreyia wrote:A 'friend' of mine is going through a similar process right now. Police were called and admitted to his house by a tenant. A search warrant issued to him was received and signed by the same tenant who then used a copy of my 'friend's' room key to open his room and admit the officers to conduct the search.

The issues he's bringing up are that 1. he was not home at the time and the police exercised the warrant under the signature of a tenant, not the homeowner. 2. the scope of the warrant was to search "public areas" of the house, not private ones, although the tenant admitted the police to a locked bedroom to continue the search. 3. the warrant was executed under "time sensative" conditions, meaning that if delayed, evidence would probably be gone or disturbed to the point of not being viable for a case. My 'friend' had been out of the country for 3 weeks prior to the warrant being served and was not due home for another 10 days.

I'm intersted in seeing how this all pans out.

I would hope that in your "friend's" case, that the evidence was thrown out. There is a difference between a cursory search of a room to secure the safety of the officers called in, and having someone unlock a secure area that extend beyond the range of a search warrant.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 29, 2004, 5:07 pm

search warrants can be conducted under the recognizance of anyone who currently lives in the premises being searched. this includes tenants.

and if they actually had a search warrant then you are lucky the guy had a key, otherwise they would have kicked the door in.

I've never heard of a search warrant for "public areas" of a house or apartment only. that would sort of defeat the entire purpose of a search warrant. what was the warrant for?

besides, I guess your "friend" is guity as shit for doing something since the cops had a warrant to search his place and they found something. maybe he deserves to rot in prison for awhile where he can think about his actions and what he can do to rehabilitate himself as a productive and law-abiding member of society instead of a drain on the system set up to protect people like from people like him.

edit: clarity

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 29, 2004, 5:12 pm

if your 'friend's friend' went so far as to get the cops a copy of his room key then something tells me that that person probably didn't like your 'friend'.

he is now fucked with whatever they find.