This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Slamdunc on 04 June 2010 - 23:06
Deleted.
by TessJ10 on 04 June 2010 - 23:06
"Who tells them NO if they ask to come in?"
People who value the Constitution of the United States, that's who.
"And why?"
Because the Constitution the United States is to be honored and not violated. The right to be "secure in their persons, houses, and papers" is tremendously precious.
Don't even try to insinuate that people who value and respect the Constitution have anything to hide.
People who value the Constitution of the United States, that's who.
"And why?"
Because the Constitution the United States is to be honored and not violated. The right to be "secure in their persons, houses, and papers" is tremendously precious.
Don't even try to insinuate that people who value and respect the Constitution have anything to hide.
by VomMarischal on 05 June 2010 - 02:06
I'm not trying to say that about anyone else--just me.
by Doberdoodle on 05 June 2010 - 03:06
I think this is good, what if something happened to one of my dogs and they needed help. If I am ever not seen for several days, and I was injured inside my house unable to move, I would start yelling, too, so when you hear howling and yelling it's us trapped in here, I would want to be saved before I die and my starving dogs eat me.
by BlacqueKat on 05 June 2010 - 13:06
Dogs whine for various reason, not all of them meaning they are in pain or distress and need immediate attention. Of course, it would have to happen in California, where "anything goes". Dangerous territory.
by BabyEagle4U on 05 June 2010 - 14:06
Tess, I think you ment the 14th amendment. The 4th amendment is for restrictions of federal government. The 14th amendment imposes 4th amendment restrictions in each individual state respectively.
This gets tricky because in the article it says -- * "When an officer heard what sounded like a dog whimpering from inside, he handcuffed Chung and entered the condominium." * after Chung lied and said no dogs there.
This mentioned above is probable cause by law. If the person is cuffed and stuffed, the lawman can search whatever and where ever he wishes within reason of where the arrest took place. The whole idea of a search is to end up getting a seizure. Apparently this happened.
This is what the issue should be .... if a lawman does a search without a warrent .. what is the supposed seizure ? There isn't any. If he doesn't seize anything the search was illegal. That is the problem I see. It's almost a free for all once through the door and prime for set-ups.
That's not cool. Especially beings there's 200 million privately owned firearms via the 2nd amendment in the US on record. And records only started in the 60's I believe.
-- When I take my dogs to the city house ... everytime they hear sirens be it police, ambulance, fire.. they howl and cry like a bunch of rabid wolves. And we all know when a few start ... all the dogs for city blocks join in. lol
I dunno though, I'm in PA. I think we have some of the best all American Police in the nation here. I wouldn't mind if a few stopped by for a search. LMAO
Seriously, this whole idea is dangerous in this day and age. Hope the lawmen are smart.
This gets tricky because in the article it says -- * "When an officer heard what sounded like a dog whimpering from inside, he handcuffed Chung and entered the condominium." * after Chung lied and said no dogs there.
This mentioned above is probable cause by law. If the person is cuffed and stuffed, the lawman can search whatever and where ever he wishes within reason of where the arrest took place. The whole idea of a search is to end up getting a seizure. Apparently this happened.
This is what the issue should be .... if a lawman does a search without a warrent .. what is the supposed seizure ? There isn't any. If he doesn't seize anything the search was illegal. That is the problem I see. It's almost a free for all once through the door and prime for set-ups.
That's not cool. Especially beings there's 200 million privately owned firearms via the 2nd amendment in the US on record. And records only started in the 60's I believe.
-- When I take my dogs to the city house ... everytime they hear sirens be it police, ambulance, fire.. they howl and cry like a bunch of rabid wolves. And we all know when a few start ... all the dogs for city blocks join in. lol
I dunno though, I'm in PA. I think we have some of the best all American Police in the nation here. I wouldn't mind if a few stopped by for a search. LMAO
Seriously, this whole idea is dangerous in this day and age. Hope the lawmen are smart.
by Kalibeck on 07 June 2010 - 03:06
When one of my girls are in heat, & we take them out with us, our male Beckett will yelp & cry like he's being beaten to death, or as some one else who heard him said, "That dog sounds like somebody is sawing his tail off!". It's obnoxious, but he's perfectly OK, he just thinks that being left behind's gonna kill him. But what if a LEO heard that? Would that give him a reason to enter my house uninvited? I would certainly hope not. We have nothing to hide, we lead exceptionally boring lives, but still, I think individuals aught to have some right left to refuse entry into their home. JMHO. jackie harris
by TessJ10 on 07 June 2010 - 12:06
"Tess, I think you ment the 14th amendment. The 4th amendment is for restrictions of federal government. The 14th amendment imposes 4th amendment restrictions in each individual state respectively."
No, I meant the 4th Amendment. The 14th does apply due process to state laws, yes. The 14th amendment has been used in conjunction with most of the Bill of Rights, but it is the 4th amendment and not the 14th, that states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No, I meant the 4th Amendment. The 14th does apply due process to state laws, yes. The 14th amendment has been used in conjunction with most of the Bill of Rights, but it is the 4th amendment and not the 14th, that states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
by BabyEagle4U on 08 June 2010 - 14:06
I dunno, I think you ment the 14th. LOL
The 4th amendment has been gasping since 1868 along with 7 other amendments of our US Constitution or Bill of Rights. There are only 2 upheld today for the most part which are the 1st and of course the 2nd. (even the 1st and 2nd are under attack bigtime) But I guess we'll never know until the OP's topic get's to the Court of Appeals or the Highest State Court. It would take die hard no-nonsense American and an illegal search and seizure for that to happen unfortunately. Even then the deciding Judge would have to honor his/her Oath of Office. Either way, this OP topic had a lawful search and seizure once the lawman was lied to.
And even if it did make it to the Court of Appeals or the HIghest State Court using the 4th amendment to the US Constitution... that would get you the conviction or found guilty in this day and age (unless your one of the 30 or so exempt States) useing the 14th amendment would get you the acquittal due to the restricted actions of the state mentined in the 14th and not the 4th via the US Constitution. Just saying.
As long as the unconstitutional changes to our US Constitution or Bill of Rights are printed and present, we should use them as examples instead of say like in your case, mentioning the 4th amendment. (unless the individual State Constitution has added the state clause to the original 4th Amendment = I think 30 some States never signed onto or ratified the 14th to this day, so I'll give your 4th Amendment the benefit of my doubt) I didn't read the State in questions Constitution. I highly doubt Los Angeles resides within the 30 or so individual States that added the State Constitutional clause to the 4th. Most are Eastern States if I remember correctly. Hence the reason for tis reply.
Because with all due respect to our US Constitution and those exempt 30 States.... if our 4th amendment was indeed honored ... the OP's topic wouldn't be here for discussion because the State's Constitution wouldn't have allowed the search and seizure to take place to begin with after one phone call, via the individual States clause to that individual State Constitution.
Until we elect people who honor their oath of office .. executive, judicial and legislative ... well, we now see how it ends up.
Vote Ron Paul ... he'll abolish all unconstitutional amendments to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as per Article I, Section 3 and 7, and Article 5 (V) of the U. S. Constitution, forcing the individual States into independence, peacefully. In 2012, this might just happen. Thank God.
JMO.
The 4th amendment has been gasping since 1868 along with 7 other amendments of our US Constitution or Bill of Rights. There are only 2 upheld today for the most part which are the 1st and of course the 2nd. (even the 1st and 2nd are under attack bigtime) But I guess we'll never know until the OP's topic get's to the Court of Appeals or the Highest State Court. It would take die hard no-nonsense American and an illegal search and seizure for that to happen unfortunately. Even then the deciding Judge would have to honor his/her Oath of Office. Either way, this OP topic had a lawful search and seizure once the lawman was lied to.
And even if it did make it to the Court of Appeals or the HIghest State Court using the 4th amendment to the US Constitution... that would get you the conviction or found guilty in this day and age (unless your one of the 30 or so exempt States) useing the 14th amendment would get you the acquittal due to the restricted actions of the state mentined in the 14th and not the 4th via the US Constitution. Just saying.
As long as the unconstitutional changes to our US Constitution or Bill of Rights are printed and present, we should use them as examples instead of say like in your case, mentioning the 4th amendment. (unless the individual State Constitution has added the state clause to the original 4th Amendment = I think 30 some States never signed onto or ratified the 14th to this day, so I'll give your 4th Amendment the benefit of my doubt) I didn't read the State in questions Constitution. I highly doubt Los Angeles resides within the 30 or so individual States that added the State Constitutional clause to the 4th. Most are Eastern States if I remember correctly. Hence the reason for tis reply.
Because with all due respect to our US Constitution and those exempt 30 States.... if our 4th amendment was indeed honored ... the OP's topic wouldn't be here for discussion because the State's Constitution wouldn't have allowed the search and seizure to take place to begin with after one phone call, via the individual States clause to that individual State Constitution.
Until we elect people who honor their oath of office .. executive, judicial and legislative ... well, we now see how it ends up.
Vote Ron Paul ... he'll abolish all unconstitutional amendments to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as per Article I, Section 3 and 7, and Article 5 (V) of the U. S. Constitution, forcing the individual States into independence, peacefully. In 2012, this might just happen. Thank God.
JMO.
by BabyEagle4U on 08 June 2010 - 14:06
Amendment 14 US Constitution: www.usconstitution.net/
Article 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top