Um, except for the crooks.

you guys ever watched Texas Swat on court tv?

one episode they tied a door to the end of their truck and just ripped the door right off charging inside.. I mean usually they have a good reason, people have warrants for high crimes and they 'know' by intel that they have weapons inside. it's all about the element of suprise.. keep in mind they aren't doing this to people who have un-paid speeding tickets..

knocking first usually gives the criminals enough time to escape unless the premisis is surrounded but sometimes thats not always the case.. if I heard '*POUND POUND* POLICE OPEN UP! I would run out the back door fast as lightning

Silly bush-appointed officials.

Though I always wondered if police sirens were a good or bad thing. Sure, they alert people to get out of the way to catch the culprit faster, but they also alert the culprit.

Now I just watch T.V. instead of wondering.



lol

My god, does nobody ever think things through in America? That law is just asking for trouble. Not only that, but morally it's against most people's thoughts.

I think the total gun deaths in America will have a significant rise this year.

Gun control is keeping your aim steady.

lol

I dont see the issue.. the people that are getting their doors busted in the 5-0 deserved to be locked up for life.. they don't just hand out search warrants

So if I filled out a police report stating that I saw you walk into your house with several loads of bags filled with a white substance and then I also witnessed a variety of people coming to your house at odd hours, do you think they're going to spend resources investigating your house when that have an "eye witness"?

The simple fact of the matter is that since 2000 there has been a serious decrease in funding for Police, Fire, & Rescue services. As such, some steps in the investigation chain are being skipped if they have testimony from someone or some other "evidence" that seems to be solid.

so when they bust into my house and don't find ****, they can pay for a new front door.. I mean, why should I be mad better safe then sorry.. atleast I would get a new front door outta the deal.

Except by law they are not required to pay you for a new door. Police are never held accountable for their mistakes. Well, rarely. Hell, my wife's car got broken into and a bunch of stuff stolen. A few months later they caught the guys, but they won't release her stuff to her because it's "evidence" - of course, nobody's bringing charges, they won't pay her for it, they won't give it back, they won't put the guy in jail, they just keep it. That's BS.

Officers don't run with sirens to every call. TV shows don't provide a good overall picture of actual events.



And you're not giving them enough.

Some of us know (and respect) people in the law enforcement field.

[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]I could barge in yelling "Police! Police!"[/QUOTE]

As if you couldn't before?

[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]Something brought up in the article was how what was lost is security. You can feel secure that a cop isn't going to bust down your door unexpectedly at any given moment of the day.

And the freedom is against "unreasonable search and seizure." It's very reasonable to expect an officer of the law to identify his or herself, especially since taking the time to do so will almost never compromise an investigation. Some other things to consider are: repspect and the concept of "innocent-until-proven-guilty," as well as how part of the whole badge and warrent business is to prevent officer impersonation.[/QUOTE]
Are you familiar with the ruling? What it said is that evidence obtained by such search will not be automatically thrown out of court -- not that warning-less entry is going to become the norm. This ruling eliminates evidence suppression.

The whole warrant business is not to prevent officer impersonation...it is to prevent illegal searches.



Apparently nobody thinks things through in Scotland either. I believe most of you are not interpreting this correctly. The main focus is not to permit officers to "search freely", as most of you are assuming.

link

The individual in question may have been let off on a technicality, although he was still guilty. This eliminates exploitation of the justice system.

The only case which a officer won't use a siren is if there is no immediate danger or need to their destination, fast.

I also don't watch cop shows, or much T.V. for that matter.

By your posts, how could sirens be a bad thing? If someone's being pursued, I'm sure they know the cops are after them. If they're not being pursued, running code probably isn't required.

To respond to you, sir:

Insightful, you are.

yeah that is BS

my friends truck got broken into and they found the guys plus 30 CD players.. my friend got all his stuff back. no problem at all..

[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]... as well as how part of the whole badge and warrent business is to prevent officer impersonation.[/quote]That is why they must show the badge and prove who they are.

But yeah, you're right. I hadn't thought about how the initial interpretation would declare a search unconstitutional just because there was no knock. Given that, as it was if you aren't there, they enter anyway, and that's okay.

I still think there has to be some legal protection of the citizen proposed now.

[QUOTE=Bounty Hunter 4 hire]That is why they must show the badge and prove who they are.

But yeah, you're right. I hadn't thought about how the initial interpretation would declare a search unconstitutional just because there was no knock. Given that, as it was if you aren't there, they enter anyway, and that's okay.

I still think there has to be some legal protection of the citizen proposed now.[/QUOTE]

A typical SWAT entry won't start with a display of badges, will it?

It's usually fairly obvious if someone is an officer or not -- and if they're faking, it won't be difficult to come by a badge.

If I could remember, they are few bad cases where some individuals enter homes claiming they were the police. Some people tend to lose logic when they are confronted by authorities, worried they have committed a crime.

Innocent people deserve the right to have a chance to answer the door so the police can search casually, not with MP5s held ready.

There's a huge gap between police serving a search warrant and sending in the SWAT team. Sadly, the general public is far to reactionary to think about the situation and the ruling at all, and instead, jump to the conclusion that it will lead to police officers around the country breaking down everyone's front doors looking to double tap anything that moves.

You are under the impression that every search involves forced entry and SWAT units?

Think again.

It would be hilarious if the police came in and searched the place and the guy living there was some old man reading a newspaper and he didn't even notice they were there.

llolol

You don't think the police have any self preservation?

Republicans and their guns...hehe...makes me laugh.

If the cops bust into your house, so what? They can, and it's legal.

Chances are they wouldn't bust into your house if you hadn't done something wrong anyway.

So who gives a flying ****?

That's my argument against the people that freak out about wiretaps and stuff. Unless you're hiding something, STFU

And it's not a very good argument. It ignores the possibility that our government might not always show the same restraint that it's showing presently. More immediately, it ignores the fact that the individual people responsible for monitoring these wiretaps might not be the most honest of folk. Being underpaid government bureaucrats, they'll also have plenty of incentive to blackmail people for things that aren't illegal but are plenty embarrassing.

It also shows that the government would have no trust in it's citizens. Would you want the cops to be able to pull you over and search your car when ever they felt like it?

^but they can't..

and the cops STILL need a warrant to bust in your house.. and the courts don't just give out warrants they need a good reason and have some evidence.

Yeah, how about the 'terrorist threat level'? If high enough, it's probable. No denying that.... I mean, come on, what makes you think we won't do something that crazy if Bush can get voted in as Pres.? Really, now.

What does this have to do with this ruling?

EVERYTHING!!!

Speaking of Police impersonation, remember that article about the guys who called fast food places pretending to be local cops and had the managers get their female employees to undress and ****? That was some sick BS. Sheesh. Moral of the story is don't give in to pressure, and don't surrender to the control of assumed authority, I suppose.

J. Edgar Hoover ...

While I personally don't worry, to say "you should only be bothered if you have something to hide," is bull. Guys like Hoover, McCarthy, etc. used power to blackmail and to silence, and they did make things up.

Now my personal opinion of the NSA scandal today is that it's been made out to be something bigger than it is, but that doesn't mean there should be no oversight. Abuses actually have happened in the past, and you don't have to be doing something wrong to be bothered by it.

If there's a SWAT unit about to bust your door down, you really think there's a chance they're impersonating? If they were, they would still most likely have sufficient "proof" to 'verify" their status. Can you tell the difference between a real badge and an imitation?

Do you understand that LEOs will still need warrants, and that warrants will not be any easier to obtain than they are now?

I know. Just pointing out that the "if you have nothing to hide" argument is pretty lame.

But extending Darkjedibob's argument, what do we need warrants for? If you don't have anything to hide, what's wrong with the police searching your house without a warrant?

[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]But extending Darkjedibob's argument, what do we need warrants for? If you don't have anything to hide, what's wrong with the police searching your house without a warrant?[/QUOTE]

This.