http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0516/Supreme-Court-No-warrant-needed-if-police-discern-destruction-of-evidence/(page)/1

I'm always shocked that we never seem to have these debates when they're most important.

I think that Ginsburg's dissent was spot-on. I'm extremely curious to hear what you folks think about this decision (especially MacFarlane).

We as in massassi?

How does one "discern the destruction of evidence"?

I suppose that I meant "Americans" but we could say "Massassians" if you'd prefer. I don't think that the recent First Amendment thread qualifies (there was really no case to be made there).

I don't prefer that you say Massassians, I was just curious if that's what you meant, because once in a while someone will post something like this under the heading "I'm shocked you guys aren't talking about this yet!" as though them posting it right then wasn't a perfectly valid time for the conversation to start.

**** you saberoupus

so does this mean police can knock on my door, announce themselves, and if i do anything other than say "oh come right in!!!" they can say "we heard noises that led us to believe evidence was being destroyed" and then come barging in?

That's one of the problems that Ginsburg addressed. You're going to have a difficult time proving that they didn't hear something if the officer(s) claim otherwise. I can understand the frustration that the police must go through when they enter a home only to discover that the occupants flushed everything down the toilet but this doesn't really resolve the issue. In theory, by the time the officer(s) hear anything, it could potentially be too late anyways (depending on what it was & how prepared the occupants are).

double suck my dick, rog!

Re: Alran, that seems to be part of Ginsberg's concern with the ruling.

om nom nom nom

It seems to me that what constitutes "destruction of evidence" really isn't the issue here. Like so many other things, destruction of evidence is illegal... and if police observe an illegal act occurring, they don't need a warrant to enter private property/search a person/etc.

The issue is where do you draw the line in terms of what constitutes "observation of an illegal act occurring?" Certainly the sounds of evidence being destroyed behind a closed door is a gray area that is subject to debate. Maybe sounds alone aren't enough. But if police heard screams coming from behind that door, I don't think that anyone would realistically question their judgement for deciding to enter without a warrant.

I don't disagree that it's a debate worth having but there's a huge difference between a human life being in danger & some guy dumping some cocaine down the drain & smashing hard drives with a hammer.

Was this article the basis for your opinion or just the best concise reference you could find?



Massassi doesn't seem to be on the bleeding edge anymore. It really seemed in the past that stories were posted relatively quickly with intent of a discussion. Now, if it didn't appear on Comedy Central, nobody seems to notice. When a topic is brought up it seems foreign to most.



I'm curious where you drew your conclusion of her dissent. The actual opinion is here. I think this particular case is clear and the cops acted in good faith. Her dissent is juvenile. Also, I enjoy conversations with Mac but he seems to look at things through the prism of what the most recent judicial interpretation is. I hope he regains some objectivity if he ever actually practices serious law.

That's the scary thing about this ruling

That's actually not the scary thing about this ruling. The scary thing about this ruling, had it gone the other way, would have been to say that the occupants of the apartment stinking of drugs should not have been prosecuted because the cops, pursuing a drug dealer, had no cause to enter the premises. That would be preposterous.

You don't understand what lawyers actually do, do you?

Wookie: professional troll.

Both extremes are scary and extreme.

I actually looked around a bit & couldn't seem to find any "news" sources that weren't crammed full of commentary.


I've been following this case quite closely because it happened in my state & has been getting a lot of coverage in the blogosphere. I was quite proud of our state's Supreme Court when they made their decision. My "conclusion" of her dissent (if you're referring to what I posted above) was based on her dissent itself.



It's troubling that the police would be able to create "exigent circumstances" & then use said circumstances as an excuse for warrantless searches. It's also troubling that it now takes nothing more than an officer pretending to hear "something" (never-mind that this something doesn't have to involve a true emergency) in order for a warrantless search to take place.

That was my point... the question that point raises, though, is where do you draw the line? Can a line even be drawn (or should it even be drawn)?

Kinda strange how this made it to the supreme court. Seemed like a pretty simple decision to me.

It would be troubling if that's what this ruling allows but I don't see how it could. In this particular situation the cops acted appropriately. How on Earth she actually thinks it would have been appropriate or timely for police to have sought a warrant in this case is idiotic. This case is so cut and dry.

Except those aren't extremes. They're the only two possible outcomes of the case. So you're basically saying either possible outcome would have been extreme and scary.



It seems obvious to me that current events are not discussed to the degree they used to be and when something does come up it seems to be off the radar of most. Pretty much every big story used to be discussed as it was breaking.

100% right.

Sure I do. It just seems to me that he might be better suited to practice tax or real estate law. He doesn't seem like he would be good at challenging the status quo.

You know, I would even go so far as to say that a decision that only Ginsberg dissents from is more credible than a unanimous decision. Her lone dissent essentially validates that the correct decision was made.

He does have some good points.