Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

new law in Louisiana - cops can come in house without search warrent

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 01:00 PM
Original message
new law in Louisiana - cops can come in house without search warrent

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

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.

Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."

-snip-

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.
-snip-
----------------------------------

Toto we are not in america anymore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anti_shrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. but...but
I thought activist judges were bad, or is that only when they try to give the homer-sexuals equal rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blasphemer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Please tell me...
that someone is challenging this law? "Road to Hell" indeed. What kind of safety does it provide to officers? I don't understand the logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. " into effect immediately and won't be abused."
Edited on Sun Mar-28-04 01:09 PM by Must_B_Free
Just trust us - it won't be abused.

chilling... America has finally jumped the shark. The Police State is here in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think we need a bit more of the context of the law
We have had "No Knock Policy" for quite some time. It was considered constitutional by the extreme court :shrug: but what you are describing if like you post is blatantly unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. I forsee the body count rise as people get shot for holding a t.v. remote
controller. And as soon as it becomes apparent that, disproportinately, the deceased are people of darker persuasion, this law will be one more which will be viewed as unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatelseisnew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. There was another thread on this last night/yesterday
I cannot find it but I believe it had some more links.

Anybody with a search function care to find it?

I think it was in the GD forum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. here you go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. 5th List of Judges. Smith, DeMoss and Stewart dissented. Jolly partially.
Edited on Sun Mar-28-04 03:16 PM by w4rma
King, Carolyn Dineen: Nominated by Jimmy Carter on April 30, 1979
Garza, Reynaldo Guerra: Nominated by Jimmy Carter on April 30, 1979
Reavley, Thomas Morrow: Nominated by Jimmy Carter on May 17, 1979
Garwood, William Lockhart: Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 17, 1981
Jolly, E. Grady: Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 1, 1982
Higginbotham, Patrick Errol: Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 1, 1982
Davis, W. Eugene: Nominated by Ronald Reagan on November 1, 1983
Jones, Edith Hollan: Nominated by Ronald Reagan on February 27, 1985
Smith, Jerry Edwin: Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 2, 1987
Duhe, John Malcolm Jr.: Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 27, 1988
Wiener, Jacques Loeb Jr.: Nominated by George H.W. Bush on November 17, 1989
Barksdale, Rhesa Hawkins: Nominated by George H.W. Bush on November 17, 1989
Garza, Emilio M.: Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 11, 1991
DeMoss, Harold R. Jr.: Nominated by George H.W. Bush on June 27, 1991
Benavides, Fortunato Pedro: Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 27, 1994
Stewart, Carl E.: Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 27, 1994
Dennis, James L.: Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 31, 1995
Clement, Edith Brown: Nominated by George W. Bush on September 4, 2001
Prado, Edward Charles: Nominated by George W. Bush on February 6, 2003
Pickering, Charles: Appointed by George W. Bush on January 16, 2004
http://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/judgebio/judgebio.htm
http://www.thedmonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/01/21/400e4c09b3a7c

Note, Judge Pickering was not a member of the court when this case was submitted to the court en banc and did not participate in the decision.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0230629cv0p.pdf

Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants (Louisiana)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x449169
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MAlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. Is this because LA uses napoleonic law...
as opposed to common law?

I would have thought this would be unconstitutional normally?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Read Amendment IV of the constitution....
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated....

This probably violates that Amendment.

In other words, there are a lot of jack-booted Nazi's that want
the USA to be a police state.

Yuck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It all rests on that word "(un)reasonable"
Unfortunately for us, a lot of these folks are not reasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC