Police Don't Need Warrants In Emergen...

Police Don't Need Warrants In Emergencies

There are 86 comments on the Kutv.com story from May 22, 2006, titled Police Don't Need Warrants In Emergencies. In it, Kutv.com reports that:

The Supreme Court reaffirmed Monday that police can enter homes in emergencies without knocking or announcing their presence.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Kutv.com.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Forest Gump

United States

#1 May 22, 2006
what is the legal definition of "emergency" ? Whatever is handy at the time?
X man

Dallas, TX

#3 May 22, 2006
why were they peeping though the window in the frist place? hum
Cliff

Oakland, CA

#4 May 22, 2006
Oversight is the question. Proper oversight for any emergency action as well as corrections, training and compensation for mistakes.

This type of action needs to be a very small percentage of warrants or something is wrong with the system.
Stan

United States

#5 May 22, 2006
This worked in Germany in 1939.
Enjoy Every Sandwich

Palo Alto, CA

#6 May 22, 2006
No doubt there will be an epidemic of "fights" and other "emergencies" across the country in the near future.

Why don't they just come out and admit that the Constitution is dead?
Donnie

Shippingport, PA

#8 May 22, 2006
Forest Gump wrote:
what is the legal definition of "emergency" ? Whatever is handy at the time?
If you had read the article you would already know. There was a violent fight in progess.
gertibird

Pilot Hill, CA

#9 May 22, 2006
Forest Gump wrote:
what is the legal definition of "emergency" ? Whatever is handy at the time?
An emergency is when their phones have been illegaling wire taped and they heard some things they decided (without oversite) were bad. Sound familiar?
AntiBushConserva tive

United States

#10 May 22, 2006
Master Sun wrote:
Im guessing it will all be reasonable, pornagraphers, drug dealers, terrorist, someones hurt, ect. If nothing is found there should be some sort of appology with money. Of course there will be rare instances that corruption may occur and innocent people may get screwed but more often they'll catch some a-hole doing something that only an a-hole would do and the world will be a better place.
We can only hope. The problems will occur, as usual, when you get a few maverick Dirty Harry wannabes (all cities have a couple) that exercise poor judgment and ruin available techniques for the real "good" guys. That's why our arrest and prosecutory powers are so watered down today.(Detectives can't even process a murder scene in a private residence without a warrant). One overzealous cop using poor judgment and the whole department gets a bad rap. Happens all the time and you can bet your computer it will continue.
Wiper

United States

#12 May 22, 2006
Emergency can mean, "Action is needed" like the poor fellow who
was shot THROUGH a window at a party by a policeman who felt he
was in danger!!!
Drf

Barnesville, OH

#13 May 22, 2006
In this case, people were beating the heck out of each other. Police were called to the scene, they saw what was going on through a window, entered and stopped the fight. Do you Dumbos not understand why that's resonable?
Probable Cause

Palo Alto, CA

#14 May 22, 2006
The Probable cause clause has been an issue since its inception. Probable cause my ass. Just another excuse to invade our privacy.
the seer

United States

#15 May 22, 2006
even the need for a dump would justify as and emergency....
Drf

Barnesville, OH

#16 May 23, 2006
Probable Cause wrote:
The Probable cause clause has been an issue since its inception. Probable cause my ass. Just another excuse to invade our privacy.
NO, the 4th states that a search must be resonable. The standard is a "reasonable" search. The probable cause clause was added as a guideline for warrants because the British were seaching homes with "general" warrants that contained no probable cause. Can you understand that is the police receive a call and someone states "I am about to be shot". Upon arrival they hear a gunshot inside a residence. Is it not clear to you that the police must enter the residence without a warrant in defense of human life and seized any evidence along the way. I guess you think they should leave go find a judge, get a warrant, come back 2 hours later and clean up the blood.
Judge Joe Brown

Philadelphia, PA

#17 May 23, 2006
Drf wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, the 4th states that a search must be resonable. The standard is a "reasonable" search. The probable cause clause was added as a guideline for warrants because the British were seaching homes with "general" warrants that contained no probable cause. Can you understand that is the police receive a call and someone states "I am about to be shot". Upon arrival they hear a gunshot inside a residence. Is it not clear to you that the police must enter the residence without a warrant in defense of human life and seized any evidence along the way. I guess you think they should leave go find a judge, get a warrant, come back 2 hours later and clean up the blood.
Yeah yeah and I have some "Implied consent" to sell you chump.
Keyser Sose

Orrville, OH

#18 May 23, 2006
The Bush Supreme Court strikes again.
Drf

Barnesville, OH

#19 May 23, 2006
Judge Joe Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah yeah and I have some "Implied consent" to sell you chump.
Implied consent has to do with consent for a breath test while diving impaired, Dumbo, and you ain't no judge
Drf

Barnesville, OH

#20 May 23, 2006
Keyser Sose wrote:
The Bush Supreme Court strikes again.
It's always been this way. They just confirmed prior rulings. By the way, that Bush Court will be here after we're gone or at least 20 more years, they serve for life. Don't like it, can't do anything about it.
Donnie

Shippingport, PA

#21 May 23, 2006
Keyser Sose wrote:
The Bush Supreme Court strikes again.
The vote was 9 to zero to confirm previous rulings. So all of the previously appointed liberal activists voted with the Bush appointees. That includes a former ACLU poobah.
Judge Joe Brown

Philadelphia, PA

#22 May 23, 2006
Drf wrote:
<quoted text>
Implied consent has to do with consent for a breath test while diving impaired, Dumbo, and you ain't no judge
WHOOOOOOOSSSSHHHH (The sound of it going over Dorfs head)
Drf

Barnesville, OH

#23 May 23, 2006
Judge Joe Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
WHOOOOOOOSSSSHHHH (The sound of it going over Dorfs head)
No, I know what you mean. I just am not getting in your gully. Bottom dweller. How many times you been in jail? Are you in jail now?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min Hidingfromyou 877,307
Gay sex in raigarh 10 min Nikhil 50 29
girls how many gangbangs have you had (Feb '15) 10 min spelliccia 13
Getting the urge to get intimate with my dog 26 min Bettsy 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 53 min Neville Thompson 272,823
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 55 min Neville Thompson 41,121
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr Doctor Justice_ 7,889
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 hr Kamal 7,610
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr RoSesz 603,092
The Christian Atheist debate 4 hr Critical Eye 3,775
More from around the web