StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) The smell of pot isn't probable cause that people are using an illegal drug in the apartment? You're ignoring this key piece to the puzzle. They couldn't possibly claim that they believed "evidence" was being destroyed, and thus fit themselves into this exigent circumstance exception to warrants, if there wasn't probable cause to suspect illegal behavior. Edit: and this is why the dealer is important, because that supports their contention that a known drug dealer was getting rid of evidence. None of that matters since the SCOTUS wasn't ruling on whether there really were exigent circumstances, as Soxbadger points out. It's strictly about the exception to the exception tests. The test the court laid out makes it easier to justify warrantless searches in exigent circumstances, even if those circumstances are created by the police. Also, at least in Indiana, you no longer have the right to resist an unlawful entry by the police. I understand that from a practicality standpoint, but from an ethical(?) one that's pretty terrible.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:43 AM) Thats why the case is nonsense, it really never got to the heart of the issue, were there exigent circumstances. To make things practical, if the police smell marijuana coming from your apartment/house/whatever they knock on the door and hear you flushing the toilet violently, it might be exigent circumstances. Conversely they knock on your door, you answer the door, and say that they have to get a warrant, maybe its not exigent circumstances. But that is for the trier of fact to decide on a case by case basis, KY''s ruling was a little lazy and I think the Supreme Court wanted to clarify. Either the ruling or the Commonwealth brief clearly said that, had the occupants denied them entrance, it would have been within their 4th amendment rights. I've no doubt they still would have broken the door down and entered, but maybe the rulings would be different in that case. edit: they also didn't hear any toilets flushing, just people moving around. Hell, one guy was still smoking on the couch. If that's the bar for exigency...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:31 AM) They only ruled that WHEN an exigent circumstance exists a warrantless search is not against the 4th amendment. But there's always been an exception to that exception if the police themselves create the circumstance. The ruling outlined the test for that, which overrode several State-developed tests and ultimately makes it more difficult to suppress evidence from a warrantless search. My first post was a little too hyperbolic, this wasn't some huge, drastic gutting of the 4th. Just another step in weakening it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) So...there is a plane with one of those giant banners orbiting Knoxville right now. I was surprised, because the university is out, so half the buildings here are empty. Looked up...and what is it advertising for? Why, the fact that May 21 is Judgement day. Seriously? It has to cost what, a few thousand dollars to print up a 20 yard long banner, rent a plane, pay the runway fees and registration, then fly it behind the plane orbiting around a small city for an hour. right? Now I'm not a religious person, but from what I do know of Christianity, if you genuinely thought the world was going to end tomorrow, and you wanted to do something with money beforehand...would you blow it on a stupid plane? Or maybe, would you do something like go to the churches and homeless shelters in the area and decide that you were going to make sure that no child in Knox county went to sleep hungry tonight? Which of those would Jesus do? It's based on a bunch of bizarre numerology. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/pos...ehin-2011-05-19 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) FWIW, I think saving souls>feeding people. Yeah, that's a problem underlying a lot of missionary work.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) Well the whole ruling is a joke because they actually didnt rule on the most important fact: "Was merely having the belief evidence was being destroyed, exigent circumstances?" The KY court (haha) let Supreme Court off the hook because they assumed for the sake of argument, that there were exigent circumstances (Most likely because they never thought the Supreme Court would over turn them), when it seems that the Supreme Court of Kentucky wasnt sure that there were exigent circumstances, they just felt even if their were that it didnt matter. This is important, because while I agree with the Supreme Court that merely knocking on a door is not enough to create exigent circumstances, I am not so sure that exigent circumstances existed. Basically had the Supreme Court ruled the other way, there is an argument that if a police officer knocked on a door then heard a gun shot, that he could not enter because the knock created the exigent circumstances and therefore it was in violation of the 4th. Im pretty pro-Defendant but this was just sloppy on all parts. Interesting counter-point. Yeah, maybe that's what bothering me more, the idea that police heard some people moving so now there's exigent circumstances. If police bang on a door, they're going to hear people moving. edit: actually they remanded the decision if there really was exigent circumstances back to the KY court

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:25 AM) Minimally easier in a unique, factual circumstance. No, it restructures the whole "exception to the exception" test of exigent circumstances. The SCOTUS would not take a case if it only applied to this narrow situation. Apparently, a lot of states have taken various approaches to this issue, so the SCOTUS had a good opportunity to clarify and set down ground rules. They weren't in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Their probable cause was the smell of pot in the hallway and "noises potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence," which was caused by them banging on the door. The dealer really is irrelevant to the ruling here.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:18 AM) You really honestly believe that the 4th amendment wouldn't protect you against police knocking on your door and breaking it down with absolutely no probable cause simply because they hear movement inside? Does this ruling make it easier or more difficult to justify warrantless searches post hoc? And, yeah, according to this ruling, it wouldn't. If the police came to question me for some reason e.g. I was suspected of drug trafficking but they had no warrant, did a knock & announce and then heard "noises potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence," they could break down the door. They didn't violate the 4th or threaten to do so before they believed I was destroying evidence, so they'd be good to go.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:11 AM) You're ignoring all of the probable cause part of the equation. That doesn't appear to be directly relevant to the exigent circumstances question that was in front of the court. If the police knock & announce at your door and claim they heard sounds potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence, they can enter without a warrant. edit: why does probable cause eliminate the need for a warrant? Smelling pot smoke isn't justification for busting down your door. They also weren't pursuing a fleeing suspect, so wouldn't they need a warrant to enter his apartment anyway (assuming they picked the right one)?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) Let's ignore the whole part where they saw a drug deal go down, chased the guys into the apartment building, had it pegged to 2 different departments, chose one, smelled marijuana, knocked on the door 2-3 times announcing they were police, and then, after hearing rumbling inside (which we all know was "oh s***! the cops! hide the bong!) they entered. Instead, let's assume the cops just started randomly knocking on doors, waited for someone inside to make noise, and then boom, no more 4th amendment. The SCOTUS wasn't ruling on the narrow facts of this one particular case. You know that.

They didn't hear toilets flushing or things being burned, they heard people moving around, noises "possibly consistent with the destruction of possible evidence" after banging on the door and announcing that they were the police. That is enough to legalize a warrantless search now.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 20, 2011 -> 08:54 AM) That's a ridiculous exaggeration and you know it. That is not what this decision said, at all. But that's what it amounts to. It's only a paraphrasing of the dissent: The Kentucky Supreme Court found that the suspect they were pursuing did not know he was being chased. There's also no reason to believe that the people would have "made sounds that sounded like destroying evidence" if the police didn't come pounding on their door. So they created the exigent circumstances. This ruling makes it harder to get evidence suppressed due to a warrant-less search because the bar for post hoc justifications has been lowered. To be clear, I'm not saying this one single case is some grievous assault on the 4th. It's just another in a long line of rulings, laws or actions undermining it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 20, 2011 -> 08:06 AM) I read the brief and an analysis, and I agree with the decision here. There's really not much of a 4th amendment left these days since there's so many exceptions carved out. Now if police knock on your door and they hear you moving around, that's an exigent circumstance.

The 4th Amendment took a beating on Monday with the SCOTUS' 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v King. the opinion

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ May 19, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) The problem with the light switch sounds like something that would happen at my house. We are pretty sure that whoever wired the electrical in our house was either drunk or a moron. Possibly both. We have at least three switches in our house that turn the power on and off to an outlet. So if you have something plugged into that outlet (like a TV) and hit the switch, it gets turned off. One of these is the single outlet in our bathroom. So it's impossible for us to have a nightlight in there. When they remolded our kitchen last year they found that some of the wiring in the kitchen was connected with the lights in the basement. They re-wired the kitchen to pass code and now half the lights in the basement don't work. Switched outlets are fairly common, at least in older homes that were built without ceiling fans and light fixtures. That way you can turn on a floor lamp when you walk into the room instead of stumbling around in the dark. But my house is wired similarly. I found out the other day that the mystery breaker in my panel is for the power to half of the basement and half of the upstairs living room.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ May 19, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) So I'm the best man at my brothers wedding next weekend and I need to make a speech obviously. I've only been to two weddings as an adult so I don't really have a lot of wedding experience to go on here. Any suggestions for what makes a good/bad speech? How long should it be? Stuff that should be off-limits? Etc...I want it to be kind of funny or amusing and not to bore people but I want to make sure I'm appropriate. I've been kind of stressing about this because I'm just not exactly sure what to say at the moment. Anyone with any advice would be much appreciated. I scribbled some lines for my best man speech down while sitting beside a pool the afternoon before the wedding, just a general idea of what I wanted to say. I told the story of the first time we met my friend's fiance, which was a humorous story, and it lasted maybe 2 or 3 minutes. Hard to say, I was buzzed at that point.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ May 19, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) Well, they are both working, so that is what I am going with for now. We'll see when my girlfriend gets home if she buys the magic. Just be adamant that it was always like that.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ May 19, 2011 -> 02:34 PM) Yes and its still screwed up. I do not understand what could have changed. It seems so strange to me that one switch now turns both on. Yeah that's bizarre, the different features should be wired to the different switches, just like a ceiling fan with a light. Maybe there's some switch or button on the light fixture itself that got bumped?

Have you tried swapping out the lightbulb with a regular incandescent again?

Oblivion has the same engine as FO3 I think. Fun game.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 19, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) Nice hackers reference, I dont think anyone else but me and you have seen that movie. It got me into an early form of hacking on AOL back in the day. Twenty-eight-point-eight kbps modem!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 19, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) You are kidding yourself if you think that just because they go to isolation or had chemistry issues during the regular season that a team with Wade and James on it cannot close. Their track record when they go into isolation in close games says they really struggle to close.

My cousin is a cop there, but that's all I know about it.

QUOTE (Real @ May 18, 2011 -> 09:49 PM) So much hate, you even used the shift key! LOL HANG UP YOUR KEYBOARD BRO ITS CALLED CAPS LOCK

NON.FACTOR.

QUOTE (Real @ May 18, 2011 -> 09:43 PM) Dispute my post about Rose, if you can't then push the keyboard aside son. Hey remember when you disappeared in the second half Sunday? That was sweet. Try it again.