louisiana police dont need a search warrent anymore? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Drider_it · 04-19-2004, 03:21 AM

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/...83/detail.html

NEW ORLEANS -- 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 keep officers safe, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision in United States v. Kelly Gould, No. 0230629cr0, was made March 24 by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000, in which defendant Gould filed a motion to suppress information gleaned from a search of his home. The motion was granted by district court, and the government appealed this decision. The March 24 ruling by the 5th Circuit is an affirmation of that appeal.

Searches Without Warrants
Agree With Ruling?
Discuss This Topic
Read The Opinion (Adobe Acrobat Required)

In the case, the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office was contacted on Oct. 17, 2000, by a Gould employee who told officers that Gould intended to kill two judges and unidentified police officers and to destroy telephone company transformers. The LPSO informed the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office of the threats.

A search of Gould's criminal history revealed several arrests and that he was "a convicted felon for violent charges," according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

When officers went to question Gould, they were told he was asleep. The officers asked if they could look inside for Gould, and were allowed to enter.

The officers testified that that they believed a search of the home was necessary to ensure their safety, given the allegations by Gould's employee and Gould's criminal history, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

Gould's bedroom door was ajar, and officers testified they peered inside and saw no one. Thinking Gould could be hiding, the officers looked in three closets. In one of the closets, the officers found three firearms, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

Gould was found hiding outside the home a few minutes later. He was taken into custody and questioned about the guns. The officers asked for and received Gould's consent to search the home, with Gould signing a waiver of search warrant. Gould subsequently was arrested for allegedly being a felon in possession of firearms.

One judge, Judge Grady Jolly, said he concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. Judge Jerry Smith, however, completely disagreed with the majority ruling, saying: "I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed that they were acting reasonably and with good intentions. But the old adage warns us that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'"

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new search power, which is effective immediately, will be used judiciously.

"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.

But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray said the ruling is problematic.

"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety.

Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans.

"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justice system works in an effective manner," Defillo said.

so in the state of louisiana they can waltz in to your home now.. some one check this for me.. im off to work.

thanks

Slims · 04-19-2004, 09:14 AM

Oh shit.

If that stands up to challenges, it is probably only a matter of time before the rest of the states follow suit...

Stare At The Sun · 04-19-2004, 09:29 AM

Quote:

If that stands up to challenges, it is probably only a matter of time before the rest of the states follow suit...

Agree'd. And then, probably only a matter of time before other states start to limit our freedom of assembly, even moreso. IE:

Georgia passes law limiting protests

And then...only a matter of time before I leave the country.

Drider_it · 04-19-2004, 09:35 AM

heh.. well the only time i could see the point of it is this... and only this

dude rips off your small buisness he has everything in his house.. the cops need a search warrent to get in.. they get it and bam its cleared out hours ago..

now .. they waltz in.

water_boy1999 · 04-19-2004, 10:40 AM

If it is used juduciously, I do see how this can be an effective deterrant to more criminal wrongdoing. Come on people. This guy is a convicted felon with loaded firearms in his house. In addition, he is making threats about the killings of others. I have to draw a line in regards to rights when it comes to stories like this. I have a right to live. The police going in and protecting us from this guy is perfectly logical to me. Why is it poeple always assume "the next step" when a law changes to protect us even more?

If you are a law abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about. Obviously, this guy gave them pretty legitimate reasons to drop by his pad and check it out.

Stare At The Sun · 04-19-2004, 11:13 AM

^ Don't be so naive. Seriously. While I sit here and drink my Victory Coffee, I feel very relaxed, because I just went through my morning stretches. The new laws are double plus good!

You might see it as paranoia, but i take my freedom very seriously, and I don't like when the government steps into my house without reason. Its the first step down a long road towards big brother.

kutulu · 04-19-2004, 11:23 AM

I strongly believe that cops need warrants to search, this should not be changed. However:

1. The guy is a convicted felon. Don't they lose their rights and are subject to search whenever the cops want to?
2. With probable cause cops don't need a warrant. If a convicted felon with a violent past is making threats, isn't that probable cause?

water_boy1999 · 04-19-2004, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stare At The Sun
^ Don't be so naive. Seriously. While I sit here and drink my Victory Coffee, I feel very relaxed, because I just went through my morning stretches. The new laws are double plus good!

You might see it as paranoia, but i take my freedom very seriously, and I don't like when the government steps into my house without reason. Its the first step down a long road towards big brother.

Who is the one being naive? Seriously!

I am glad you take your freedoms seriously, as do I. But I am tired of seeing innocent people hurt because not enough was done to make sure idiots like this are kept track of.

saut · 04-19-2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by water_boy1999
Who is the one being naive? Seriously!

I am glad you take your freedoms seriously, as do I. But I am tired of seeing innocent people hurt because not enough was done to make sure idiots like this are kept track of.

This might sound incredibly callous, but shit happens. Even to good, innocent people. I would rather be in relative "danger" from random idiots than lose rights in the name of keeping me "safe."

Bamrak · 04-19-2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Drider_it

The officers asked if they could look inside for Gould, and were allowed to enter.

Am I missing something? The person in the home AGREED to let them in and search for him. To me that gives them the right to look for him and anything that would back up the story. Given his criminal record and his backgrund, I don't see anything wrong with what they have done.

I AM for our freedoms, but I would have a huge issue if the person answering the door had said no and they came in.

Maybe I'm becoming a sheeple, but I don't see the issue.

water_boy1999 · 04-19-2004, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by saut
This might sound incredibly callous, but shit happens. Even to good, innocent people. I would rather be in relative "danger" from random idiots than lose rights in the name of keeping me "safe."

Well, then let shit happen to thy neighbor. I prefer to live in relative safety. And, whose rights are being taken away? The convicted felon? The convicted felon with guns at his house? The convicted felon threatening to kill two judges and unidentified police officers and to destroy telephone company transformers?

My rights aren't being hampered in any way, shape or form. The police aren't breaking down my door without a warrant because there is no reason to do so. All these "what ifs..." come into question because some think that there is a next step in the process. Next, Cops can come in to anyone's home for absolutely no reason. The police are here to protect us. They are the good guys. If they need to follow-up on possible threats against other people, I am all for it. Go in....make yourself at home. Kick your feet up. Want a brew?

Here is a "what if" for ya. What if it happened to your mom? Meaning, what if this guy used one of those illegally held weapons to rob and kill your mom? And, you found out that the cops who originally followed up with the criminal could have easily stopped this from happening if they just checked out the rumor? But, they couldn't because they didn't have a search warrant.....

Do you still hold the same opinion?

ace81385 · 04-19-2004, 03:35 PM

WOW thats kinda scary though if they dont need a warrant. The thing is that if they dont need a warrant anymore they can abuse their power as an officer of the law. Also, this is pushing our privacy. I understand that some of you feel that it will help catch criminals but also you have to think that people still have rights and the government should abide by those laws. Without having a warrant i feel like the cops are invading my privacy, its not that difficult to get a awarrant especially if the person is convicted felon and on probation.

shalafi · 04-20-2004, 08:24 AM

I don't want to give up my protection from 'unreasonable search and seizure' (i think thats the right phrase but didnt take the time to look it up) any more than anyone else but in the case in question

A: a tip that a convicted felon with a history of violent crime is planning to commit multiple murders sounds like probable cause to me

and

B: they had not only the permission of the person who answered the door but also a signed waiver from the suspect once they found him to search the premises

04-19-2004, 03:21 AM	#1 (permalink)
Drider_it Junkie Location: Louisiana	louisiana police dont need a search warrent anymore? http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/...83/detail.html NEW ORLEANS -- 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 keep officers safe, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused. The decision in United States v. Kelly Gould, No. 0230629cr0, was made March 24 by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000, in which defendant Gould filed a motion to suppress information gleaned from a search of his home. The motion was granted by district court, and the government appealed this decision. The March 24 ruling by the 5th Circuit is an affirmation of that appeal. Searches Without Warrants Agree With Ruling? Discuss This Topic Read The Opinion (Adobe Acrobat Required) In the case, the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office was contacted on Oct. 17, 2000, by a Gould employee who told officers that Gould intended to kill two judges and unidentified police officers and to destroy telephone company transformers. The LPSO informed the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office of the threats. A search of Gould's criminal history revealed several arrests and that he was "a convicted felon for violent charges," according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling. When officers went to question Gould, they were told he was asleep. The officers asked if they could look inside for Gould, and were allowed to enter. The officers testified that that they believed a search of the home was necessary to ensure their safety, given the allegations by Gould's employee and Gould's criminal history, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling. Gould's bedroom door was ajar, and officers testified they peered inside and saw no one. Thinking Gould could be hiding, the officers looked in three closets. In one of the closets, the officers found three firearms, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling. Gould was found hiding outside the home a few minutes later. He was taken into custody and questioned about the guns. The officers asked for and received Gould's consent to search the home, with Gould signing a waiver of search warrant. Gould subsequently was arrested for allegedly being a felon in possession of firearms. One judge, Judge Grady Jolly, said he concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. Judge Jerry Smith, however, completely disagreed with the majority ruling, saying: "I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed that they were acting reasonably and with good intentions. But the old adage warns us that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'" New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new search power, which is effective immediately, will be used judiciously. "We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said. But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray said the ruling is problematic. "I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety. Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans. "There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justice system works in an effective manner," Defillo said. so in the state of louisiana they can waltz in to your home now.. some one check this for me.. im off to work. thanks __________________ It means only one thing, and everything: Cut. Once committed to fight, Cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut. The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resoultely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush him. Cut him without mercy to the depth of his spirit. It is the balance to life: death. It is the dance with death. It is the law a war wizard lives by, or he dies.

04-19-2004, 09:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Oh shit. If that stands up to challenges, it is probably only a matter of time before the rest of the states follow suit... __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

04-19-2004, 09:35 AM	#4 (permalink)
Drider_it Junkie Location: Louisiana	heh.. well the only time i could see the point of it is this... and only this dude rips off your small buisness he has everything in his house.. the cops need a search warrent to get in.. they get it and bam its cleared out hours ago.. now .. they waltz in. __________________ It means only one thing, and everything: Cut. Once committed to fight, Cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut. The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resoultely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush him. Cut him without mercy to the depth of his spirit. It is the balance to life: death. It is the dance with death. It is the law a war wizard lives by, or he dies.

04-19-2004, 10:40 AM	#5 (permalink)
water_boy1999 Fly em straight! Location: Above and Beyond	If it is used juduciously, I do see how this can be an effective deterrant to more criminal wrongdoing. Come on people. This guy is a convicted felon with loaded firearms in his house. In addition, he is making threats about the killings of others. I have to draw a line in regards to rights when it comes to stories like this. I have a right to live. The police going in and protecting us from this guy is perfectly logical to me. Why is it poeple always assume "the next step" when a law changes to protect us even more? If you are a law abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about. Obviously, this guy gave them pretty legitimate reasons to drop by his pad and check it out. __________________ Doh!!!! -Homer Simpson

04-19-2004, 11:13 AM	#6 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	^ Don't be so naive. Seriously. While I sit here and drink my Victory Coffee, I feel very relaxed, because I just went through my morning stretches. The new laws are double plus good! You might see it as paranoia, but i take my freedom very seriously, and I don't like when the government steps into my house without reason. Its the first step down a long road towards big brother.

04-19-2004, 11:23 AM	#7 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I strongly believe that cops need warrants to search, this should not be changed. However: 1. The guy is a convicted felon. Don't they lose their rights and are subject to search whenever the cops want to? 2. With probable cause cops don't need a warrant. If a convicted felon with a violent past is making threats, isn't that probable cause?

04-19-2004, 03:35 PM	#12 (permalink)
ace81385 Insane	WOW thats kinda scary though if they dont need a warrant. The thing is that if they dont need a warrant anymore they can abuse their power as an officer of the law. Also, this is pushing our privacy. I understand that some of you feel that it will help catch criminals but also you have to think that people still have rights and the government should abide by those laws. Without having a warrant i feel like the cops are invading my privacy, its not that difficult to get a awarrant especially if the person is convicted felon and on probation.

04-20-2004, 08:24 AM	#13 (permalink)
shalafi ARRRRRRRRRR Location: Stuart, Florida	I don't want to give up my protection from 'unreasonable search and seizure' (i think thats the right phrase but didnt take the time to look it up) any more than anyone else but in the case in question A: a tip that a convicted felon with a history of violent crime is planning to commit multiple murders sounds like probable cause to me and B: they had not only the permission of the person who answered the door but also a signed waiver from the suspect once they found him to search the premises