California police can now enter your home w/o a warrant - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

bparker805 · 06-01-2006, 09:19 PM

I just ran into this article http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_152182332.html and it scares the crap out of me!

Quote:

Justices: DUI Suspects Can Run But Can't Hide
Police can now enter homes of DUI suspects without a warrant.
(AP) SAN FRANCISCO Police may enter Californians' homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case testing the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 6-1 decision follows similar rulings in about a dozen other states. A dissenting justice said the majority handed authorities a "free pass" to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest people without warrants.

Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities are prohibited from entering a home and making an arrest without a warrant unless so-called "exigent" circumstances are present. Those include "hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence and the risk of danger to the police or other persons inside or outside of a house, among others.

In this case, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the loss of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspect's blood-alcohol level. Baxter added that a contrary ruling would allow "the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol -- or to claim to have done so -- or when the suspect evades police capture until he or she is no longer intoxicated."

Baxter and the majority was cautious in saying the decision would not give police carte blanche powers.

"In holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry here, we need not decide, and do not hold, that the police may enter a home without a warrant to effect an arrest of a DUI suspect in every case," Baxter wrote.

In dissent, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the majority was fooling itself. There is "always" the possibility that a suspect might destroy evidence, especially in drug and bookmaking cases in which officers routinely obtain warrants to search and make arrests, she said.

The case concerned the 2003 Santa Barbara arrest of Daniel Thompson, whom a neighbor suspected was driving drunk and notified authorities. They found a parked car matching the description the neighbor provided and went to the front door of the adjoining residence during a summer evening.

The door was open and a woman said the car's driver was asleep. Moments later, Thompson walked by the officers and they entered the house and arrested him. The neighbor confirmed it was the person she suspected of driving intoxicated and throwing an empty vodka bottle out the car door.

Thompson's blood-alcohol level was 0.21, almost three times the legal limit for driving. He was convicted and handed a three-year suspended sentence. He appealed.

A state court of appeal tossed the conviction, saying Thompson's constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court reversed, saying the lower court misapplied search-and-seizure precedent.

Santa Barbara County prosecutor Gerald McC. Franklin said the decision means there is no "absolute bar into entering a house without a warrant for the purpose of arresting somebody for driving under the influence of alcohol."

Thompson's attorney, Richard B. Lennon of Los Angeles, was not immediately available for comment.

The case is People v. Thompson, S130174.

So, what I get from this is that I can be sitting at my house and having some cocktails, and some neighbor of mine that I may have pissed off in the past, could call the cops, claim that I was drinking and driving, and the cops could LEGALLY enter my home WITHOUT A WARRANT and arrest me! Now I understand that the point is to discourage drinking and driving. I whole heartedly support punishing those that do. But at what point are we going to let the government keep taking and taking? Now, YOU could be sitting at YOUR home and having some cocktails, and some neighbor that YOU may have pissed off in the past, could call the cops, CLAIM that YOU were drinking and driving, and the cops could LEGALLY enter YOUR home W/O A WARRANT and arrest YOU! Kiss your rights goodbye, people! The New World Order is upon us!

Brewmaniac · 06-02-2006, 03:07 AM

I realize it is not stated in news article but I'm quite sure there must have another witness that saw him driving.

The_Jazz · 06-02-2006, 04:25 AM

I agree that there must have been some other evidence, perhaps even an admission that he was driving by whoever answered the door or Mr. Thompson himself. I think that it's also important to point out that this is a state court decision, not federal. I am sure that this will be well tested in the federal system, and I have my doubts as to the decision's ability to withstand challenge. Mr. Thompson wasn't driving and was reportedly asleep, removing the immenent danger of his actions behind the wheel. There are lots of problems with using this as a test case.

flstf · 06-02-2006, 07:26 AM

This decision wasn't even close 6 to 1. Surely there is more to this story. I would expect them to allow the police to enter if there was a kidnapping or if they heard someone being harmed but not for a second hand accusation of a DUI or most other accusations a neighbor might make for that matter.

genuinegirly · 06-02-2006, 07:37 AM

I am so glad that this news has made it to the forum. I cannot believe that this actually passed. Drunk driving is bad, and entirely too common. But taking away the need for a warrant is flat-out WRONG. arg.

dksuddeth · 06-02-2006, 11:06 AM

I'll probably get flamed for this post also, but this IS california. A state that has a judicial system NOTORIOUS for broadly interpreting the constitution and laws in any way it wants to depending on the mood of the populace at large.

bparker805 · 06-02-2006, 11:49 AM

The thing that really gets me is the "power" to enter our homes. The way my mind works, I can easily see how this could led to a complete misuse of power. I've been "intimidated" by cops using their rights and confronted me with fabricated information. What is to stop an officer from doing whatever he/she wishes? I respect the police and wish than in a perfect world, they would not misuse this freedom to enter ones home (or any of their freedoms). But I live in California (and 35 minutes away from where the Daniel Thompson incident occurred)... I just hope that this ruling doesn't stand.

Willravel · 06-02-2006, 12:04 PM

Normally I don't like to posture, but if a police officer came into my house without a warrent I would make him leave by all necessary means. I'm not interested in living in a police state, and unreasonable entry by authorities is a symptom of a police state. This ruling is clearly in violation of the Fourth Amendment. I would take the case right back to the California Supreme Court, and would procede to ball them out for caving in to fear. How dare they make a ruling like that? I thought I was reasonablly safe from this neocon BS in my home state (my very, very liberal home state), but apparently the rotting of civil liberties will continue to extend.

samcol · 06-02-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bparker805

The thing that really gets me is the "power" to enter our homes. The way my mind works, I can easily see how this could led to a complete misuse of power. I've been "intimidated" by cops using their rights and confronted me with fabricated information. What is to stop an officer from doing whatever he/she wishes? I respect the police and wish than in a perfect world, they would not misuse this freedom to enter ones home (or any of their freedoms). But I live in California (and 35 minutes away from where the Daniel Thompson incident occurred)... I just hope that this ruling doesn't stand.

I've faced that intimidation and baiting technique before too. The funny thing is when I was actually doing something illegal the police couldn't have been more professional and respectable as they were hauling me off to jail, but when I wasn't doing a thing wrong they were so abusive and indimidating for no reason.

That's exactly it isn't it. The power to enter our homes. This is giving law enforcement an unchecked power. Unchecked power is always abused. Not having a warrant means a police officier can do it whenever he or she suspects anything not neccessarily a DUI. I'm a little fuzzy on the law but when a police officier is searching your home for something, any illegal activity found is fair game not just what they are looking for correct?

I understand your concern, especially since you live so close by to where this has happened.

dksuddeth · 06-02-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Normally I don't like to posture, but if a police officer came into my house without a warrent I would make him leave by all necessary means.

do you really think that by 'adamantly demanding', a police officer is just going to leave? or do you mean by 'all necessary means', you are talking about firing a gun at him/her?

The_Jazz · 06-02-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

do you really think that by 'adamantly demanding', a police officer is just going to leave? or do you mean by 'all necessary means', you are talking about firing a gun at him/her?

And so willravel was sucked into dksuddeth's revolution.... /jk

Willravel · 06-02-2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

do you really think that by 'adamantly demanding', a police officer is just going to leave? or do you mean by 'all necessary means', you are talking about firing a gun at him/her?

The latter - sort of. Though it's against my nature, a police officer or police officers that would enter my home on false acusations (I don't drink) after I've politely asked he/she/them to leave several times is going to be in physical danger from me. I don't have any guns (you know better than most), but I am not completly defenseless. If I get him/her/them out of the house, I simply lock up and tell them to come back with a warrent (giving me time to hide my drugs, guns, prostitutes, and missles....jk). No matter who wins - and I don't expect to win in the traditional sense - my lawyer would probably put up a damn fine self defence and BOR defence. Wiht enough media attention,and civilian uproar, the Cal Supreme Court would be under considerable pressure to reverse it's decision. The reason I would be doing this isn't rooted in self defence but in princeple. I love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I have pledged my aleigence to them (just like the police), and I intend to do what I can to defend them. I don't like the idea of laying down when faced with tyrany. Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII when Europe, Asia, North America and then eventually the rest of the world was in real danger from tyrany. While I only fight as an absolute last resort, under a few circumstances I see it as being a necessary evil.

macmanmike6100 · 06-03-2006, 02:12 AM

Glad to hear so much dissent on this issue. It's a joke that an officer or officers can "decide" that they don't need a warrant to enter my home; especially frightening is the fact that a neighbor was the one to accuse! Ridiculous. Another reason why I don't want to live in California (although it seems that this is happening elsewhere, too).

Gatorade Frost · 06-03-2006, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I thought I was reasonablly safe from this neocon BS in my home state (my very, very liberal home state), but apparently the rotting of civil liberties will continue to extend.

It seems to me that if it's happening in California it's not actually 'neocon BS.' In fact it doesn't seem to have anything to do with 'neocons' in this case, just a decision by the Cali Supreme Court, which I could be wrong, but I don't see them as being controlled by 'neocons'

dksuddeth · 06-03-2006, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

How dare they make a ruling like that? I thought I was reasonablly safe from this neocon BS in my home state (my very, very liberal home state), but apparently the rotting of civil liberties will continue to extend.

it wasn't until a later post than mine did I realize that willravel had said this as well, but I have to ask....why is it that most people feel quite alright with some constitutional amendments being infringed while vehemently protest some of the others when they are being infringed?

Maybe my particular question belongs in the 'constitutional interpretation' thread and if it does, please move it.

Willravel · 06-03-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

it wasn't until a later post than mine did I realize that willravel had said this as well, but I have to ask....why is it that most people feel quite alright with some constitutional amendments being infringed while vehemently protest some of the others when they are being infringed?

My interpretation of one amendment is differnt than yours. That doesn't mean we differ in our interpretations on all of them.

Coppertop · 06-03-2006, 08:32 AM

So, who exactly benefits from this?

dksuddeth · 06-03-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

So, who exactly benefits from this?

who benefits? the government of the state of california, that's who. With this decision, law enforcement can practically enter any home on the word of any person who mentions any sort of suspicious or criminal activity. In the process, police can now make a 'officer safety' search of the home for any weapons and then confiscate any found as they arrest the person that the tip was about. Any criminal evidence then found in the house can be extra charges added on to said suspect or any other persons in the house.

This is what happens when you elect politicians who appeal to emotions instead of the constitution and the law and then put judges on the bench to do the same thing. Welcome to your police state.

Marvelous Marv · 06-03-2006, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The latter - sort of. Though it's against my nature, a police officer or police officers that would enter my home on false acusations (I don't drink) after I've politely asked he/she/them to leave several times is going to be in physical danger from me. I don't have any guns (you know better than most), but I am not completly defenseless. If I get him/her/them out of the house, I simply lock up and tell them to come back with a warrent (giving me time to hide my drugs, guns, prostitutes, and missles....jk). No matter who wins - and I don't expect to win in the traditional sense - my lawyer would probably put up a damn fine self defence and BOR defence. Wiht enough media attention,and civilian uproar, the Cal Supreme Court would be under considerable pressure to reverse it's decision. The reason I would be doing this isn't rooted in self defence but in princeple. I love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I have pledged my aleigence to them (just like the police), and I intend to do what I can to defend them. I don't like the idea of laying down when faced with tyrany. Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII when Europe, Asia, North America and then eventually the rest of the world was in real danger from tyrany. While I only fight as an absolute last resort, under a few circumstances I see it as being a necessary evil.

David Koresh tried that in Waco. It turned out poorly.

Randy Weaver tried it at Ruby Ridge. It turned out poorly.

The FBI and BATF were proved to have lied repeatedly and extensively in each case. Did you see ANY of them go to jail for perjury? Did you see Janet Reno tried, after she "took full responsibility" for Waco?

Bush was not president at the time, BTW.

Willravel · 06-04-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

David Koresh tried that in Waco. It turned out poorly.

Randy Weaver tried it at Ruby Ridge. It turned out poorly.

The FBI and BATF were proved to have lied repeatedly and extensively in each case. Did you see ANY of them go to jail for perjury? Did you see Janet Reno tried, after she "took full responsibility" for Waco?

Bush was not president at the time, BTW.

Intereting point. The difference is, of course, that I refuse to use guns. I've never owned a gun. I can't shoot a gun. None of my neighbors have guns. The FBI and ATF wouldn't have any jurisdiction. While the same was tru of the jurisdiction at Waco and RR, the local PD in San Jose HATES when feds stick their noses in local business...so it's be more difficult for them to buldoze my house or snipe me.

My point is that civil disobedience can still be a functional tool against a potential police state or a dictatorship. I would never condone any illegal actions by anyone (I take responsibility for my own actions, of course), but non violent resistence is a wonderful thing.

The_Jazz · 06-05-2006, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

who benefits? the government of the state of california, that's who. With this decision, law enforcement can practically enter any home on the word of any person who mentions any sort of suspicious or criminal activity. In the process, police can now make a 'officer safety' search of the home for any weapons and then confiscate any found as they arrest the person that the tip was about. Any criminal evidence then found in the house can be extra charges added on to said suspect or any other persons in the house.

This is what happens when you elect politicians who appeal to emotions instead of the constitution and the law and then put judges on the bench to do the same thing. Welcome to your police state.

It's not always about guns. There are occassions where the government may be after your guns, but not always. They could be after your tinfoild hat, too.

Officer safety checks are a reasonable and prudent response to any dangerous situation.

f6twister · 06-05-2006, 06:13 AM

I'm surprised this ruling was in favor of the entry. Wisconsin courts have held that entry into a residence based solely on a report of intoxicated driving is a 4th amendment violation. The only way the warrantless entry in the California case would have been justified here would have been under the Community Caretaker function. That means there must be a concern for the welfare of the driver or someone else and the basis for entry must be only for the intent to check their welfare. The mere fact that they were apparently intoxicated is not reason enough by itself. Add to the possible intoxication fresh vehicle damage & blood in or on the vehicle and they can get away with the entry.

I would be surprised if the California law stood up in a supreme court ruling.

flstf · 06-05-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f6twister

I would be surprised if the California law stood up in a supreme court ruling.

One would think so but this ruling was so lopsided at 6 to 1. You would think that a few more judges would have been against it.

I have read what I could find on this ruling and have yet to understand the logic behind it. How can they justify giving the police so much power when no one is in immediate danger? I understand that the driver could start drinking and escape the DUI charge but that is better than giving the police the right to enter our houses at will.

The_Jazz · 06-05-2006, 10:48 AM

I still think that there must be some underlying fact in the case that we're missing - like an admission that Mr. Thompson was drinking and driving by who ever answered the door or by a second witness. There must have been some sort of coorberating evidence somewhere else besides the single eyewitness. Granted there may or may not have been a discarded vodka bottle, but maybe he was alleged to have thrown it at the witness. Maybe that was enough.

dksuddeth · 06-05-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

It's not always about guns. There are occassions where the government may be after your guns, but not always. They could be after your tinfoild hat, too.

Officer safety checks are a reasonable and prudent response to any dangerous situation.

normally, I would agree with you about the guns, however, this is california we're talking about. I'd say the same thing about chicago, new york, new jersey, boston, and philadelphia.

xepherys · 06-06-2006, 12:28 PM

I'm with Will on this. While I believe in our legal system at it's core, there are items like this that I will fight vehemently to overturn. If I lived in Cali and officers entered my home against my will I would also, by ANY means neccesary, remove them from the premises. I don't live in China or Iraq... I live in the USA.

liquidlight · 06-06-2006, 12:53 PM

I fear that this is another instance of a very honorable intention that is going to go HORRIBLY wrong. . .

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/cal...es/s130174.doc

After I read the entire filing it's clearly obvious that she wasn't just trying to get him in trouble and that this particular plantiff was a danger, that doesn't change the fact that this sets a very unsettling precendent for anything even remotely similar. Personally I think the scumbag lawyer defending this guy should should be thrown in jail with him for making a decision like this necessary, because thanks to him how are we going to enact justice on the defendant without passing some sort of broad sweeping allowance of power?

06-02-2006, 03:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
Brewmaniac Searching for the perfect brew!	I realize it is not stated in news article but I'm quite sure there must have another witness that saw him driving. __________________ "That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"

06-02-2006, 04:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I agree that there must have been some other evidence, perhaps even an admission that he was driving by whoever answered the door or Mr. Thompson himself. I think that it's also important to point out that this is a state court decision, not federal. I am sure that this will be well tested in the federal system, and I have my doubts as to the decision's ability to withstand challenge. Mr. Thompson wasn't driving and was reportedly asleep, removing the immenent danger of his actions behind the wheel. There are lots of problems with using this as a test case. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-02-2006, 07:37 AM	#5 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	I am so glad that this news has made it to the forum. I cannot believe that this actually passed. Drunk driving is bad, and entirely too common. But taking away the need for a warrant is flat-out WRONG. arg. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

06-02-2006, 11:06 AM	#6 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I'll probably get flamed for this post also, but this IS california. A state that has a judicial system NOTORIOUS for broadly interpreting the constitution and laws in any way it wants to depending on the mood of the populace at large. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

06-05-2006, 06:13 AM	#22 (permalink)
f6twister Addict	I'm surprised this ruling was in favor of the entry. Wisconsin courts have held that entry into a residence based solely on a report of intoxicated driving is a 4th amendment violation. The only way the warrantless entry in the California case would have been justified here would have been under the Community Caretaker function. That means there must be a concern for the welfare of the driver or someone else and the basis for entry must be only for the intent to check their welfare. The mere fact that they were apparently intoxicated is not reason enough by itself. Add to the possible intoxication fresh vehicle damage & blood in or on the vehicle and they can get away with the entry. I would be surprised if the California law stood up in a supreme court ruling. __________________ A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

06-02-2006, 07:26 AM	#4 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	This decision wasn't even close 6 to 1. Surely there is more to this story. I would expect them to allow the police to enter if there was a kidnapping or if they heard someone being harmed but not for a second hand accusation of a DUI or most other accusations a neighbor might make for that matter.

06-02-2006, 11:49 AM	#7 (permalink)
bparker805 is KING! Location: On the path to Valhalla.	The thing that really gets me is the "power" to enter our homes. The way my mind works, I can easily see how this could led to a complete misuse of power. I've been "intimidated" by cops using their rights and confronted me with fabricated information. What is to stop an officer from doing whatever he/she wishes? I respect the police and wish than in a perfect world, they would not misuse this freedom to enter ones home (or any of their freedoms). But I live in California (and 35 minutes away from where the Daniel Thompson incident occurred)... I just hope that this ruling doesn't stand.

06-02-2006, 12:04 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Normally I don't like to posture, but if a police officer came into my house without a warrent I would make him leave by all necessary means. I'm not interested in living in a police state, and unreasonable entry by authorities is a symptom of a police state. This ruling is clearly in violation of the Fourth Amendment. I would take the case right back to the California Supreme Court, and would procede to ball them out for caving in to fear. How dare they make a ruling like that? I thought I was reasonablly safe from this neocon BS in my home state (my very, very liberal home state), but apparently the rotting of civil liberties will continue to extend.

06-03-2006, 02:12 AM	#13 (permalink)
macmanmike6100 High Honorary Junkie Location: Tri-state.	Glad to hear so much dissent on this issue. It's a joke that an officer or officers can "decide" that they don't need a warrant to enter my home; especially frightening is the fact that a neighbor was the one to accuse! Ridiculous. Another reason why I don't want to live in California (although it seems that this is happening elsewhere, too).

06-03-2006, 08:32 AM	#17 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	So, who exactly benefits from this?

06-05-2006, 10:48 AM	#24 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I still think that there must be some underlying fact in the case that we're missing - like an admission that Mr. Thompson was drinking and driving by who ever answered the door or by a second witness. There must have been some sort of coorberating evidence somewhere else besides the single eyewitness. Granted there may or may not have been a discarded vodka bottle, but maybe he was alleged to have thrown it at the witness. Maybe that was enough. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-06-2006, 12:28 PM	#26 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	I'm with Will on this. While I believe in our legal system at it's core, there are items like this that I will fight vehemently to overturn. If I lived in Cali and officers entered my home against my will I would also, by ANY means neccesary, remove them from the premises. I don't live in China or Iraq... I live in the USA.

06-06-2006, 12:53 PM	#27 (permalink)
liquidlight AHH! Custom Title!! Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.	I fear that this is another instance of a very honorable intention that is going to go HORRIBLY wrong. . . http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/cal...es/s130174.doc After I read the entire filing it's clearly obvious that she wasn't just trying to get him in trouble and that this particular plantiff was a danger, that doesn't change the fact that this sets a very unsettling precendent for anything even remotely similar. Personally I think the scumbag lawyer defending this guy should should be thrown in jail with him for making a decision like this necessary, because thanks to him how are we going to enact justice on the defendant without passing some sort of broad sweeping allowance of power? __________________ Halfway to hell and picking up speed.