TRI In The News

The Changing Face of Police in America

6/13/2011

TRI IN THE NEWS: THE CHANGING FACE OF POLICE IN AMERICA

From GlockTalk.com
Original forum post available here.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
Senior Member

Here’s a good video summation of the changing face of law enforcement in America. It includes footage of the swat team that murdered the Marine in Arizona. Rutherford’s John Whitehead also comments on how police are now free to just knock down your door when the mood strikes them.

Video from The Rutherford Institute:

https://www.rutherford.org/OnTarget/2011/06-01-2011.asp

ugly8604
Senior Member

It's apparent this guy has very little grasp of the recent case law decisions he cites throughout the video. The fourth amendment is not "dead," as a matter of fact it is alive and well. The majority of a detective or federal agent's time is taken writing warrants and gathering information to establish enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant or make an arrest. If the police could simply walk into your house as this guy states without any probable cause, hot pursuit, exigent circumstances, etc, they would never waste their time with a warrant.

It is unfortunate how this "Rutherford Institute" has misconstrued the actions of law enforcement. Two examples:

The Guerena shooting. As I'm sure you are all aware, the Pima County Sheriff's Department has released several documents, including video of the shooting and the search warrant which was used to make entry into Guerena's residence. I urge anyone who has any doubt in this legitimacy of this case to review the warrant. Although lengthy, it does an excellent job at painting the picture of Mr. Guerena's criminal activities. Unfortunately, he was a criminal, and was involved in serious illegal operations with Mexican cartels. An example of how dangerous his organizations was can be found within the search warrant. While surveilling Guerena's house in unmarked vehicles, several mexican nationals exited Guerana's residence and began conducting counter-surveillance measures. At one point, a vehicle from Guerana's residence followed a government surveillance vehicle. The next day, a registration inquiry of the government vehicle was made by a DMV worker. The cartels had a connection within the DMV and were trying to find out if they were being surveilled!

There was a mountain of probable cause to believe narcotics or other evidence regarding the sales and transportation of narcotics was inside of Guerena's residence. A prosecutor and a judge signed off on the warrant. Regardless of whether or not something was found is irrelevant, the police executed the search warrant by the book according to the fourth amendment, sometimes they come out empty handed. All that is required for a search warrant is probable cause to believe something (drugs, etc) is inside the residence, not absolute certainty.

The second example is the Kentucky V. King decision the gentleman in the video is speaking of. His interpretation of the facts is severely misconstrued. He states the police are chasing a "so called suspect" (he was a suspect, he had just sold drugs to an undercover cop) through an apartment building. The gentleman states the officers lose the suspect and randomly "blow down" a door they can smell marijuana coming from. When in reality, the police were only a few feet behind the suspect while running through the apartment complex, the suspect turned a sudden corner and was out of sight for only a few seconds. Within those few seconds the police heard a door slam. When they turned the corner there were two doors. They smelled marijuana emitting from the door on the right. Knowing they were dealing with a confirmed drug dealer, the officers felt it was more probable the drug dealer had run into the apartment was emitting the smell of, you guessed it, an illegal drug.

The police were in "hot pursuit" and acted in "good faith," although they entered the wrong door, their intentions were clearly not simply to kick a random door and do a random search. They were hot on the trail of a bad guy and were trying to find him, the fact they stumbled across additional narcotics is just dumb luck. The supreme court has recognized "good faith" and "hot pursuit" as forgivable instances where law enforcement officials have made errors, but did so without purposely violating the fourth amendment. Our forefathers agreed.

I think this guy is scaring himself to due to his profound lack of comprehension when it comes to legal issues. It's too bad.

I hope this clears things up for everyone.

OldCurlyWolf
Senior Member

You May be totally correct on those two, however the Recent Indiana Supreme Court Ruling is a total mess up, in that it almost guts the 4th amendment and the laws governing self defense in Indiana. The people of that state need to impeach the entire court and start fresh.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
Senior Member

Law enforcement shrewdly likes to use the 6 o'clock local news as their own personal police blotter, so perhaps they got a taste of their own medicine in this one. What they discovered in Guerena's home hardly matches their Pablo Escobar claims. Perhaps they should reveal the real reason for secrecy.

The King case is actually a perfect example of how the 4th amendment has been eroded. Marijuana smoke from behind a door is hardly exigent. Neo Reefer Madness has created a mindset whereby police equate a person getting choked to death with some dude behind a door smoking a fat one.

ugly8604
Senior Member

I have addressed both of your points in my previous post.

To recap:

It is irrelevant if the police failed to find anything of evidentiary value as a result of the search warrant. They had probable cause to believe evidence was inside of the residence. They followed the steps defined by the fourth amendment and obtained a search warrant. Again, to obtain a search warrant, the police need only articulate "probable cause," not "absolute certainty" that the items they are searching for are inside of the residence.

Secondly, the officers in the King case did not force entry into the apartment solely because they smelled marijuana smoke, it was the totality of the circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
You May be totally correct on those two, however the Recent Indiana Supreme Court Ruling is a total mess up, in that it almost guts the 4th amendment and the laws governing self defense in Indiana. The people of that state need to impeach the entire court and start fresh.

I am not familiar with Indiana state law. However, don't forget that federal law supersedes state law. If there was a fourth amendment violation, the case can be appealed to the supreme court. The supreme court then has the authority to overturn the law if it deems it unconstitutional.