resurrectionsong

March 28, 2004

"The Road to Hell"

Sometimes it seems as if police officers work with unreasonable checks on their authority. It seems to defy common sense that the process of legally searching a house or a business is such a ritualized act that the slightest misstep could cost the conviction of someone who seems to be very obviously guilty. Those rituals and safeguards exist, though, to protect the freedoms and liberty of the majority.

We most certainly wouldn't want the police to be able to enter our homes whenever they want, would we? The sense of vulnerability would be almost terrifying. In Louisiana, though, it looks like the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a step toward precisely that scenario.

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 provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."

I want to read more and hear more about this case before I have completely formed my opinions on this ruling. My initial reaction, though, is disbelief coupled with disappointment.

Read the story.

Posted by zombyboy at March 28, 2004 03:14 AM | TrackBack

Comments

I agree- more info needed, but initially seems quite frightening. What about the 4th Ammendment? Certain words will need to be defined ("brief"). I am also curious how this gives protection/safety to officers?

Posted by: Rae at March 28, 2004 10:05 AM

Posted by: Rae at March 28, 2004 10:06 AM

Arrrgggghhhh!

Posted by: Rae at March 28, 2004 10:07 AM

Hey, we've all done it...

Posted by: zombyboy at March 28, 2004 11:17 AM

This one will definitely be overturned by SCOTUS.

Posted by: bryan at March 28, 2004 12:36 PM

I hope you're right--and I tend to believe that you're right--but I've been surprised by a few of their rulings lately on issues that I thought were pretty clear. In a general sense, though, I tend to agree with you.

Posted by: zombyboy at March 28, 2004 01:03 PM

I could be wrong, but I believe the 5th is rapidly gaining a reputation as "the 9th of the east." This ruling would certainly seem to support that.

Posted by: McGehee at March 28, 2004 09:44 PM

I'm reserving judgment until I've read the case. Warrantless searches have always been allowed under some circumstances. What I can't tell from the article is whether this new case substantially changes the circumstances under which they are allowed, or if sensationalist/stupid journalists are making a nonstory into a big story. Allowing cops to search you when they fear for their safety does not strike me as all that unreasonable; assuming, of course, that the fear itself was not unreasonable, or a pretext for what is really just a fishing expedition.

Posted by: Xrlq at March 29, 2004 12:35 AM