Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants -- Dissenting Judges Call Ruling "the Road to Hell"
Alex Jones: "This 5th Curcuit ruling is criminal, similar to Supreme Court rulings of the past declaring black people slaves. It is a total violation of the Bill of Rights and is null and void.
The US Congress and legislature of Louisiana should call an emergency session to investigate possible criminal charges of sedition against those ruling to eradicate the 4th Amendment."
Note from Infowars.com: Look at how calmly they introduce this information -- it's all "for your safety." This is the Essence of the Sovietization -- the Courts aligning Themselves against the People in Favor of the Patriot Act. The Fourth Amendment was the keystone that separated the United States from despotisms like Nazi Germany and soviet Russia.
Two articles and related info posted below
Warrantless searches OK'd, sometimes
Baton Rouge Advocate
In a ruling two judges dubbed "the road to hell," a federal appeals court opened the door for police officers in three states to search homes and buildings for evidence without a warrant.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in a Baton Rouge case that authorities don't need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a swift sweep of private property to ensure their own safety.
Any evidence discovered during that search now is admissible in court as long as the search is a "cursory inspection," and if police entered the site for a legitimate law-enforcement purpose and believed it may be dangerous.
The ruling -- which stands in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi -- replaces a standard set in 1994, when the 5th Circuit held that police can make a so-called protective sweep only if officers are there to arrest someone.
In the majority opinion, Judge William Lockhart Garwood wrote that any in-home encounter poses a risk to police officers -- even if it's simply to interview someone.
"Although arrest may be highly relevant, particularly as tending to show the requisite potential of danger to the officers," Garwood wrote, "that danger may also be established by other circumstances."
Judges Carolyn Dineen King, Patrick E. Higginbotham, W. Eugene Davis, Edith H. Jones, Rhesa H. Barksdale, Emilio M. Garza, Fortunato P. Benavides, James L. Dennis, Edward Charles Prado and Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., sided with the majority opinion. Dissenting were Judges E. Grady Jolly, Jerry Smith, Carl E. Stewart, and Harold DeMoss Jr.
In their opinion, the justices noted that other federal appellate courts have issued similar findings -- including the 1st, 6th, 9th and Washington, D.C., circuits.
The decision came in the case of Kelly Donald Gould, a Denham Springs man who was arrested in October 2000 on federal gun charges after allegedly threatening to kill unidentified judges and police officers.
Deputies went to Gould's trailer after getting a call from a co-worker that the previously convicted felon was planning to kill two unnamed Baton Rouge state judges over their decision to award custody of his daughter to another family member.
The deputies had no search or arrest warrant, but were invited into the trailer by another resident, who told them Gould was asleep in the bedroom. Because of the threats and Gould's criminal history, the deputies said they looked for him under the bed and in two closets, where they found three rifles.
They later found Gould hiding in the woods and seized the weapons after they got him to sign a permission for the search.
U.S. District Judge James Brady ruled that the three guns could not be used as evidence in a federal trial because they were obtained illegally. A 5th Circuit three-judge panel upheld that decision, but encouraged prosecutors to request an en banc -- or full court -- hearing to reconsider the legal precedent on which it was based.
"Gould was not in his bed asleep … nor was Gould otherwise visible," Garwood wrote. "So the danger and imminence of ambush then dramatically increased, justifying the few seconds 'sweep' looking under the bed and opening the two bedroom closet doors."
Dissenting justices argue the ruling creates another exception to constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. Some of them contend the officers created the dangerous situation by entering the mobile home, and should have approached Gould as he left.
"I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions," DeMoss and Stewart wrote.
"But the old adage warns us that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' In my judgment, that is precisely where the majority opinion wants to put us by unhooking the 'protective sweep' from its connection with the execution of an arrest warrant in a home," DeMoss and Stewart wrote.
U.S. Attorney David Dugas of Baton Rouge said the case illustrates the "difficult situations" law-enforcement officers often face.
"They're expected to make split-second decisions in potentially dangerous situations," he said, "involving constitutional issues that the courts and legal scholars can spend years debating."
But Mike Walsh, a defense attorney, said the 5th Circuit decision "grossly expands" the definition of lawful searches.
Said Walsh: "In my opinion, this is a further erosion of everyone's -- not just criminals' -- constitutional rights to be free from intrusive and unlawful searches."
Defense attorney Jim Boren said the ruling still limits police to searches in certain circumstances, but still represents a "scary trend."
"After the king signed the Magna Carta and granted power back to the people, he woke up, said, 'I made a mistake and need to get it back,' " Boren said. "And the government's been trying to do that ever since. We had a bright-line rule that said no searches without an arrest warrant. Now we have one that says sort of, maybe."
Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants
The New Orleans Channel | March 28 2004
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 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."
The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000.
New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.
"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 has big problems with the ruling.
"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition.
Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.
"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.
"The government has created an atmosphere of fear and is now shifting the police powers to be focused on the American people. It was the military-industrial complex that carried out 9-11 as a pretext for more control. So, when President Bush says the terrorist attacked us because they hate our freedom he is telling the truth. They are the terrorists, and they are taking our freedom.
America is America because we have these basic freedoms. The elite is killing the soul of our country. Check out my analysis of Patriot Act II and find out what their real plans are.
Learn more about the Police State:
Police state 3 -- watch the trailer:
Windows Media Broadband -- Click Here
Windows Media 56K -- Click Here
to the Original