us - police no longer need a warrant

There goes the fourth amendment- more power to the government, less to the people.

The Associated Press
3/26/04 6:53 PM


NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A federal appeals court has opened the door for police officers in three states to search homes and buildings for evidence without a warrant -- a ruling that two dissenting judges called "the road to hell."

Acting on a Baton Rouge case, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police do not 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 11-4 ruling affects Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi and 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 is simply to interview someone.

The opinion noted that a similar standard has been adopted by four other federal circuit courts of appeals.

American Civil Liberties Union called the decision dangerous.

"This decision is the latest roll-back of safeguards to protect the people from being at the mercy of a police state," said Joe Cook, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. "Allowing law enforcement to search homes without probable cause or any warrant makes a dramatic and dangerous departure from one of our most fundamental American freedoms."

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 with 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 guns could not be used as evidence because they were obtained illegally. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, but encouraged prosecutors to request a hearing before the court to reconsider the legal precedent on which it was based.

Dissenting justices argued the ruling creates another exception to constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure.

"I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions," Judges Harold DeMoss Jr. and Carl E. Stewart wrote. "But the old adage warns us that 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions."'

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 involving constitutional issues that the courts and legal scholars can spend years debating," Dugas said.

But Mike Walsh, a defense attorney, said the 5th Circuit decision "grossly expands" the definition of lawful searches and erodes everyone's constitutional rights "to be free from intrusive and unlawful searches."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4610626/

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.as...62&nav=2CSfLqGV

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunher...ate/8289372.htm

http://www.kfdx.com/news/default.as...hownews&id=4844

Understanding Search and Seizure Law
Learn when the government can invade your privacy to hunt for evidence of a crime.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests; search people and their property; and seize objects documents and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law.Search and seizure law is constantly in flux and so complex that entire books are devoted to it. This article covers the basic issues that you should know, beginning with an overview of the Fourth Amendment itself.

The Fourth Amendment: Protecting Your Privacy

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. Most people instinctively understand the concept of privacy. It is the freedom to decide which details of your life will be revealed to the public and which will be revealed only to those you care to share them with. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel or whatever, if:

* the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or

* the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.

Search warrants are discussed in detail in Search Warrants: What They Are and When They're Necessary.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/...A4818C8E29AC758