Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

[Kooperman]

Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

POSTED: 3:55 pm CST March 26, 2004

UPDATED: 4:36 pm CST March 26, 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.

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

[Ken]

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.

What the hell has been going on around this country as of late?!?!

At first I thought perhaps I was overreacting to what I thought was a minor wave of slightly "freedom restrictive" legislation and policy, but I see now a problem, of very catastrophic proportions is brewing.

[Kooperman]

You're right Ken....look behind any Bush and you'll see it...the roots of that Bush run deep.

[Wolfie]

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.

Yea, right!!! :rolleyes:

[Shawn]

Oh man.

That's down the wrong path.

[DudeAsInCool]

"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.

What checks and balances?

[Wolfie]

I better make sure I clean out my car's trunk before going to Mardi Gra next year.

[slum_goddess]

holy shit!

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.

but...but...if they don't need a warrant who's to stop any cop from e.g., searching his ex-GF's place just out of mean-ness (godforbid she smokes reefer).

Ken:

What the hell has been going on around this country as of late?!?! At first I thought perhaps I was overreacting to what I thought was a minor wave of slightly "freedom restrictive" legislation and policy, but I see now a problem, of very catastrophic proportions is brewing.

it's already brewed and we're in deep shit, thanks to the current administration.

[Bombardier]

This really isn't good

.

What kind of weed are these courts smoking when they make such lousy legislation? This had better not spread and take place in other states.

There are serious privacy and personal freedom issues at stake here. Imagine if the RIAA had control of such power. The power to move the courts.

No wait, I think they already do! I hope people's PCs don't someday get an open inventation to be raided without any real checks & balances.

Just "suspician" isn't good enough!

[slum_goddess]

since i posted yesterday i talked to my friend (georgetown law) and he told me that LA has a way different govt than the rest of the USA. i have no idea what he meant by that and there was no time to ask him and i'm interested to find out more but no time to google why.

somehow this doesn't make me feel any better and hoping the rest of the country doesn't go the way LA went.

Bombardier--> if they were smoking weed, maybe they wouldn't have thought up such a moronic thing.

[Kooperman]

I used to live about an hour away from Louisiana, so I'm familiar with the state. They have a long history of corruption in politics, law enforcement and the court system. Nothing that springs from that state, politically or otherwise, will surprise me. The food is sure great, though.

[Shawn]

The music too.

[Shawn]

Here is an interesting piece. Some food for thought.

________________________

How much do we really want people to obey laws?

The question hasn't mattered greatly in the past since there was often no way to enforce laws beyond a certain point. You could enforce speeding laws in front of a school with nearly perfect effectiveness, and you could occasionally catch people speeding on rural roads. Yet compliance was largely discretionary. The lack of inescapable surveillance meant that at three a.m. on the Interstate, a driver could crank it up to eighty-five and be left alone. Obedience was not exactly optional, but at times when obedience didn't really matter you didn't really have to obey.

The rapid increase in surveillance of everybody and everything is taking, or so it seems to me, a new and unwholesome turn. We move toward a world in which many laws can be enforced strictly and unfailingly, everywhere and at all times. To continue the example of speeding, the technology exists now to catch every hypervelocitous driver whatsoever on any road we choose. It could be done in several ways. For example, there exist little transponders called radio-frequency identification devices (RFIDs) that transmit a serial number when they pass by a reader. They are about the size of a grain of rice, cost a few cents, and don't need batteries. Requiring them on cars (they're just like license plates, the argument will run) would allow readers along roads to calculate the speed of every car. Easy.

This isn't a column about the technology itself, so for the moment let's stipulate that the combination of data bases, cameras, networks, and so on can, or could if put to the use, make it impossible to break large categories of laws without being caught. I'm not making this up. I follow the technology closely in my guise as a tech columnist for the Washington Times. The level of surveillance I'm talking about is absolutely possible, right now, and is being put in place in bits and pieces. What would be the pros and cons?

Certain kinds of major crime could be eliminated almost completely. Theft of automobiles would become exceedingly difficult if readers on street corners, perhaps built into stoplights, checked every passing car against a list of stolen vehicles. The idea is appealing. Few of us favor having our cars expropriated.

But it's the little laws that are worrisome. Today we have cameras that photograph the license plates of cars that run stoplights. Nobody seems to like them except the governments that get the revenue from fines. The same technology could catch people who roll stop signs. Speeding, walking on the grass, urinating in a dark alley could all be automated out of existence. Do we want to live in a world in which we really have to obey all the laws all the time?

A problem with strict enforcement of laws by unlimited surveillance is that it will inevitably be misused. For example, the British have cameras that automatically read the license plates of every car passing on a highway. (This is not particularly high technology.) At first the purpose was said to be the detection of serious crimes, such as car theft. Other possible uses were soon put forward: Finding people who hadn't paid their insurance, or who had outstanding tickets, or who owed wife-support. What starts with a noble purpose soon becomes a means of nannying everyone.

Automated surveillance goes beyond what most people think of as surveillance. Recently a fellow in England came up with software called ChatNannies. Its intended purpose is the apprehension of pedophiles, which few will dare oppose. It is truly clever. It automatically logs on to large numbers of chat rooms on the internet and proceeds to 'chat' like a real child. ('Hey, you see Lord of the Rings?') It knows kid culture and convincingly simulates being a child. When someone begins to respond, it analyses the responses trying to determine whether the chatter is a pedophile trying to ensnare a kid.

Am I alone in thinking that the idea is both eerie and disturbing? Children in thousands of kid-chat rooms will have to wonder whether they are talking to another kid or to the government. Inevitably the technology will be used for other and less agreeable things. Mr. Bush and his War on Terrorism come to mind. While fooling adults would be harder than fooling children, the telegraphic nature of conversation in chat rooms makes it not all that difficult.

You chat with what you believe to be a person about the chemistry of nerve gas. (Why not? The subject is interesting and the chemistry well known.) A remote computer flags you as a possible terrorist. You don't know that it has happened, any more than you know when the government is screening your email.

The scope for automated control of behavior is great. Toyota recently unveiled a car that requires you to insert your driver's license to start it. It then checks your driving record and if, for example, you have a record for speeding, it limits the horsepower that the engine will deliver. (Toyota says it has no plans to put this atrocity into production. Then why build the demonstrator?)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather live in a world with less enforcement of laws and more freedom to choose. Years back, this worked. In a society in which reasonable responsibility was culturally mandated, people took laws as guidelines. There were far fewer laws in the first place. The United States is now a country in which personal responsibility is attacked as elitist and electronic control of behavior seems set to become a substitute.

The Watchful State isn't really here in force yet, but it is aborning. All the pieces exist. We may find that laws that made sense when they weren't enforced very well become a smothering blanket when backed up by mindless software with police powers. A nation with no slop in the legal gears will be, I suspect, a nation of robots.

[DudeAsInCool]

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather live in a world with less enforcement of laws and more freedom to choose.

Amen to that!

[Kooperman]

That's a great essay you found, Shawn, with some ties to the news item I posted plus much, much more. And I can't help but be impressed with any post which includes the neat word "hypervelocitous".

[slum_goddess]

yeah, excellent essay. here's the link.

[desdemona]

I can't believe police can act without a search warrant, just think what that would mean for filesharers, paleeeeeeeze, tell me you haven't known a cop that didn't abuse his power, this is crap. I agree with koop, bush is at the root of the whole movement of restricting rights and freedoms, he's trying to push his religion and excuse me but (redneck) ideals on the rest of the country, he has an image of what america is that's slightly distorted, anyways, thanks, glad I got to read that article, and will take a closer look at the "Patriot Act" too.

[Guest Cyril]

Most states allow students to adopt each section a total of 3 times before requiring these
phones retrain cna classes in md cna classes in houston cna classes in jacksonville
fl once certified, you are capable of work in a very variety of settings.
If students is carrying the very least part-time
status, financial aid might be available free cna classes in nursing homes https://cnaclasses.us.com/ cna classes online near me the board notes how
the timeline varies as information has to be received from others.