In New Orleans, the Law Man don't need no warrant!

Momentous news story in the making:

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

The Grateful Dead song “Truckin’” has a verse about being 'busted, down in New Orleans." Bobby Weir sings 'I’d like to get some sleep before I travel/ but if you got a warrant, I guess you’re gonna come in." Well, just remember Mr. Weir that next time you’re down in “N’Orleens”, the Man can come in whether they’ve got a warrant or not!

Somewhere, Ashcroft & Rumsfeld are clinking together snifters of cognac, puffing stogies and cackling together evilly like Kang & Kodos from “the Simpsons.”

Yeah, because the SecDef actually instructs appelate courts in constitutional law. Your outrage properly belongs with the particular idiots on that bench; not two guys who are cabinet officers from the administrative branch. Searching the DOJ website & Google, I have failed to find that Ashcroft has yet to comment on the ruling. ‘Til that happens, your accusation would seem premature. And not for nothin’ but the police search to which the defendant objects actually took place prior to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld assuming their offices. If you have problems with the ruling (as I do), would it not be better to direct your scorn to the correct target(s)? As satisifying as it may be one to make Bush and and his cabinet officers scapegoats for every constitutional issue that comes done the road, it would seem more productive to address the issue to the actual parties responsible.

In any case, I seriously doubt that this decision won’t be appealed to the Supreme Court; you ain’t heard the last word yet.

That’s scary. Said one dissenting justice:

One detail I didn’t catch, though, is whether this is a matter of state law. That is, can it be appealed any further?

Upon submission, I see UncleBeer doesn’t think so. And come to think of it, the ruling did seem to cite the fourth amendment, so I guess not.

Good grief.

The case involve two officers who were given permission to enter the trailer home by one of the people that lived in the trailer home. The officers were legally in the trailer home when they entered the bedroom in which they were told the person they were looking for was. They didn’t see him in the room, and, concerned that he might be in the closet with a weapon, they opened the door to the closet as part of a “protective sweep” of the immediate area for their safety. Such sweeps have long been permitted under constitutional law (see Maryland v. Buie) if the “…searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” When they observed, in plain view, several rifles, they immediately left the trailer and obtained a search warrant. Once they had a warrant, they re-entered the trailer and seized the rifles. The occupant of the bedroom was found hiding nearby, charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, and convicted.

  • Rick

Same case, different thread.