# Warrantless searches in Louisiana?!?! WTF?!
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [March 28, 2004, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878 "2004-03-28T05:50:11Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Abbie\_Carmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abbie_Carmichael)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/1 "2004-03-28T05:50:11Z")
[Check this out](http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html)
I really really REALLY REALLY don’t like this and I am as far from an ACLU hippie liebral as you can get.
If cops come into your home they already have the right to do a brief search of your home to make sure there’s nobody in the corner with a gun getting ready to shoot them. WHY, then, has this been passed? What else do they need to search for in your home, WITHOUT A WARRANT? All this ruling has done is make fishing expeditions legal. No, no, no!
And they’re giving this right to the NEW ORLEANS cops? Yes, I know they’ve cleaned house but these still are not a bunch that have historically been overly concerned with following the law. Given that and the fact that New Orleans is a dangerous place, I suspect a lot of innocent people are going to find their closets being inspected just because some cop feared for his/her safety. It’s Nawlins! It’s dangerous! They’re gonna “fear for their safety” anywhere they are!
I am all for cops being safe and nailing the bad guys, but this crosses the line.
I suspect SCOTUS will overturn this blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights.
And since this is the Pit: dammit.
---
### Author:  [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/2 "2004-03-28T06:55:33Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I suspect SCOTUS will overturn this blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights.
I hope so. Right now, I can only see Scalia and Thomas as perhaps affirming this decision. However, you never know what kind of judges we’ll be getting on the SCOTUS if GWB and the Republicans are re-elected this November. _[shudder]_
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/3 "2004-03-28T07:37:25Z")
Given that journalists never manage to report legal news properly, does anybody have a link to the actual opinion?
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/4 "2004-03-28T07:56:32Z")
Dammit, **Minty** , stop being reasonable and pass the ammunition!
My memory escapes, but itsn’t this the same place has New Orleans…?
I don’t perzactly…but wadn’t that the same place they got senior policemen on tape setting up _contract hits_!..Lord have mercy!..
Dr. John thumping out the theme from _Dragnet_.
---
### Author:  [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/5 "2004-03-28T09:18:29Z")
I’m trying to get all riled up about this, but I can’t. Even in California(where I am), a police officer has the right to conduct a warrantless search of a house if he “fears for his life”. The one time I had a run-in with the police at my house over some firecrackers(not M-80s, little tiny firecrackers), on the 4th of July, the 6 officers conducted a search of the entire premises with me in cuffs.
When I went to court to fight it, the officer said he was tearing my house up because he was afraid for his life. :rolleyes: Know what? The judge agreed with him. ☹
Firecrackers=cuffs and an in-depth search of your home.
So yes, it will be abused, no matter what the chief of police says.
Sam
---
### Author:  [@whiterabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whiterabbit)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/6 "2004-03-28T13:03:16Z")
I find it almost virtually impossible to believe they don’t already do this. It _is_ New Orleans. Maybe it’s the having it on paper that sounds so damn disturbing, but they have reason to fear for their life in some areas of the city.
Perhaps it’s just as well that I’m just across the parish line, in Jefferson. Though they can’t be much better, what with letting the woman across the street run a busy drug dealing business out of her home for years. My hope is they were using her to go after higher-ups, and not that they are so incompetent that they ignored repeated calls from around the block about it…
---
### Author:  [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/7 "2004-03-28T14:39:51Z")
> [@GaWd](#):
>
> I’m trying to get all riled up about this, but I can’t. Even in California(where I am), a police officer has the right to conduct a warrantless search of a house if he “fears for his life”. The one time I had a run-in with the police at my house over some firecrackers(not M-80s, little tiny firecrackers), on the 4th of July, the 6 officers conducted a search of the entire premises with me in cuffs.
>
> When I went to court to fight it, the officer said he was tearing my house up because he was afraid for his life. :rolleyes: Know what? The judge agreed with him. ☹
>
> Firecrackers=cuffs and an in-depth search of your home.
>
> So yes, it will be abused, no matter what the chief of police says.
>
> Sam
Thatain’t no abuse, **GaWd** ; that’s _a search pursuant to an arrest_,which does not and never has required a warrant. The theory is that there may be weapons or contraband where even a cuffed prisoner might reach them.
And yeah, firecrackers=cuffs, because in CA, firecrackers + July = massive acre-destroying, people-killing fires, idjit.
---
### Author:  [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/8 "2004-03-28T15:39:12Z")
[QUOTE=Abbie Carmichael
I suspect SCOTUS will overturn this blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights.
And since this is the Pit: dammit.[/QUOTE]
I suspect you’re wrong, dammit. The Patriot Act allows this sort of action _without probable cause_. While it’s true that persons acting under this act must have a warrant, the warrant is issued by a secretive panel of judges who have only turned down one request in the past umpteen years of existence.
If the fed can do that, I would suspect the SCOTUS will have no problem upholding your example. The current administration has done a huge amount of damage to constitutional rights and freedoms. No, I’m not going to offer a bunch of cites. This discussion has appeared in numerous threads on the SDMB and is easily researched on the web.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/9 "2004-03-28T16:20:51Z")
> [@Chefguy](#):
>
> No, I’m not going to offer a bunch of cites. This discussion has appeared in numerous threads on the SDMB and is easily researched on the web.
The reason you’re not going to offer a bunch of cites is that while this discussion HAS appeared here on the SDMB before, it has also been debunked before. The Patriot Act DOES require probable cause, even from the secret FISA court.
Now, a glimmer of a new argument may be discerned from your post. You may be asserting that, despite the plain language of the law, the FISA court does not in fact actually require probable cause.
But if you are claiming that, it’s up to you to provide the evidence. The proponent of a claim bears the burden of proof. It’s insufficient to invite the inference that, because almost no applicatons are denied, the court is not applying the standard required by law.
In other words, if you’re accusing people of violating the law, you need better evidence than, “Hey, look how many applications have been approved!”
- Rick
---
### Author:  [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/10 "2004-03-28T17:00:27Z")
> [@Nametag](#):
>
> Thatain’t no abuse, **GaWd** ; that’s _a search pursuant to an arrest_,which does not and never has required a warrant. The theory is that there may be weapons or contraband where even a cuffed prisoner might reach them.
>
> And yeah, firecrackers=cuffs, because in CA, firecrackers + July = massive acre-destroying, people-killing fires, idjit.
Actually, asshole, it wasn’t a search pursuant to an arrest. There is no arrest on an infraction. That was a clear-cut abuse.
And please don’t be such a drama queen when it comes to a few firecrackers controlled by an adult on some asphalt. :rolleyes: Idjit.
Sam
---
### Author:  [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/11 "2004-03-28T17:05:12Z")
> [@GaWd](#):
>
> Actually, asshole, it wasn’t a search pursuant to an arrest. There is no arrest on an infraction. That was a clear-cut abuse.
>
> And please don’t be such a drama queen when it comes to a few firecrackers controlled by an adult on some asphalt. :rolleyes: Idjit.
>
> Sam
Oh, because explosives controlled by _adults_ never do any damage. :rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@Kansas\_Beekeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kansas_Beekeeper)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/12 "2004-03-28T17:10:52Z")
> [@minty green](#):
>
> Given that journalists never manage to report legal news properly, does anybody have a link to the actual opinion?
> **[FindLaw's United States Fifth Circuit case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1207019.html)**
>
> FindLaw's searchable database of United States Fifth Circuit decisions since
---
### Author:  [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/13 "2004-03-28T17:55:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The reason you’re not going to offer a bunch of cites is that while this discussion HAS appeared here on the SDMB before, it has also been debunked before. The Patriot Act DOES require probable cause, even from the secret FISA court.
>
> Now, a glimmer of a new argument may be discerned from your post. You may be asserting that, despite the plain language of the law, the FISA court does not in fact actually require probable cause.
>
> But if you are claiming that, it’s up to you to provide the evidence. The proponent of a claim bears the burden of proof. It’s insufficient to invite the inference that, because almost no applicatons are denied, the court is not applying the standard required by law.
>
> In other words, if you’re accusing people of violating the law, you need better evidence than, “Hey, look how many applications have been approved!”
>
> - Rick
Yawn. Here’s one of the approximately bazillion hits on Yahoo when one types in “fisa court probable cause”.
> [@](#):
>
> Nov. 20, 2002 | Attorney General John Ashcroft scored a major legal victory on Monday when a secret appeals court ruled that his Justice Department can spy on Americans – by wiretapping, searching their homes and reading their e-mail, among other measures – without first obtaining a warrant showing probable cause for criminal activity. The decision emboldens the government’s war on terror at home but also raises fresh concerns about privacy and due process.
>
> Ashcroft immediately praised the decision, saying it “revolutionizes our ability to investigate terrorists and prosecute terrorist acts.” He also quickly designated a new FBI unit that will pursue intelligence warrants allowed under the new law. But civil libertarians and defense attorneys warned the ruling will allow the government to freely spy on its citizens, with little or no oversight.
>
> “The problem is it applies an across-the-board, presumptive secrecy,” says David Cole, a professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. In an interview Monday, Cole examined the ruling; described the unique, little-known court at its center; and warned that by lowering the standards needed to spy on citizens, it may prove to be a historic erosion of Fourth Amendment protections.
---
### Author:  [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/14 "2004-03-28T20:10:29Z")
Thanks for the actual case, **Kansas Beekeepper**. Any discussion of a court case based on a television news report is going to get really ugly, really fast.
The basic rationale for the decision is that the Fourth Amendment does not that police officer’s obtain a search warrant before they can conduct a protective sweep of an area they are lawfully in. Since the police were granted consent to enter the trailer (and why is it always a trailer?), their search of a closet to find the man they were looking for was reasonable in light of the circumstances. It seems to me to be a somewhat reasonable extension of the _Buie_ case the allowed protective searches.
Whether or not protective searches can only be conducted pursuant to a search incident to arrest is an interesting question. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court takes it. I doubt they will, but who knows.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/15 "2004-03-28T21:43:41Z")
> [@Chefguy](#):
>
> Yawn. Here’s one of the approximately bazillion hits on Yahoo when one types in “fisa court probable cause”.
Yawn yourself. That’s a dishonest distinction. The court doesn’t require probable cause for criminal ctivities, but it does require probable cause for foreign intelligence activity. So, as I said, probable cause is still required – just not probable cause for criminal activity.
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/16 "2004-03-28T21:52:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> So, as I said, probable cause is still required – just not probable cause for criminal activity.
Are you saying this like it’s a _good_ thing? Or am I misunderstanding you?
---
### Author:  [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/17 "2004-03-28T22:16:36Z")
> [@GaWd](#):
>
> There is no arrest on an infraction.
Yes there is.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Long\_Road](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Long_Road)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/18 "2004-03-28T22:47:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Dammit, **Minty** , stop being reasonable and pass the ammunition!
>
> My memory escapes, but itsn’t this the same place has New Orleans…?
>
> I don’t perzactly…but wadn’t that the same place they got senior policemen on tape setting up _contract hits_!..Lord have mercy!..
> Dr. John thumping out the theme from _Dragnet_.
It was one guy who was involved in drugs. He was recorded ordering a hit on a woman who was going to testify against him.
Everyone is focusing on New Orleans but there is more to Louisiana than just that one city.
---
### Author:  [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/19 "2004-03-28T23:00:09Z")
I seem to remember reading the _Buie_ decision upon which this case is largely predicated and being pissed. In _Buie_ the police, after arresting the suspect, searched the basement “in case there was anyone down there.” Regardless of anything else, that excuse was total bullshit. It’s a basement. Presumably (and also presumably the police would have confirmed this before entering the home) there is one way in and out of the basement. If the police were really concerned that there was some nefarious person in the basement waiting to spring forth and do them an injury, the less intrusive way of assuring that wouldn’t happen would be to either guard the door or close and bar it. The cop in _Buie_ went fishing and SCOTUS let him keep his catch.
This case appears to have been decided completely consistently with _Buie_, which means under the law the judges were correct but the result is IMHO wrong. Ranks right up there with such proud moments in law enforcement as “I smell marijuana.”
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 29, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878/20 "2004-03-29T02:53:58Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#):
>
> Are you saying this like it’s a _good_ thing? Or am I misunderstanding you?
The issue is not ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ I am objecting to **Chefguy** ’s inaccurate characterization of what the Patriot Act does.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-searches-in-louisiana-wtf/236878.md?page=2)