• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is Probable Cause at Risk? Is this a win or a setback?

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
Cops pounding and cursing on the perps door pretty much confirmed that the perp and his aignificant other were not going to be believed not matter what the cops claimed they heard. Those cops were not going to let some piss-ant disrespect them. Waiting for the fire department pretty much confirmed that those cops were not gunna leave those two be until they got some cuffs on somebody, exigent circumstances or not. Those cops, getting disrespected, were gunna get somebody for obstruction. Anyone who thinks the cops, given all of the facts that are available, had any concern for the welfare of those in the perp's home is kidding themselves.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Posted it so you could read it.
The 4A requires a warrant to search.
Plain as day. Even down to the points if specifically naming what the search is for, where, etc.

Can't offer more proof that post it in its entirety to prove a search constitutionally required a warrant.
It does not “require a warrant to search”. Try reading it again.

That may be what people want it to say, but you can’t highlight the words that say a warrant is required to search. Give it a try!
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,248
Location
Kentucky
It does not “require a warrant to search”. Try reading it again.

That may be what people want it to say, but you can’t highlight the words that say a warrant is required to search. Give it a try!
Amendment IV
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, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That was easy.

Yes constitutionally a warrant must be issued describing all the above to do a constitutionally legal search.

You even have to have a warrant for a no knock entry.

These cops reacted to being told no by a lowly citizen. That's it and that's all. They had no authority to enter that home.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
eye95, you need to read Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest.
eye95, how much more do you want to argue? You are not just wrong, you are absolutely wrong.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Amendment IV
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, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That was easy.

Yes constitutionally a warrant must be issued describing all the above to do a constitutionally legal search.

You even have to have a warrant for a no knock entry.

These cops reacted to being told no by a lowly citizen. That's it and that's all. They had no authority to enter that home.
Again, it does not say that a warrant is required to search, just the prerequisites for obtaining a warrant to search. Keep trying.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
eye95, you need to read Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).


eye95, how much more do you want to argue? You are not just wrong, you are absolutely wrong.
I am arguing what the 4A says. I will continue to argue that point, because it simply does not say what you keep insisting that it says.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,248
Location
Kentucky
I am arguing what the 4A says. I will continue to argue that point, because it simply does not say what you keep insisting that it says.
Your wrong. Simple as that. Otherwise police wouldn't bother with ever getting a search warrant and wouldn't have since they were created as union busters.
Now play your word games with someone else. This is too ridiculous to even mess with further.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
People’s behavior does not prove what it says. It’s words prove what it says.

The words of the 4A do not say what has been contended in this thread that they say.

If some would take the time to qualify what they write to be more precise, I could easily agree with them. But I won’t buy into sloppy arguments that state things that are simply not true.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
People’s behavior does not prove what it says. It’s words prove what it says.

The words of the 4A do not say what has been contended in this thread that they say.

If some would take the time to qualify what they write to be more precise, I could easily agree with them. But I won’t buy into sloppy arguments that state things that are simply not true.
I looked up the word "stupid" in the dictionary and there was your picture. You are speaking gobbledygook. You are a sick puppy. The USSC said in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) the police have to have a warrant to enter someones home. And you go "If some would take the time to qualify what they write to be more precise[d] you would agree. So, you don't even believe the United States Supreme Court. What scares me the most is your allowed to be around guns. Maybe we do need red flag laws.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Again, you resort to ad hominem because you can’t make an argument about the actual wording of the 4A.

It’s cool.

Go ahead. Take another shot. It won’t change the fact that the actual words of the 4A don’t say what you claimed they said. This won’t be worth more of my time.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Again, you resort to ad hominem because you can’t make an argument about the actual wording of the 4A.

It’s cool.

Go ahead. Take another shot. It won’t change the fact that the actual words of the 4A don’t say what you claimed they said. This won’t be worth more of my time.
Another idiot post by eye95.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
You are the ones making the positive contention about what it says. It is incumbent upon you two to show that the 4A even requires a warrant to do a search.

However, nowhere have I contended that anyone was trying to do a search without a warrant.

Please don’t argue with that which I did not say.

I you want to disagree with my precise statements, let’s. If not, meh.
Eye95, there you go again exhibiting the bizarre incoherent thought processes...so are you alright?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
... The USSC said in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) the police have to have a warrant to enter someones home. ...
The USSC also decreed that a cop can accost a citizen for nothing other than a "particularized suspicion" in Terry v. Ohio.
The USSC then decreed that the .govs of this country can take your land and give it to another private citizen in Kelo v. New London.
In Heien v. North Carolina the USSC decreed that a cop is not required to know the law, exactly, to be held harmless for not knowing the law and accosting a citizen unlawfully.

Two parts separate and yet connected in my view.
4A - 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, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Similar to the 2A.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The USSC also decreed that a cop can accost a citizen for nothing other than a "particularized suspicion" in Terry v. Ohio.
The USSC then decreed that the .govs of this country can take your land and give it to another private citizen in Kelo v. New London.
In Heien v. North Carolina the USSC decreed that a cop is not required to know the law, exactly, to be held harmless for not knowing the law and accosting a citizen unlawfully.

Two parts separate and yet connected in my view.Similar to the 2A.
Nailed it.

As I have been saying all along, the 4A does not say what it is popularly believed to say, and what has been insisted repeatedly in this thread that it says.

However, if one insisted that the 4A says what court cases say it says, then court cases have routinely stated that, depending upon the circumstances, warrants are not always needed to perform a search. I would go so far as to conclude that most searches deemed constitutional by the courts don’t have a warrant!

So, we are either left with the 4A says what it says, and it does not say that all searches require a warrant. Or we are left with what the courts say the 4A says—and they have defined many types of searches that don’t require warrants!

Thank you for the thoughtful response.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
Nailed it.

As I have been saying all along, the 4A does not say what it is popularly believed to say, and what has been insisted repeatedly in this thread that it says.

However, if one insisted that the 4A says what court cases say it says, then court cases have routinely stated that, depending upon the circumstances, warrants are not always needed to perform a search. I would go so far as to conclude that most searches deemed constitutional by the courts don’t have a warrant!

So, we are either left with the 4A says what it says, and it does not say that all searches require a warrant. Or we are left with what the courts say the 4A says—and they have defined many types of searches that don’t require warrants!

Thank you for the thoughtful response.
Good heavens eye95, do you proof your nonsensical posting to assure coherence, you are slipping again with you comprehension of structured thought.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Nailed it.

As I have been saying all along, the 4A does not say what it is popularly believed to say, and what has been insisted repeatedly in this thread that it says.

However, if one insisted that the 4A says what court cases say it says, then court cases have routinely stated that, depending upon the circumstances, warrants are not always needed to perform a search. I would go so far as to conclude that most searches deemed constitutional by the courts don’t have a warrant!

So, we are either left with the 4A says what it says, and it does not say that all searches require a warrant. Or we are left with what the courts say the 4A says—and they have defined many types of searches that don’t require warrants!

Thank you for the thoughtful response.
Another idiot post by eye95. Now that he lost the argument as to what the 4th amendment actually says and means, in which everybody including eye95 understood was the issue being debated, he seizes on a different aspect of the 4th amendment not being discussed.

Apparently, eye95 has NOT figured out everybody has got his number as a flip-flopper, also known as a social-linguistic disability. This difficulty affects his abstract reasoning and logical thinking process. I knew eye95 had these issues, but I didn't realize it was that bad.

Does the VA offer psychiatric services?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,248
Location
Kentucky
Nailed it.

As I have been saying all along, the 4A does not say what it is popularly believed to say, and what has been insisted repeatedly in this thread that it says.

However, if one insisted that the 4A says what court cases say it says, then court cases have routinely stated that, depending upon the circumstances, warrants are not always needed to perform a search. I would go so far as to conclude that most searches deemed constitutional by the courts don’t have a warrant!

So, we are either left with the 4A says what it says, and it does not say that all searches require a warrant. Or we are left with what the courts say the 4A says—and they have defined many types of searches that don’t require warrants!

Thank you for the thoughtful response.
You do realize that nothing in oc 's post mentioned searches don't you?.

A. Terry stop isn't a search per Dr.
It's only addresses when a cop can stop a person on the street based on suspicion of committing or about to commit a crime.

The rest has to do with imminent domain
 
Top