missing child = warrantless search ?

[PMB]

The fourth amendment states "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".

This does not include land, it has been fought and people have lost this battle many times in court. I am not saying it is right, I am stating the facts.

I have not researched this and am not familiar with court precedents... So my experience is anecdotal.
But when a certain LE agency in my area wanted to search a piece of bare land that I own for a druggy corpse based on a "tip" from another druggy, I was contacted ahead of time and asked whether I need to see a search warrant or if I would be ok with them performing the search without one.
I gave the verbal go ahead and they performed their search.

My property is not fenced or gated and is even adjacent to some state land.
They did not suspect me in any way, shape or form... it was in regards to a murder of a druggy by another druggy, who told police that he dumped the body up in the forest.

So again, I am not a legal scholar but my limited experience seems to fall in line with the need for a search warrant before performing a search on private land.
The fact that searches, seizures and trespasses occur every day without warrants all over this great land does not mean that land owner rights are not being violated.

Court rulings are like a kaleidoscope. Occasionally gross violations are passed off as "fine" by courts... on both sides of the law. Obviously guilty people walk free on technicalities and obvious violations of rights by LE are waived.
In other cases, people win millions for not knowing their hot coffee was hot and being clumsy.
Sometimes parents spend time in jail for not being able to pay a fine for something their truant child did. Sometimes great parents raise hellion children. Sometimes hellion parents turn out great kids.

It is definitely in the public's and society's best interest for LE to obtain a warrant before searching private property, with the above mentioned caveats excepted.
-Pursuit during the commission of a crime
-Immediate danger to life
and probably a few more.

Unfortunately, common sense and good thinking doesn't rule the day here. Folks on all sides trying to look for technicalities and ways out and advantages for themselves has led us to this litigious and bankrupt situation.

[Mohawk13]

See above Post By PMB. This is proper procedure...What the problem seems to be are these half wit Police who think they are above the law. Precedence has been set against land search without warrants..I'll dig them up and post them when I find them......

[mcyclonegt]

We can't twist words to make an amendment work in our favor. If we do, we are no better than the people that say, "the second amendment does not say you can have a assault rifle". A warrant does not need to be issued to search land, if so, we would be justified in shooting people for knocking on our door. A person would loose that court battle every time.

[TechnoWeenie]

We can't twist words to make an amendment work in our favor. If we do, we are no better than the people that say, "the second amendment does not say you can have a assault rifle". A warrant does not need to be issued to search land, if so, we would be justified in shooting people for knocking on our door. A person would loose that court battle every time.

It all comes down to what's reasonable.

walkways and driveways are considered public for the short period of time needed to approach the house and knock on the door. Such an 'invasion' wouldn't be unreasonable if no signs were posted advising to keep out.

They're claiming exigent circumstances, an immediate threat to life, for the justification of going in peoples' backyards without warrant.

But, if that's the case, where does it stop?

TWICE in the past couple of years, highways/roadways have been shutdown, and people pulled out of their cars at gunpoint, to find an armed robber that may/may not have been in the mass of detained people.

So, where does it stop?

If backyard is OK, why not the house? Why not under the bed in the house? why not in the trunk of a car?

[mcyclonegt]

I never said it was right. I agree that it opens the door for abuse as does any alteration of clear and concise laws. I feel that the property line should be the boundary. I would have a door bell at my property line and should be able to decide who come on my property, not just my house. This would sure throw a kink the the Jehovah Witness thing. I assume you are talking about Boston. That was a fucked up deal, I would have had a major issue with that, and I would be filing charges, if I weren't dead for shooting back.

[norahc]

It doesn't stop....that's the whole point. There is a noticeable and prevalent belief in law enforcement that the 4th Amendment interferes with their ability to do their job, or puts their safety at risk. NEWSFLASH: The 4th Amendment is supposed to interfere with law enforcement's ability to do their job...that is it's whole purpose.

Look at the door to door search in Boston a couple of years ago. How many warrants were obtained for those searches? Or even look at the recent Supreme Court decision about law enforcement needing a warrant to search a cell phone...and then look at what law enforcement officials have said about the decision and how it affects them.

[PMB]

We can't twist words to make an amendment work in our favor. If we do, we are no better than the people that say, "the second amendment does not say you can have a assault rifle". A warrant does not need to be issued to search land, if so, we would be justified in shooting people for knocking on our door. A person would loose that court battle every time.

Here is the process that I subscribe to in interpretation of laws : In all cases that need to be decided, lean towards individual liberty and away from government authority.

I firmly believe that this is what the Founding Fathers intended, and I support and defend that belief by their own writings.

In this case, I interpret their list of things that cannot be searched broadly as private property. I understand that others will interpret it differently.

It is not a double standard or contradictory to say that
(1)we the people have the Natural Right to keep and bear all arms necessary for the defense of self, family and nation equal to the arms carried by the well-equipped foot soldier and LE who are in our service, and also to say that
(2)the list of items in the Bill of Rights that are secure from unreasonable search and seizure is not complete.

Indeed, those two statements are supportive of each other... Not contradictory.

[lamrith]

am

We can't twist words to make an amendment work in our favor. If we do, we are no better than the people that say, "the second amendment does not say you can have a assault rifle". A warrant does not need to be issued to search land, if so, we would be justified in shooting people for knocking on our door. A person would loose that court battle every time.

Your argument is pointless.. Large difference between open land front of a home and a FENCED IE LOCKED/SECURED piece of property behind a home. A locked SECURED area is not open to public or search, just like the trunk of you car. I could understand them maybe looking over the fence in this situation, MAYBE, if they have so reason to think the kid is there.. Place kid familiar with etc.. but NOT entering a FENCED area.

[Xirxious]

Fenced in vs a fence that a 6'2" officer could look over are different matters. They assume the heck out of anything. Suppose they see a shoe one of YOUR kids left out? They think its a clue and in an effort to 'protect the children' they storm your house. You had a fence, but since it didn't obscure the line of sight from officer TooTall, it's legal. It would be nice to set up a fine system for the cops. If I accidentally do 63 in a 55 mph zone, I owe them $200. If they run through my yard with out a warrant, I get $200. Hey, a guy can dream....

It comes down to the word reasonable, its a grey area. If they're looking for a kid and find a cock-fighting game in your back yard, (not a pride week pun) they can't prosecute you, but do you think they will try? Or let it continue?

[Tombrewster421]

We can't twist words to make an amendment work in our favor. If we do, we are no better than the people that say, "the second amendment does not say you can have a assault rifle". A warrant does not need to be issued to search land, if so, we would be justified in shooting people for knocking on our door. A person would loose that court battle every time.

Here is the process that I subscribe to in interpretation of laws : In all cases that need to be decided, lean towards individual liberty and away from government authority.

I firmly believe that this is what the Founding Fathers intended, and I support and defend that belief by their own writings.

In this case, I interpret their list of things that cannot be searched broadly as private property. I understand that others will interpret it differently.

It is not a double standard or contradictory to say that
(1)we the people have the Natural Right to keep and bear all arms necessary for the defense of self, family and nation equal to the arms carried by the well-equipped foot soldier and LE who are in our service, and also to say that
(2)the list of items in the Bill of Rights that are secure from unreasonable search and seizure is not complete.

Indeed, those two statements are supportive of each other... Not contradictory.

+1

[PMB]

We can't twist words to make an amendment work in our favor.

After posting that last comment, it occurred to me that I missed the big point. I understand your use of the word "twist"... But I think that it is inappropriate in this case because it causes a prejudice without need.

No one likes folks who "twist" words.

But interpreting the Bill of Rights as they were intended is not "twisting" words in my opinion. Because legal "scholars" and litigious folks have twisted words throughout history, even absolutely clear phrases like "shall not be infringed" are parsed and inspected and scrutinized for purposes other than ensuring individual liberty.

The Bill of Rights should never be used to limit The People's Rights... They are intended to limit government's ability to infringe our Natural Rights.

[mash man]

A missing kid trumps your sandy vagina when it comes to looking in your backyard

[MadPick]

A missing kid trumps your sandy vagina when it comes to looking in your backyard

Are you saying that you think the backyard search is legal?

Or that it doesn't matter if it's legal?

[norahc]

A missing kid trumps your sandy vagina when it comes to looking in your backyard

Are you saying that you think the backyard search is legal?

Or that it doesn't matter if it's legal?

Or does it mean that the cry of "for the children" trumps everything else?

[root]

A missing kid trumps your sandy vagina when it comes to looking in your backyard

No. Not really.