Supreme Court Shuts Down Police Entering Your Home Without Warrant
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 06. 2021
- This term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Caniglia v. Strom, a case about the “community caretaking” exception to the general principle that police need a warrant before entering a home. In today’s episode, we talk about what the government and the property owner argued in that case and what the Court ruled. We also dig into the history of the community caretaking doctrine and the biggest current threats to Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure.
Host: Melanie Hildreth
Guests: IJ Senior Attorney Robert Frommer and IJ Attorney Joshua Windham
More podcasts: ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-pod...
Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom-directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how-and why-we do what we do.
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0...
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=...
Sticher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/inst...
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv
Sticher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr
What were the total legal costs ?
On the issue of "community caretaking" & "ensuring safety", the Supreme Court ruled after Sandy Hook that the cowards in uniform that did not enter the school to end the shooting of children & babies were UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect the children or the public. This myth MUST be dispelled at every opportunity
It's not that they have a bias toward government. They have a vested financial interest in allowing the abuse.
Every “Extenuating circumstance” or “emergency” to get around our protected rights is a violation of our rights.
Ryan Korn Excellent point. The Judicial Branch was not originally designed to be the de facto authority on constitutionality and actively avoided this role as much as possible for a few decades. In fact, The Bill of Rights was intended to be clear cut to all citizens and is the codification of the truths we hold to be self-evident as declared in the Declaration of Independence, of which we have the supreme mission statement of our nation and a mandate for the We The People to actively police this government of ours, dissolving it when it fails and erecting an improved one if necessary.
Of course, to put this duty to the test would most certainly be met with the most inflexible resistance that our institutional government could muster
The fact this had to go all the way up the courts is disturbing.
What's disturbing is that mayors are allowed to tell police to let rioters loot and burn and there is no legal remedy for such irresponsible action. Police pushing the boundaries of what they can do is the result of lack of support from politicians and now the courts are having to step in and reaffirm what some of those boundaries are.
@@Catubrannos , BS
I don't think it's mayors so much as the judges appointed over the past 4 years were ultra conservative - many times completely unqualified - yet politics being what it is, were appointed anyway. And now we're reaping the results of that ignorance.
Hence, the "unanimous" decision..."If we allow them to do THIS, WE won't be needed, anymore..."
@@Catubrannos
How does the political differences of mayors and other officials cause cops to ignore they are clearly outside legal behavior?
And this sort of clearly illegal behavior is part of why cops have so much hate directed at them.
Police can break into your home for a "welfare check" but at the same time they have
no obligation to guarantee your personal safety. (As per a Supreme Court ruling)
Can't have it BOTH ways !
Exactly, either they have a legal obligation to protect me...or they don't. Which is it???
"Can't have it both ways!" Actually, they do whatever they want.
@@BlankBrain : FACTS.
: MARTIAL-LAW-THEATRE.
FOR THE [EX]PIRATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS WITH THE DATE-POSITION: NOVEMBER-~2-~1999.
Welfare check report: "We went for a welfare check and he didnt want to let us in so we shot him."
@@natehill8069 lol right
The idea that *THE POLICE are qualified* to perform "caretaking" functions in the home is insane. Their training is slanted toward violence and *physical* control, not "health and welfare".
Josh made a really good point when he referenced "security" and the founder's "original intent". The writers of the Constitution were very *particular* about the language they used. *The words they used* in the Constitution and Bill of Rights *have MEANING* and must be considered.
It isn't because of their training, it's because their loyalty is to the state and not the ppl.
i have a disabled brother unfortunately living in an aged persons facility, who was being abused by staff. The minute I found out, I rang police to ask them to go do a welfare check. They point blank, with a bad attitude- refused.
They said “he’s in a care facility that has staff to look after him… so no we’re not going in…”
So there’s the double standard.
@@daexion And the distinction between the state and the people was made concrete in statutory law and judicial malfeasance over a two hundred years ago.
Otherwise, the Constitution makes it quite clear... The people ARE the state.
@@InJusticeAustralia That's official misconduct. You have knowledge, and presumably evidence of violence being conducted upon someone. The police have a duty to investigate. There a failure of process.
Their training is slanted toward violence and physical control, not "health and welfare". CORRECT!
It's amazing this even needed to go to the Supreme Court, the Constitution is so clear.
They want a law where they can simply claim “public safety” to circumnavigate a persons rights.
Don't forget the holy of holies: "Officer Safety"
It's upsetting that this had to go to SCOTUS to be resolved. The police should be fired and the judges that supported this should be disbarred and permanently removed from the bench.
Amen!
The fact that it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court is scary.
Accountability is for people not led by Nazi's
It cost the guy more & more $ every step of the way.
"Feedom isn't free, and justice can prove costly as well"
That guy had to spend a lot of money to get his property back.
I'm sure he learned from it; never take a cops word for anything
The Supreme Court is run by irrelevant ungodly people, so that makes The Supreme Court irrelevant also.
@@jupitercyclops6521 the government knows that the average person doesn't have the financial resources to fight back.
It just shows how corrupt the first district court is.
Police: "If we have a certain idea in our heads, it's an exception."
SCOTUS: "Um, no."
Politicians: Take away all of their guns, THEN "ask" again...?
It'll be nice when the government recognizes that if I pay taxes on it, it's mine. That means the whole property, not just inside the home.
the problem is, why do you have to pay taxes on things that aren't yours?
Stop paying your property taxes and see what the government does.
EXACTLY....
Re: "It'll be nice when the government recognizes that if I pay taxes on it, it's mine. " NOT going to happen since the government already recognizes that if you pay taxes on it, that means you are renting it from the government.
@@dezznutz3743 THEY SHOW UP TO TAKE IT...KILL THEM!
UNTIL WE TAKE OUR NATION FROM THE DAMN TYRANT, WE WILL NEVER BE MORE THAN SELF-SUPPORTED SLAVES!
EMPLOYEES HAVE NO GOD DAMN RIGHTS!
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" -Patrick Henry
It's a shame that we have to fight for rights that we already have, given an inch,they take a mile, goes for all political positions too.
Hopefully, the "unanimous" part got it across...The Scotus can see exactly where this is going...Nowhere good! "When the Patriot Gov't, becomes the tyrant they were disposing..."
Sadly, our rights, our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights are something that we have to defend in every generation because it’s not automatic.
Exactly!
Give satan an inch and he will steal your ruler!
@@joyceobeys6818 I had been waiting so long for the world to change ...that I ended up stealing all its clothes and running off with them.
My guess is, if we (The people) stopped supporting the two major parties and started supporting each other, we wouldn't have these problems. They keep us divided and walk all over us.
The judge in the Cali case specifically said that the cops could *not* examine the boxes, and then they turn around do a "civil" asset forfeiture on the contents of the boxes.
It started with an "inventory" to protect contents of safe deposit boxes then went to Civil Asset Forfeiture when they found insane amounts of cash, gold, jewelry, etc. This safe deposit box case was in Beverly Hills CA, FBI knew there would be boatloads of money and didn't mind violating Judges instructions to get their greedy hands on it. Fourtinualy all the attention this case has drawn is forcing the start of returning the property.
@@rsmith3062 Later it was discovered that FBI intended to take contents of all of those boxes from the very start. They decided that before they applied for a warrant; they lied on a warrant application about their intended actions regarding contents of the boxes; and then they got a warrant which explicitly spelled out that the contents is not covered by same warrant and not to be touched (other that to inventory it with sole purpose of returning it to the owners) and they went and took it all. And no one has been held responsible, criminally or in civil court (yet; hopefully there's going to be an appeal on that lawsuit).
Then the district court judge actually said this was okay. It was then struck down by the appeals court because the warrant literally said contents are excluded. Corrupt-ass district judge.
I can guarantee that the police didn't actually think that this was Community Caretaking at the time, and only came up with that excuse later on when the complaint came in
obviously their lawyers came up with that
This is all the idiotic “red flag” laws that liberal cities and states have instituted. Let’s declare anyone who owns guns as a “possible threat” if there is any domestic incident. Basically one part of the effort to remove legally owned guns from the citizens.
Abso-fucking-lutely they did.
@UCz-o0Awt__SYWAaQOhXqOCw you are a moron if you think police had to use red flag laws to abuse this citizen's rights.
Yup they can break the law without any real consequences.
George Bush and sensenbrenner basically wiped out the 4th amendment with the Patriot Act
Laws not made in pursuance of the Constitution are null and void.
The Patriot Act nullified the CONSTITUTION within 15 miles of the nation's border and the Obama administration expanded that to 100 miles. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL crisis and must be repealed as a it violates not only the constitution but also the unification act of 1866 after the civil war. The PATRIOT ACT was and is the authority for the government creating a police state. The same thing happened with Hitler and Germany.
Stolen power has no authority. “ whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” Thomas Jefferson
“For the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them... so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration... The obvious tendency and inevitable result... would be, to transform the present Republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” James Madison
They got help from congress.
This is why you NEVER CALL THE POLICE! they aren't there to help you, they always find something to get you on.
Right my particular favorite is.
If you do t have anything to hide??
There to harass people not help
The vast majority of the time they (police) only make shit way worse.
When you consider the fact judges hand out warrants like candy on Halloween I'm not sure how much difference this makes.
However, it would no longer be the arbitrary decision of a nosy bully of a cop on the spot. If they actually have to take the time to get a warrant we are infinitely more protected.
Judges can be voted out or impeached. There is a sliver of public accountability with a warrant
We want police to protect the constitution, THEN the public. No ONE person is worth the breaking of our constitution.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
the supreme court ruled in 1989 that the police have NO DUTY to protect you.
We are protected by the constitution and our well -being is none of the cops business.
It should be but it is the courts that have raped and pillaged the constitution to be as diluted as it has become. With the supreme court being worse when it becomes a subject that they deem could harm their political career either with their fellow politicians, Their paid lobbyist's, or the voters. By just straight up ignoring to allow the case to continue as to not have a verdict on it to begin with, placing it in a place that's not illegal but is legal indefinitely. Removing remedy all together, that's when they don't slide in sneaky tactics that dilute it further like re interpreting something even though theirs nothing to interpret to begin with because it has already been interpreted in most cases. And as far as the constitution it says what it says their is no interpreting just reading and enforcement for the most part.
@@fransmith8992 what case was that because as far as I'm aware many supreme court cases have upheld a cop does have a duty to protect, and to not so is neglect at the least and criminal at the worst, of course they have multiple duty's like lawyers so it wouldn't surprise me if much like lawyers the duty of the person is the very last.
That's a big win.
it should scare you that it even went to the Supreme Court!
Who'd uh thunk our SCOTUS still had civilians constitutional rights on their mind?!
@@bucksteingold4334 they have to throw you a bone once in awhile to not look totally corrupted
@@lisamarie4452 Right?! Too bad they refused to evaluate ANYTHING about the recent voting thingie for our current you know what...
@@lisamarie4452
>>... "they have to throw you a bone once in awhile to not look totally corrupted"
.
Right, right! Zactly!
Hell, even Trump the Stump was smart enough to realize *that*!
The fact that this case had to go to the Supreme Court indicates the level of ignorance of and apathy toward consitutional law on the part of the lower courts that is outrageous and infuriating.
We haven’t followed the constitution for many years; The Patriot Act finally ended all protections.
The supreme court didnt have to do that, the constitution already did.
Tell that to the gun control laws
@@crosisofborg5524 that contradict the constitution so are invalid?
When was the last time you told a cop about your constitutional rights and he said "Oh ok you know you are right, I'll just stop it and be on my way...?" We have a supreme court because people tend to listen more to a bunch of old people in black robes more than a citizen attempting to exercise their rights.
@@charlesstidham2788 It's good to finalize it, but we needed to courts to referee and resolve the disputes on what the law actually says.
The constitution has been reinterpreted to be extremely different than the founder's intent.
How many "Welfare Checks" ended in the person being killed?
I worked at a dialysis facility with seriously ill adults. If someone didn't show up twice for treatment and I couldn't get a relative or friend to check than I called the police.I think that was appropriate.
@@denisehall4818, makes no sense that there isn’t an outreach program with these types of clinics. Police are ill equipped for such duties.
@@henryhenderson7051 I was also a social worker/attendance officer in the New Orleans public schools mandated with supervising students attendance.I had to make home visits to students who were awol.I guess that that should stop too.
@@denisehall4818 Yes, it should. Sounds like you were into the whole perceived authority aspect. I would be willing to bet you lied a few times to cover your own ass.
@@denisehall4818 When I was young if you did not show up at school the truant officer would call your parents.
We all have this silly notion that law enforcement should be limited by THE LAW! Constitution is dying in a gutter.
Yup!
Those lunatic imbecile incompetent cops should be limited by the law.
Their job is to enforce those limitations!
Not their feelings!
There are still some real officers.
There are also cops out there that are nothing more than a police of $#^+!
That's why there are so many rules of law out there to keep ad littimus cops aware that they have some limitations to keep the constitution from hanging on a string and ending up in the ditch.
How could this have ever become a question?!
How does this fly when the Supreme Court has ruled police have no obligation to protect or help you. How is there such thing after that as a community safety exception.
Well, there isn’t one. The cops and lower courts made it up. For cars on the highway, I don’t know if they find any drugs or anything they can use it as evidence while community care taking. But threshold always been highest for homes, not cars.
The issue here is, The Declaration of Independence clearly states that The Government is responsible to protect the citizen from other citizens or people. So how can the Supreme Court legally make such a ruling, except they are communist marxists eroding America from inside the guvuhment?😂
If the supreme Court made such a ruling, the military generals need to charge and arrest each of the justices that made such a ruling and charge them with treason and subject them for subverting America, as the nation is in a state of war. Which George withdrew rights and freedoms from American citizens being we're at war, so the Generals need to file charges and send for their arrest.😂
Why would they call them justices anyway being it seems they have a conflict of interest with justice?
here is a reference: mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again
@@Noone-rt6pw I think you're wrong. You're looking into this from an angle. The police felt there was no emergency to enter and seize the property of the plaintiff. So they entered anyway? That's wrong.
@@TheBooban The threshold should apply to vehicles also.
Reason being is far too many people live in their cars due to whatever reason.
The vehicle is their abode.
A strange side effect of the Texas Stand Your Ground law. Allowed the unlicensed transportation of concealed weapons in a vehicle because the vehicle was considered an extension of the Castle doctrine, as many people were living in their vehicles.
Imagine that cops not wanting to follow the law.
..... and ignoring the typical end of month panic when cops are knowingly going to fail in their accumulation of "required employment performance criteria" (used to be called $$ quotas).
We already have elected sherrifs, we don't need 800,000 theives posing as "cops"
@@rustyshackleford2902 I couldn't agree more.
You don't need to imagine, just read the news or follow the case law.
@@rustyshackleford2902 I am from the UK and I do not understand this electing sherrifs business. Why is it not a job, advertised to the best candidate rather than being a political popularity contest?
They only seem to be interested in "caring for the community" when it involves violating someone's rights, with a very few exceptions. That's why everybody is getting fed up with police
On the safety deposit box case. I have heard that the warrant specifically excluded the boxes themselves. But the Feds went ahead and took them anyway.
Yep, I think Steve Lehto did a video on it.
@@thundercricket4634 I believe that's where I heard it. I sometimes listen to Lehto,sometimes to Viva Frie ( Viva and Barns together on most Sundays), and sometimes a few others.
This is an absolute win as long as the headline isn't misleading
It's pretty forward but they go into details as to what the current exclusions are.
It's misleading. The scope of the decision was far from the sweeping claim in the headline. It's a good decision, just not nearly as broad as implied by IFJ's rather Clickbait headline.
IJ is very reliable. For misleading titles check out msnbc/cnn.
@@urbanstuff9950 And Fox News
It IS misleading. This change only applies to specific misdemeanors. It's not a "BIG WIN" at all.
If judges would stop legislating from the bench we wouldnt have this problem.
If police would stop legislating from their position behind a badge, gun and taser WE WOULDN’T HAVE THIS PROBLEM.
If judges never started legislating our unalienable rights away; This would have never been a problem...
This is what the Rowe vs. Wade case is really about. The supreme court created the precedent with their ruling and eventually all other courts across the country began to do the same. It was never about abortion in the first place, it was the destruction of frozen embryos of a couple who were in a divorce proceeding, look it up for yourself.
DOING THE WORK!!!!
THANKS IFJ !!!!!
Yeah, "police taking care of the community". Tell me when it happens.
Of the many encounters I have had with them there was one time a wise and righteous officer who did help me get back stolen goods. I thanked him and let his boss and a couple coworkers know how good he was.
Oh I forgot there was another time. I was a re as lot and going door to door canvassing because I had recently sold two homes in the neighborhood. I spoke to many people and when someone was not home I left a card with my picture on it. The next thing I knew I was surrounded by cops who drew their weapons on me and kept trying to escalate the situation. Finally an officer got in front of them and kept insisting that they put their guns away.
That officer then gave me a ride to my car and let me know that he was the last honest cop in the county. He also told me that they had already gotten rid of the other good cops.
The next time I saw him he had quit the department and got into real estate where he was doing well.
FYI That was Prince George's county Maryland.
Thing is once you tell cops "there is an exception" suddenly everything will become that exception. Also remeber they are just city employees, not magical safety protector gods who are any more knowledgeable or pious to not abuse "exceptions"
Yep. Proof = civil forfeiture laws.
What's to stop them from barging into anyone's house and taking anything they want under this care doctrine?
Correct the police will abuse the exception and lie about it.
And let's not forget its impossible for a cop to lie in court ,magical indeed
Citizen Rule Exception to The Exclusionary rule.......this is why the cops and feds and military all stuff their fat face into DOJ's illegal Community Policing Program (all citizens who sometimes carry reserve deputy Sheriff's badges while also pretending to be working for a Security firm contracting with The Gov). Community Policing means illegally obtained info will be disseminated to the cops who will protect the anonymity of those "stiffing the call" under the rubric "that we need to protect crime victims"????
The cops are suggesting that commie Community Policemen (civilians without badges) are.....crime victims as they bug, wiretap, monitor spy cameras in homes for decades, track vehicles to facilitate gang stalking, etc.....and they are suggesting that anonymity has to be used to protect the Commie Community gumshoe slimeballs who are all tied to the cops, military, National Guard, etc.
It's totally unconstitutional to run DOJ's Commie Community Policing they way it's being run.......and this all facilitates the destruction of due process when Judicial punk scum, idiotic clown prosecutors, and bozo the clown Public Defendors.....all pretend that the Defendant recieved due process under the Discovery order issued by the Judge.
That's how the courts run.......plea bargains based on Brady violations-due process.
They don't have to rescue people so no..we don't want cops "caretaking"
The only time I will call the police is if I need someone killed
@@HellNoMoreBiden Bingo!
Caretaking means killing on the spot
>>... no.. we don't want cops "caretaking"
.
In fact, the smartest amongst us don't want "a standing army" AT ALL!
@@D-FensDogG so, abolish the military?
its videos like this that have opened my eyes about my rights. I had no idea. Please continue to educate us about important matters. Thank you
Police who are performing "Community Care" should immediately loose power of arrest for that person and property.
It blows my mind how many times they have to "decide" this!!! It was "decided" when the bill of rights was drafted and it is plainly put and no room for interpretation!
Their doing anything they want no matter what. Nobody is making them do anything else! Free for all!
No actually the Fourth Amendment is very vague, and leaves it up to court decisions as to what reasonable searches are. Again the SC in their infinite lack of wisdom interpreted this very narrowly. The real question is why, if the wife is the one that called the police the next morning, and also accompanied and assisted with the search, wasn't this considered a consent search, which would still be legal under the exceptions.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn I know I'm being more patronizing about the whole matter as of course it's original wording hardly even scrapes surface of applications to modern day especially such a businesses, land, rentals, guest space etc but on its bare bones this seems truly straightforward as it is quite the most common of scenario but I do agree with that aspect of argument and am surprised it wasn't raised just like exigent circumstances but either way to go in after the fact and also seize property is entirely outside of the spectrum of whether or not wife's consent could have been given. She can't consent to giving someone else's property and she likely never consented to entry or search at all, just call for the domestic. That is an interesting angle though.
@@east-endjustice7883 Actually it wasn't after the fact that the Police went in and seized the firearms. It was the day after the incident between the wife and husband but it was contemporaneous with when the police were called to check on his welfare, when they convinced him to go to the hospital. She was afraid he committed suicide, and had the police meet her at the house . The wife has totally equal rights to consent as long as she lived there, including surrendering something she believed may have been a danger to her. If it was acquired during their marriage it would also be considered marital property. Also the wife not only accompanied the police she also assisted them in searching for the guns. That sounds like consent to me. Pretty much anyone staying in a house can give permission to the police to enter including children and houseguests and even to search areas they normally have use of. I have mixed feelings on this issue. LE regularly seizes firearms from people taken for psych evaluations or domestic disputes supposedly for safe keeping. The whole case was initiated because the Police originally wouldn't give back his guns and even the lower courts that ruled for the government on this case, stated that there should have been some remedy provided for him to get the guns returned. I have mixed feelings about this decision. It actually could lead to a lot more police intrusion through the use of search warrants etc... What happens when a judge issues a restraining order that the person is not allowed to possess any firearms? Is he going to automatically going to issue a search warrant as well? A search warrant would authorize a search of the house any where any firearm could be. Now generally they just tell the person to surrender or dispose of them until the case is resolved. Now every time an LEO feels someone needs to be committed, are they going to request a search warrant?
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn The police did not have the right to take the husband's property without his permission.
They got a badge and a gun. The warrant is just a formality. Stinking drunk with power.
My badge is just as shiny! Life is 100% Predator or Prey. Assume Your Position
They will lie to secure the warrant anyways. They are the worst of society. They get off on fucking up lives.
Psychopathic pieces of shit!
Amazing work. Thank you for safeguarding our rights.
Brilliant! Thank you all!
law enforcement assumes that just because something is legal under one circumstance, does NOT mean it applies to all circumstances regardless of the situation. if a criminal act is NOT suspected, there is no authorization for a search and seizure without a warrant.
That last idea is flawed because cops Always suspect a crime. Or worse, they are Convinced there is a crime if they can only search it out, however illegally.
somewhat related, what about the "civil asset forfeiture" laws?
in my mind, they are evil.
Nothing short of State sanctioned, taxpayer-funded armed robbery.
Obama stopped it then Jeff Sessions reenacted it. I don't know what the present status is.
I could never understand any court upholding a forfeiture law that does not require evidence of criminal activity and there for no arrest or criminal charge , but assets seized regardless is in itself criminal behavior sanctioned by the court who are themselves now in breach of the law.
It's another way to rip people off! THEY lie they manufacture ways to do it, falsify paper work, our taxes that pay them is still not enough! THEY are a business with so many ways to screw us!
The patriot act has allowed them to spy on us in our houses for no real reason! While they continue to collect no matter what it takes! Is your power bill high? Guess what? You're in collections with out due process!
So the cops promised they wouldn't go into his home and take his guns and once he left they broke their promise and went in anyway? Wow, what a shocker....*yawn*....
Trust no cop. They are known liars. Nothing they say or do can be taken at face value.
My friend dialed "911" and while he was waiting he decided it wasn't an emergency. He hung up and dialed the non-emergency number. Five minutes later the police were at his door demanding to enter and search his house saying it fell under their Community Caretaking function (911 hang-up). My friend refused to give his permission for them to enter his house and search it, but they did it anyway. They didn't find anything, but I always thought this was unconstitutional, and an abuse by the police.
What about warrantless raids in the middle of the night, where inhabitants think they are being attacked, pick up weapons, and are killed by heavily armed officers - who after the fact realize that they had the wrong address?
Excellent question
Warrantless raids?.....
Not to mention, the reaction time it would take for the victim to wake up, assess the situation, register what's happening, decide what to do, create a plan, react and move to act out said plan would be such that by that point the police would already be on top of them yelling at them to put stay down
@@belladeive5350 If the resident has a gun they would likely go for it and be taken down. Also, if a dog approaches them, it is SOP to take it out.
I don't know if those types of raids are warrantless, but even if the cops have a warrant, they should not be allowed to do the 3 am break down the door raid the house entry. You're right that people can be killed unnecessarily. It was very wrong of the FBI to raid the houses of Paul Manafort and Roger Smith in the manner which they did. Neither was a danger to society or had a history of violence. Both could have been arrested peacefully while leaving their homes. The FBI was just using bully tactics to intimidate the general public because they can and the judges who issued their warrants should have not allowed the FBI to arrest them in the manner which they did. These were two examples of why people hate police, the FBI and govt in general.
I have always supported our police and military, but to the extent that these practices are allowed and cops that step over the line (or obey unlawful practices) are tolerated, the closer we come to a police state, where all that are left are thugs to be feared or resisted. I am nearly 70 years old, and grew up in the most wonderful nation on earth, but this breaks my heart.
Thank you Institute of justice for all the hard work you have done and being on the front lines in the trenches
Wait, didn't the 4th amendment cover this since long ago? I don't understand how or why this has become an issue.
Yeah, since 1789 😬
Your're assuming the government masters follow laws!
@@jimmcgrath8417 not as much as I was HOPING that the U.S. Constitution still had some measure of value or significance. Apparently swearing your oath to uphold it is nothing more than a formality now days.
You’d think, right? I mean, it’s not a complicated amendment, it doesn’t randomly mention militias and the phrasing is old-timey but sounds perfectly clear to my ears. But here we are, with civil asset forfeiture and random “community care means constitution go shredder.”
Democrats don't want you to have any rights. That's why it's a problem. Over the last five years, Democrats have quite literally attacked our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and as of recently, even our 6th amendment rights. That's how crazy these people are.
Given law enforcement's oft, and well documented contempt for the Constitution, and the RIGHTS contained within it, that we once thought were sacrosanct, IS THERE ANY reason to believe that they will abide by this ruling?
When those in law enforcement are taught that the Constitution is a meaningless scrap of paper that has no relevance in these days of domestic terrorism (and we know whom the DOJ, the FBI, and Homeland Security has labeled as such), it will remain "business as usual" within all levels and agencies of law enforcement.
Given *the government's oft, and well documented contempt for the Constitution...
Its not just law enforcement. Its the entire government.
@@harisa.8697 it always has. more an issue of money than :race'
@@harisa.8697 Yup! 1000%! When it was happening to "those people" it was okay and ignored because "that would never happen to me because I would never...." What they don't understand is when the rest of America allows this to happen "over there", is that it sets the precedence for it to be used against everyone latter. I say that because I remember as a young teen the police just busting into people homes and apartments "looking for crack dealers or users". It was allowed because it was on the news happening to those people. Now it took the S.C to stop the madness.
@@orppranator5230 you are absolutely right, the only time government screams about the constitution is when these buffoons are trying to back door it in some way or another.
Damn I don't know what part of the country you live in that cop's are that way..because where I'm located..yes there are a few bad apple's but those kind of officer's don't last long because once they are caught violating people's right's and they are held to account!!!!
My home is my castle and I have a right to use *whatever force is necessary* to keep unwanted people out.
So then... they could just walk into everyone's house and take anything they want and claim it's under this doctrine??
Yes.
The explanation is crafted later.
Question: How do you get both conservatives and liberals in the supreme court to agree on something and vote 9-0?
Answer: Violate someone's fourth amendment right to seize their guns.
Answer - #2 “what’s for lunch today?”
4th and 2nd.
@@nunyabiznez6381 And 5th
"That moment you realize the only thing keeping your neck from a noose, are the PEOPLE you have been denying rights from..." "Wait a minute, guys/gals, I think we are protecting the wrong people here...I THINK we are here to protect the CITIZENS from the GOV'T?"
@@mr.skeleton3190 EQI. END QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; Fixed it for you!
I remember a situation where I did not have a warrant but I entered a house. I saw a big bong clearly through a window. (This is early 80s and pot was still illegal.) I was afraid it was going be destroyed so I thought I had exigent circumstances.
NOT!!!
The whole situation turned into the biggest FUBAR of my LEO career.
4 agencies were called for backup. Whilst trying to physically restrain a subject who had just punched me, another officer swung his side handle baton and hit me instead of the other person. My right arm was useless.
When all was said and done everything that happened from my viewing the big bong was thrown out. This included all the arrests that resulted from the free-for-all that occurred.
My handcuffs disappeared along with the dude I arrested.
My right arm was in a cast and I was suspended for a week without pay for my actions.
I shared all this to say one very important thing. I was wrong. I overstepped my authority as a Deputy Sheriff.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in place for a reason. To reign in overreaching government. I'm glad SCOTUS ruled as they did.
Now they need to reaffirm, "shall not be infringed." You do not need to be a Supreme Court Justice to understand the meaning of that phrase. It is what it is and says what it says. Do not infringe (i.e. mess with, alter, supress, change the meaning of, ignore, etc.)
Just because the 2nd Amendment does not fit your world view does not allow for its becoming toothless.
As I learned the meaning of the 4th Amendment that evening so too should those who try and subvert the 2nd Amendment.
As you share, though it made us laugh , it sure is tragic comedy. But yes we must be protected except the criminals should not be.
The answer is how to distinguish the difference to a power hungry man with a badge who is not a real criminal and who is.
These days true biblical evil has been obscured.
You were just trying to do what was righteous.
@@joyceobeys6818 The issue isn't doing what is "righteous" but rather self righteous. Thinking that they know better than the law and that their ways are right, even when they are dead wrong.
No. He was NOT "just trying to do what is rightious". He was trying to get a conviction by ANY MEANS NECESSARY and learned the hard way. The true crime are all the police who do this shit and constantly get away with it. Because once it works the first time, there is no hesitation to try it again. That is not policing. That is tyrany and you don't see it.
And what do you mean "except for criminals" exactly ?? Our constitutional rights apply to everyone. Who the hell do you think you are, Scoobie ?? And what makes them a criminal?? The fact that you THINK they committed a crime ?? Because even those who have been convicted and are serving out their sentence in prison, including on death row, they too retain some civil rights. You are absolutely disgusting to be that freakin' ignorant. People like you make me sick.
In Canada, Cops did a knock & talk, while blocking the door from being closed, when the home owner tried 2close the door, cops arrested him for assault
The optimal word there being 'Canada"
I'm a fan of the old "Nero Wolfe" mystery series by Rex Stout. In one book a police inspector is pounding on the door to be let in. "Got a warrant?" the detective's assistant asks.
"No. OPEN IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!"
The assistant has to lean against the door frame from laughing as he says *"It's the law that keeps you out!'*
Great moment.
“Community Caretaking” sounds very subjective and rife for abuse. What a slippery slope! And officers never lie, right?
Another Democratic redefinition of the language or interpretation to suit their bias or benefit.
Swearing them to an oath not to do something is the first step toward guaranteeing it gets done. Promise you won’t empty the cat box or have the carpets steam cleaned while you’re at it.
But, but SCOTUS told them they could lie.
@@daniellebarker7667 Revelation 21:8.
So, basically, police broke the law, again and they lied!
Captain
This video was made 2 years ago, an I'm just now watching it.
Nothing has changed just a bunch of words, with no action
The Duncan Police Department have been breaking in my house, beating and robbing me for the past 10 years! Saying they are conducting a Welfare Check!! I need an Attorney ASAP!!
Hmm, what about 'Search Warrants' signed by 'Coram Non Judice' Magistrates, and or 'Lay Justices'? [Inferior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction.]
no
That's what I was about to ask. These warrants can faxed or printed on the spot in a cops car.
@@americanindeon
Electronic 'Search Warrants' issued via Circuit Court aka, Surpreme or Superior Court of General Jurisdiction not an issue.
Matter is 'Non Judicial' Coram Non Judice signed/electronic warrants via non judicial entity/people whom masqurades as Judge via Inferior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction.
Cops often have Magistrates whom 'ministerial agents' of Political Subdivisons [i.e., city of/town of/village of] sign/execute 'search warrants', which are void on it's face until challenged [laches], via Nisi Prius System.
In rural areas there are Lay Justices Courts, those [part time] magistrates are Non Judicial that lack admittance to the bar.
Televisions Judge Judy is not a judge who just a mere 'arbitrator' (though Esq.) masquerading a judge, who cannot sign any type of warrant, not even a bench warrant for failure to appear, in arbitrator capacity.
In NYC aka Manhattan, the Political Subdivisons [City of NY] leases court rooms from the State, as grand illusion.
Pro-se litigants, always place a Magistrate on 'Judicial Notice' [on the record], they won't be happy, and watch the fireworks.
@@americanindeon "These warrants can faxed or printed on the spot in a cops car"
Which is nearly indistinguishable from the "writs of assistance" which was a primary driver for enacting the Fourth Amendment.
That said, at least it is "a" warrant rather than an officer's lone decision that someone needs help and go in your house without any warrant at all.
@@2Truth4Liberty
Question the 'Electronic Server Details': warrant via 'State' or a 'Municipality', again Political Subdivison [City/Village/Town].
In NYC, many living in [unlawful] basement apartments. Building Inspectors try to gain 'consensual' access to confirm [hearsay] allegations, access often denied.
Building Inspectors via [thinking they're the cat's meow] yelp: "search warrant" as meaningless, pursuant to noncriminal activity [code violations].
Administrative Law Judge's 'cannot' sign a search warrant, if so Coram Non Judice void.
This speaks to me on the many “red flag” laws that will allow unwarranted searches. An individual can make an unsubstantiated claim about a neighbor and instantly the police are in your house confiscating property because of community safety concerns.
They are just setting it up for when they start getting shot.
If there is concern that someone is about to start shooting from their house then the police absolutely need to show up, otherwise it should be something that has legal oversight before action is taken. There is never going to be a perfect law.
Then just report anyone flying a blue lives flag as a mental health risk.
If their supporters start getting raided by their allies, using laws they formerly supported, they will start opposing both their allies, and the very laws they wanted in the first place.
This will result in the law being changed, and the enemy who imposed the law being the instrument of the law's revocation.
Can be a REAL concern - and the liberal left drafting red flag legislation know this and will use it.
Now that is the Way it should be
As soon as the man in this case left the property for a psych review there was no longer ANY justifiable threat, nor cause for entry into the home. This was a 100% clear case of illegal entry, and illegal seizure of private property.
It’s somewhat amusing that it seems most doctrines in their (police) favor are generally interpreted by default in the broadest possible way, where circumstances that defend people from them (e.g., to overcome qualified immunity) are by default interpreted in the narrowest possible way. Cops can exercise their own discretion to barge into your home or steal your property, but can’t know not to shoot a harmless family dog with a kid in the line of fire because the the former legally complicated one requires only individual judgement but the latter common sense one requires exact instructions.
It does appear police want to eat their cake and have it too; whichever grants them the most power with the least responsibility.
@@walkingcrow9845 Isn't that what all despotic types want. Police, politicians, everyone...
Its because generally cops are dumber than the average citizen. Obviously lol
You drink way too much coffee.
it called enforcement creep. when a law is 1st enacted it has a narrow intent but the police and court widen it scope over time. civil asset forfeiture is a prime example at 1st it was used against the mafia and drug kingpins now it used against everyone
This was already law!!!
Excellent presentation. A must watch for citizen review and appreciation of Constitutional protections.
Thank you IJ👍
Foot in door is done. That's a threshold.
The real problem here is that judges sign anything in front of them. If the warrant is squashed later, that signing judge has immunity. Getting a warrant is pretty easy, as we have seen time and time again.
There is a difference between "Public" property and "Private" property; when COPs find an abandoned car on a road, it's on public property, but when they enter your home its private property and needs a warrant...
Keep Pressing!!!
Wonder if the wife thought about picking up the gun then concluded ‘Ive got something else in mind for you’.
We have a police state now and it is getting worse! Please vote more wisely.
A police state NOW???
It’s all been prophesied, even the vacs.
Rev 18:23 sorcery is pharmaceuticals
Voting? Hahahahahahaha buy a gun
I thought they weren’t supposed to come in our home without a warrant anyway? Why did we need a Supreme Court ruling for this?
Refer to the Looney Tunes "line in the sand" cartoons, here...If there is no repercussions for criminal actions, why WOULDN'T they...? "Oh NO! They told us not to do that anymore...AGAIN?" "LOL!, Sure thing! LOL"
One of the more recent incursions on 4th amendment rights is the "they might be flushing drugs" exception. This opens things up to police discretion which can easily be abused. It's as nebulous as the "I think I smell weed" thing.
I'm *very* pro police, but I'm for this measure. Just like the "No-knock warrant", there's too many things that can go wrong. I understand the idea of trying to preserve evidence, however that's never a good enough excuse to unnecessarily endanger the public. There's legal avenues for undertaking these measures. If we ignore the Constitution we're no better than criminals and have no basis for the authority Law Enforcement operates under.
Think FISA warrants.
The "Law" seems to be staying further and further from "common sense"
ACAB
About time this was getting out of hand with the murders of innocent people!!! I just hope that all cities of the States follow the laws that put before them!!🤔❤🤗👍
Really enjoyed this.
If "Law Enforcement" do not make it home safely at the end of their shift, this shit would stop REAL fast!!!
Democrats* fixed it for you.
@@lordkrythic6246
Has nothing to do with democrats. They are all in on it together.
Actually it’s been prophesied.
Even the vacs was prophesied.
Rev 18:23 sorcery is pharmaceuticals.
Watch JFK to 9-11( everything’s a rich mans trick)
Amazing how this is obvious but they still did it knowing that by the time it goes through the courts they'll have done what they needed to do.
Pretty sure he got his guns back, but, yeah!
One of your best videos. Thank you!
Individuals are responsible for their own welfare and safety, handing that responsibility to the government requires the forfeiture of autonomy. There is no example in contemporary or historical events that have shown otherwise. You either have your freedom and accept the risks they carry, or you don't and are a steward of the state.
Excellent lesson in what we call 'democratic freedom'
I worry about you guys sometime because of the hard work you do, I am very greatful of the work you do.
Wait a minute I thought that the police already had to have a warrant to enter anyone's home.
This isn't new.
Not FBI.
Yet they are never held accountable either after they`ve committed crimes against the people.
@@D70340 They make some of their own look accountable here and there I guess.
They're supposed to have a warrant to enter your home, however, there are multiple scotus cases on the books that speak to warrantless entry into the home such as Matlock v US, Georgia v Randolph, just to name a couple as there are others. If'n they don't have a warrant if they have to get consent from the home owner to do so or exigent circumstances has to be present.🤷🏾♂️#ijs
@@brothermel9702 The term 'exigent circumstances' (EC) needs legal clarification. As of now, it can mean anything and the legality of 'evidence' confiscated is left solely up to the presiding judge in the case. That's not enough for me. A proper example of EC would be if your house was on fire and the police entered without permission for the express purpose of saving any lives within. That would be okay, but if they saw guns in that house and took them, that would not be okay.
And here I thought that was always against the law
An old proverb has it that “the liar is the beginning of a thief.”
And I would add that “no consequences for police creates thuggery.
JWC
Why is this even being questioned in this day and age?
Really? Have you been living under a rock? Every decision that allows more power to the government takes power from the people. One of the biggest problems, as well, is allowing police and sheriff's departments to operate without oversight. When violations of the law occur, usually only internal investigations are performed. 99.9999% of the time, they find that "department policy was followed." I've known cops locally (small town in the midwest) to get away with murdering unarmed people minding their own business in their own homes.
@@edennis8578 people are lazy until its them
Gun control laws. That’s why.
Lol everyone mis understanding me. Im saying theres no reason this should be a court case to begin with. The constitution settles it. It never should have gotten to this point and the fact that it is at this point just shows you how corrupt our government (especially the left) is and why we need the constitution more than ever before.
If we had more people exercising their rights as well as responsible gun ownership, we wouldn’t need so many road pirates..
Do you think somebody putting a gun on the table, and asking their spouse why don't you just shoot me? Do you find that to be a responsible gun owner? It's the road pirates that are protecting the spouses in this case.
"That might not sound too outrageous ........." . No, actually it is.
TY for sharing 👍
Make sure it's a wet ink signature on that warrant before you say anything.
Based on the officer's interpretation of the community caretaking doctrine they would have free reign to do anything and warrants wouldn't be required for anything.
Thank you very much.
And something needs to be done about the “act now, get forgiveness later” or more accurately “act now, cover up later” attitude of LEOs.
They should never been able to! In other countries we expect that, even here in UAE police have to get the equivalent of a warrant before barging in your home. But yeah n the USA this should always require a warrant!
Yes ! It's the right thing to do .
Hey, Institute for Justice !
After telling a corrupt deputy his actions were CRIMINAL, I spent FIVE DAYS AND NIGHTS IN A CAGE with NO bond
It is much easier to get mad at the cops for warrantless entries than at a faceless court for issuing a warrant. The cops are shouting themselves in the foot when they do warrantless entries as they are increasing the divide between them and the public. The exceptions for a warrantless should be fewer and more stringent.
The cops are taking way too much liberties. The husband did not threatened anyone with the gun. The cops lied to him. No one enjoy being lied to. So now he is doubly mad at the cops. For lying to him and for the warrantless entry. The cops just added another citizen on the other side of the divide if he wasn’t there before. If he was there already, the cops increased the divide
Ego centric psychopaths don’t care about your life liberty or the law
They don't give a rip about a divide. They have zero interest in a good relationship with the public. They don't want the job to be easier. They do want to get a chance to intimidate, terrorize and abuse every citizen that doesn't instantly cower before them.
We cannot protect everyone all the time. Freedom is risky.