peeping tom and search by police motion to suppress

[tranquility]

how are you claiming the loss of expectation of privacy allows the arrest for evidence that was obtained through illegal acts?

The law is made up of issues. You cannot conflate all the issues together to come up with the end result. That's the job of the courts. My point was more to the particular issue I quoted.

This is a complex set of facts and issues. I agree with you and CavemanLawyer, it's just that there's always an argument. And, when we deal with 4th amendment issues, the answer is based on the totality of the circumstances. Case law is all over the place based on which finger was raised at which particular time.

 

[BOR]

the exigency was BS. The police created it in their own minds. Based on their claims, if I (if I was an officer), was simply driving down the street where I might be recognized by some unknown person that I believe might run and tell some target of mine I was in the neighborhood, that would create sufficient support to claim an exigency. That is essentially what they used as their justification in that case.


the hot pursuit claim: she was never outside of her house so they could not enter into a pursuit to continue.

plain view doctrine: nothing they could see was illegal so even if they wanted to argue plain view, they didn't see anything that would allow the entrance to the home.

She was initially on her "doorstep" which the SC said was a public place, I see you disagree. Retreat was not a cure here according to the SC.

View Welsh here. It is factually different, but,,, see what you think.

WELSH V. WISCONSIN, 466 U. S. 740 :: Volume 466 :: 1984 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

 

[tranquility]

The threshold is a big deal. In Santana:

An Officer Strohm testified that he recognized Santana, whom he had seen before. He also indicated that she was standing directly in the doorway -- one step forward would have put her outside, one step backward would have put her in the vestibule of her residence.

Case law tends to say "threshold" today.

The circut split has to do with what to do with a person in the vestibule, but where they voluntarily exposed themselves by opening the door or looking out the window.

In the way olden days, when I was a cop, you used to have to convince the person to step outside. Putting them in a public place. Letting you arrest without a warrant and only with probable cause. Today, at least in the Ninth and a couple others, if the door is opened if you tell them they are under arrest before entering some circuts allow that as not a violation of Payton's bright line threshold rule per Santana.

 

[justalayman]

Case law tends to say "threshold" today.

.

I know yet I disagree (wow, I bet that comes as a surprise)

I believe the distinction needs to be the plane created by the outer walls of the home. Anything else allows entrance into what, for any other law, to be considered to be a private space controlled by the resident.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

until the government starts paying the upkeep on the outside of my house, my house starts at the siding. Anything within that plane is within my house.

and what happens if there is no vestibule?

The circut split has to do with what to do with a person in the vestibule, but where they voluntarily exposed themselves by opening the door or looking out the window.

so, for arguments sake, let me stretch that a bit.

looking out the window. If this is accepted as a distinction that would allow the police to enter to arrest, any person simply walking where they could be viewed through a window. So, unless I keep my curtains drawn and do not open the door, I could be subject to the police entering my house to effect an arrest sans warrant. Is that where we really want to go?

Do we really want people to have to secret themselves in the basement so as to avoid the police being able to come into our house without a warrant?

That is what such a ruling is leading to. Sounds kind of like a European country I remember reading about in school. Some guy by the name of Adolph or something was in charge.

 

[justalayman]

She was initially on her "doorstep" which the SC said was a public place, I see you disagree. Retreat was not a cure here according to the SC.
]

well, this wouldn't be the first time and I am sure it won;t be the last time they were wrong

I like the reasonableness argument but I think they argued the wrong justification for exigency to begin with.

and were told by the witness that the driver was either very inebriated or very sick.

dang, that guy could have been suffering from botulism poisoning. The observed symptoms that were related to the officers were exactly the same as actual botulism poisoning.That guy could be lying on his bed about to die!!! Now if there were ever exigent circumstances, this is it.

actually I like the decision as it was based on the reasonableness of the offense compared to the action.

If you remove the reasonableness test, I think the cops were right. If it wasn't argued well, I think it could have easily gone the other way.

 

[janelle830]

you guys make some interesting points for my case and i thank yall for that.

so what could the state actually argue against this incident? i mean if they dont suppress the evidence then they are basically saying that anyone can do it on any given moment to whoever they want. i mean there were no events that led up to her coming to my back window she just did it to spy on me.

that means i could spend a day in my life to walk up to peoples backyards and look through their windows and if i dont see something i like just call 911. i mean is this what could possibly be a reality??

 

[tranquility]

Are you saying the courts have twisted up the plain meaning of the Constitution to fit particular police mistakes because the guys who were arrested were bad? Really bad?

However, review the 4th amendment.

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.

Are you saying the police cannot arrest a person they see murdering someone until they get a warrant?

Or, shall we better deal with the term "unreasonable"? But then, that's why we're here.

 

[justalayman]

Are you saying the police cannot arrest a person they see murdering someone until they get a warrant?
.

I think that would be construed as probable cause and also falls within the plain view rule as well as exigent circumstances.
I suspect no warrant would be needed

Are you saying the courts have twisted up the plain meaning of the Constitution to fit particular police mistakes because the guys who were arrested were bad? Really bad?

Isn't that essentially what we are arguing right here? While it may not be intentional, or in some cases it probably is, it does happen. More importantly, there is no real "plain meaning" to the terms here, especially the term "unreasonable". Nearly every word has been subjected to analysis and definition based on various rulings to attempt to pin down the meaning.

Unreasonable cannot have a plain meaning as it is a subjective term. What is unreasonable to one is not necessarily unreasonable to another. The definition of unreasonable is and always will be fluid. It will be based on community standards and court standards and many other influences that change as time passes. What is seen as unreasonable today may be wholly accepted as reasonable 10 years from now, or vice versa.

 

[tranquility]

I think that would be construed as probable cause and also falls within the plain view rule as well as exigent circumstances.

I don't see plain view or exigent circumstances in the 4th amendment. Perhaps you want to point me to the proper location to find them?

Reasonable. Objectively so.

Unreasonable cannot have a plain meaning as it is a subjective term. What is unreasonable to one is not necessarily unreasonable to another. The definition of unreasonable is and always will be fluid. It will be based on community standards and court standards and many other influences that change as time passes. What is seen as unreasonable today may be wholly accepted as reasonable 10 years from now, or vice versa.

Thank God for Scalia. He keeps such muddy heading thinking from becoming the law of the land.

 

[BOR]

I think that would be construed as probable cause and also falls within the plain view rule as well as exigent circumstances.
I suspect no warrant would be needed

Not "plain view", "in presence". Even if one was seen being committed in a home, no warrant is needed to enter.

Remember the Atwater case? It has an appendix of state laws on warrantless Misdemeanor arrests.

I have never seen though any state which did not permit a warrantless arrest for a felony with PC, even committed out of presence, not talking about home entry now.

 

[justalayman]

E=tranquility;2534733]I don't see plain view or exigent circumstances in the 4th amendment. Perhaps you want to point me to the proper location to find them?

I don't see a lot of things in the Constitution but that doesn't mean they are not relevant or accepted as being constitutional.

they are both used in a manner to weigh the facts at hand in an attempt to determine if if an entry would be reasonable as currently accepted.

Now, if you want to get so literal in the reading, I do not see any allowance for a search of any type without a warrant. Do you really want to argue literal statements?

Thank God for Scalia. He keeps such muddy heading thinking from becoming the law of the land.[

that's really funny since your statement supports my statement so perfectly. You are laying the entire purview of constitutional law on one man and his opinion. Obviously when he dies, there will be a shift, even if only a minor one. That will cause each situation to be viewed differently and as such, the definition of everything is subject to a different view. As such, what is considered reasonable today, will not be exactly the same as what it will be tomorrow.

thanks for the support. Here I thought we were in adversarial views but lo and behold, I find you on my side.

 

[tranquility]

that's really funny since your statement supports my statement so perfectly. You are laying the entire purview of constitutional law on one man and his opinion.

Sorry, but he embodies the philosophy of textualism. He says the text of the Constitution should rule. Not the thoughts of the founding fathers or the prevailing thoughts of the moment or international law.

He is one vote on determining what is.....wait for it**************wait....


reasonable under the Constitution.

 

[justalayman]

Sorry, but he embodies the philosophy of textualism. He says the text of the Constitution should rule. Not the thoughts of the founding fathers or the prevailing thoughts of the moment or international law.

He is one vote on determining what is.....wait for it**************wait....


reasonable under the Constitution.

and like I said, he is one man with one point of view. When he moves on, there will be a different point of view.

the courts and their rulings are not static. They are constantly changing as new perspectives are added to the group.

as such, your statements supports exactly what I said. For your position to be supported, the decisions would have to be made without opinions and perspectives. Hey, maybe that's why they call them...



wait for it.....


opinions.

 

[justalayman]

and if he wants to stick to the letter of the law, there is not allowance for a search without a warrant. None.

 

[tranquility]

It is not their fault you don't understand the clear meaning of the Constitution. (Hated to do it but didn't want a fight.)

Article III

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.