Grrrrr... 
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2469360
Court: Evidence OK in some no-warrant searches
Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS -- A federal appeals court has opened the door for police officers in Texas and two other states to search homes and buildings for evidence without a warrant -- a ruling that two dissenting judges called "the road to hell."
Acting on a Baton Rouge case, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a swift sweep of private property to ensure their own safety.
Any evidence discovered during that search now is admissible in court as long as the search is a "cursory inspection," and if police entered the site for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and believed it may be dangerous.
The 11-4 ruling affects Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi and replaces a standard set in 1994, when the 5th Circuit held that police can make a so-called protective sweep only if officers are there to arrest someone.
In the majority opinion, Judge William Lockhart Garwood wrote that any in-home encounter poses a risk to police officers, even if it is simply to interview someone.
The opinion noted that a similar standard has been adopted by four other federal circuit courts of appeals.
The decision came in the case of Kelly Donald Gould, a Denham Springs man who was arrested in October 2000 on federal gun charges after allegedly threatening to kill unidentified judges and police officers.
Deputies went to Gould's trailer with no search or arrest warrant, but were invited into the trailer by another resident, who told them Gould was asleep in the bedroom.
Because of the threats and Gould's criminal history, the deputies said they looked for him under the bed and in two closets, where they found three rifles. They later found Gould hiding in the woods and seized the weapons after they got him to sign a permission for the search.
U.S. District Judge James Brady ruled that the guns could not be used as evidence because they were obtained illegally. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, but encouraged prosecutors to request a hearing before the court to reconsider the legal precedent on which it was based.
Dissenting justices argued the ruling creates another exception to constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure.
"I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions," Judges Harold DeMoss Jr. and Carl E. Stewart wrote. "But the old adage warns us that 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'"
U.S. Attorney David Dugas of Baton Rouge said the case illustrates the "difficult situations" law-enforcement officers often face.
"They're expected to make split-second decisions in potentially dangerous situations involving constitutional issues that the courts and legal scholars can spend years debating," Dugas said.
But Mike Walsh, a defense attorney, said the 5th Circuit decision "grossly expands" the definition of lawful searches and erodes everyone's constitutional rights "to be free from intrusive and unlawful searches."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2469360
Court: Evidence OK in some no-warrant searches
Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS -- A federal appeals court has opened the door for police officers in Texas and two other states to search homes and buildings for evidence without a warrant -- a ruling that two dissenting judges called "the road to hell."
Acting on a Baton Rouge case, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a swift sweep of private property to ensure their own safety.
Any evidence discovered during that search now is admissible in court as long as the search is a "cursory inspection," and if police entered the site for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and believed it may be dangerous.
The 11-4 ruling affects Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi and replaces a standard set in 1994, when the 5th Circuit held that police can make a so-called protective sweep only if officers are there to arrest someone.
In the majority opinion, Judge William Lockhart Garwood wrote that any in-home encounter poses a risk to police officers, even if it is simply to interview someone.
The opinion noted that a similar standard has been adopted by four other federal circuit courts of appeals.
The decision came in the case of Kelly Donald Gould, a Denham Springs man who was arrested in October 2000 on federal gun charges after allegedly threatening to kill unidentified judges and police officers.
Deputies went to Gould's trailer with no search or arrest warrant, but were invited into the trailer by another resident, who told them Gould was asleep in the bedroom.
Because of the threats and Gould's criminal history, the deputies said they looked for him under the bed and in two closets, where they found three rifles. They later found Gould hiding in the woods and seized the weapons after they got him to sign a permission for the search.
U.S. District Judge James Brady ruled that the guns could not be used as evidence because they were obtained illegally. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, but encouraged prosecutors to request a hearing before the court to reconsider the legal precedent on which it was based.
Dissenting justices argued the ruling creates another exception to constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure.
"I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions," Judges Harold DeMoss Jr. and Carl E. Stewart wrote. "But the old adage warns us that 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'"
U.S. Attorney David Dugas of Baton Rouge said the case illustrates the "difficult situations" law-enforcement officers often face.
"They're expected to make split-second decisions in potentially dangerous situations involving constitutional issues that the courts and legal scholars can spend years debating," Dugas said.
But Mike Walsh, a defense attorney, said the 5th Circuit decision "grossly expands" the definition of lawful searches and erodes everyone's constitutional rights "to be free from intrusive and unlawful searches."
