You thought the Wisconsin story was bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justin Moore

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
178
Location
Gun Range
http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

TheNewOrleansChannel.com
Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

UPDATED: 4:27 PM CST March 29, 2004

NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.

Leaders in law enforcement say it will keep officers safe, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision in United States v. Kelly Gould, No. 0230629cr0, was made March 24 by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000, in which defendant Gould filed a motion to suppress information gleaned from a search of his home. The motion was granted by district court, and the government appealed this decision. The March 24 ruling by the 5th Circuit is an affirmation of that appeal.



In the case, the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office was contacted on Oct. 17, 2000, by a Gould employee who told officers that Gould intended to kill two judges and unidentified police officers and to destroy telephone company transformers. The LPSO informed the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office of the threats.

A search of Gould's criminal history revealed several arrests and that he was "a convicted felon for violent charges," according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

When officers went to question Gould, they were told he was asleep. The officers asked if they could look inside for Gould, and were allowed to enter.

The officers testified that that they believed a search of the home was necessary to ensure their safety, given the allegations by Gould's employee and Gould's criminal history, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

Gould's bedroom door was ajar, and officers testified they peered inside and saw no one. Thinking Gould could be hiding, the officers looked in three closets. In one of the closets, the officers found three firearms, according to the Facts and Proceedings section of the 5th Circuit ruling.

Gould was found hiding outside the home a few minutes later. He was taken into custody and questioned about the guns. The officers asked for and received Gould's consent to search the home, with Gould signing a waiver of search warrant. Gould subsequently was arrested for allegedly being a felon in possession of firearms.

One judge, Judge Grady Jolly, said he concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. Judge Jerry Smith, however, completely disagreed with the majority ruling, saying: "I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed that they were acting reasonably and with good intentions. But the old adage warns us that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'"

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new search power, which is effective immediately, will be used judiciously.

"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.

But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray said the ruling is problematic.

"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety.

Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans.

"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justice system works in an effective manner," Defillo said

:cuss: :banghead: :fire:
 
The police are no longer our friends, they are government employees.

It certainly makes you wonder how many of them would willingly go out and confiscate our firearms should any order to do so come down...
 
There has already been at least 3 discussions on this very topic. Look up the difference in a search and a protective sweep. There is a HUGE difference. The court did not say that any LEO could randomly go into anyone's home or business. All that they said was that if the LEO was in the home or business on official business, he had a need to know where the people where in that dwelling so that he is not suprised when a guy comes out of a back bedroom with a gun or knife. It is simply a sweep for people, not a search for evidence.
 
It is simply a sweep for people, not a search for evidence.

Are rifles people? Were they not used as evidence?

Come on now. If they can use whatever the find in the "sweep" to prosecute you it is no different than a search. Not too long ago I believe the term was "illegal search and seizure".
 
Like I said, look up all of the USSC cases related to Protective sweeps and you will see that it has been on the books for decades. It is plain old "Right to be, Right to see" whereby if a police officer has the legal right to be in that space, he can then observe anything that may be evidence in plain view. He obviously can not go around searching for evidence in drawers or other compartments that could not hold a person, but if he walks in on a bomb factory while looking to see if anyone else is in the house, he then has the duty to arrest etc based upon that evidence just as he would if he walked up on a vehicle in a stop and observed a dead body lying in the back seat...he didn't search for that body, he saw it in plain view. Right to be there, right to see.
 
WTO posted links, there are others as this is old news.

One note of caution, when reading this story before running off and screaming, "the sky is falling," it is a good idea to look up and see if it's true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top