I'm sad to see this ruling and even sadder that only one justice stood against it.
The term "reasonable" has no place in law. Everything is "reasonable" to some extent, even the "unreasonable". It's almost impossible to use this term to defend a person's rights.
Rather, the standard of "probably cause" should stand as that requires hard physical and demonstable evidence of a crime to proceed with a search, seizure or arrest.
Sadly, the new (non)standard of "reasonable suspicion" seems to be taking hold all the way up the the Supreme Court.
The scenario this seems to invite is: Cops suspect crime of prostitution taking place in lady's hotel room. They knock loudly and announce themselves. A few seconds pass with no one answering the door, only the rustling of a couple getting dressed. Cops decide they have "reasonable suspicion" that evidence of prostitution--money, condoms, lubes--is being destroyed and break down the door.
The accounts I've read of this ruling all describe it as a narrow drug case with no broader application. Hasn't history shown that whenever police are given such authority to act as judge and cop--and with such an unworried blessing as Alito gives them--they're bound to abuse it as far as they can until they meet pushback?
It all seems innocent enough at first, so few people object. But this sort of behavior by the police always creeps into broader areas once the precedent has been set. It's analogous to taxes that are introduced as a temporary half of a percent for a few years, so nobody objects. Then it goes to 1.5%, then 3%, then it become permanent, until finally, the voters reject all new taxes.
It seems like our courts can't give away our rights fast enough this last year, and they'll continue to do so until there's a massive public outcry, or another landmark case.
As always, I'm not an attorney, but I have paid for several of their children to attend top universities, and that should count for something.
This is going to lead others to ask similar questions. It would seem they need to have reason to believe evidence is being destroyed. I think it is going to take some additional court rulings to spell out what would be indicators of evidence being destroyed.
I can not see how this would apply to the hobby. Sounds of sex in a room could be a porn movie, or a couple having sex. NO way to tell if it was paid for. A girl in a room with several men coming and going could be a slut not a whore. If everyone keeps their mouth shout and says I would like a lawyer no none would get busted. Money, Lube, Condoms, well fuck my personal home has all that. I would also go on vacation with that. As long as the girl is not keeping drugs in her room or selling them, all should be fine if everyone repeats only one answer, I would like to speak with a lawyer.
Side not, knocking a door down over pot? Really WTF is this 1950? Its fucking pot. They are not smelling a meth lab that can blow up and kill people we are talking about weed.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
