Warrantless – The One Way Street

As a follow-up to a recent post, I see where in California the RIAA is pushing for a warrantless search bill in the California legislature.

What this means is police would have the authority to search, without any reason at all, a premise where legal disk duplication is performed in accordance with existing law. There are a number of quirks to this legislation but there is another element I think of greater interest.

Nationwide, there are laws being proposed similar in nature to this which bestows an authority upon government. However, I see absolutely zero reciprocity with this. In fact, government and certain private interests insist upon their being insulated or immune from a similar public scrutiny. Nothing could be more wrong than not to have citizens possessing a legal right to the same exercise of law. This is no less than a set up for the very certain abuse of power. Anyone who doesn’t recognize this is just fucking stupid. Or they in fact have criminal intent.


5 thoughts on “Warrantless – The One Way Street

        1. Everything is relative. I won’t compare, in fact refuse to compare, the US with other places. We set our own standard and should never rely on the standard of others for ourselves. That is a terrible mistake. And just for the sake of comment I have lived in places such as you refer for years at a time.

    1. Barth

      There are plenty of things to worry about, particularly from this Supreme Court. It is fairly clear, for instance, that Roe v Wade has been abandoned sub silentio, since most lawyers who might litigate against the growing statutes that test its limits, are afraid to do so, given the likelihood that the Court would not reaffirm Roe.

      But, my excitable friends, the Court has not held that “the cops can kick in your door for no fucking reason at all!” The people inside the apartment in question had just sold crack cocaine to an undercover police officer and that, whether you agree with the laws that make it illegal or not, is a crime. The people who sold the crack ran into one of two apartments. When police got to the one they believed harbored the sellers, they

      banged on the … door “as loud as [they] could” and announced, “‘This is the police’” or “‘Police, police, police.’” [One officer, Stephen] Cobb said that “[a]s soon as [the officers]started banging on the door,” they “could hear peopleinside moving,” and “[i]t sounded as [though] things werebeing moved inside the apartment.” These noises, Cobb testified, led the officers to believe that drug related evidence was about to be destroyed.

      So, a fairly well established fucking reason that lawyers call “exigent circumstances” supported the entry. No, folks, a drug dealer is not allowed to destroy the evidence while police wait outside listening to them do so. If this is surprising to you, you are watching too many television shows.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s