Under what circumstance is a warrantless raid on a persons house deemed illegal by the 4th amendment?
396651
There has to be probably cause to raid the house.  If an officer observes and illegal act through a window he can enter without a warrant.  If he only suspects illegal activity but has no patent proof he cannot enter the residence.\n\nOhio recently had a case that changed our law.  Under old rules if there were multiple leasees and one agreed to a search it was okay to search.  Now everyone must agree to the search, if one says no then the search is illegal.
1078935
I think you mean posse comitatus. This prohibits military personnel from acting as law enforcement in the US, unless authorized by Congress
829388
Of course none of this is legal.  It happens sometimes regardless.  \n\nYour questions are very familiar.  Refuse to live in fear.
287562
the good faith clause comes into play if, you acted in "good faith" against the law. meaning if you believe in good faith that it was legal, then you have a defense. example...i am going to unlock a car door for someone, and i run the plate and it comes back to the guys sister, mother, father, etc. then later that comes back stolen...then in "good faith" i proceeded safly. due to available info it was ok. if cops saw pot on table through window, then it is called plain site. and yes cops can search without permission.
626756
fifth amendmant.\n\nNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
948130
Extremely unlikely.\nLaw LOVE to acquit home owners defending their house.\nSelf defender in his own house is the darling of the law.\nThis is called the Castle Doctrine.[1] \nBasically most jurisdictions will not require you to flee your own house. If you see a trespasser IN YOUR OWN HOUSE it is usually enough reason to reasonably feel threatened for your life, and thus use deadly force without trying to flee first(which would be required if you were not in your house)\n\nCheck if you live in of these staes:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#U.S._States_with_Castle_Doctrine_Laws_in_Effect\nor in UK\n\nAlso if you don't, it will still be very hard to get the jury  to convict.
1038296
I'm not familiar with that ruling.  Post a link to the ruling and I'll have a look.\n\nOn the surface, it sounds pretty ominous.  But if they have a warrant and there is likelihood of the destruction of evidence with even minimal notice (think drugs going down the toilet) then I'm not all that bothered by it.\n\nOn balance, they DO take a risk of my Mauser going off if they crash through the door without any warning.  \n\n"Your honor, I had just finished cleaning my shotgun and reloaded it and was getting up to put it back in the gun locker when all of a sudden, three guys in black outfits came crashing through my front door! They didn't say that they were police or show any badges, and were armed to the teeth!  I fired as a reflex action, in self-defense!"\n\n"Sounds reasonable, Not Guilty!"\n\nNo-knock raids are extremely risky for all concerned.  Back in November 2002, Lewis Cauthorne was in the basement of his Baltimore home when heard the screams of his mother, girlfriend, and three-year-old daughter. Baltimore police were conducting a no-knock raid on his home, based on a tip from a single, anonymous informant. Police never announced themselves, and raided in street clothes. Cauthorne emerged from the basement with a handgun, shooting and wounding four of the invading police officers. Cops returned fire. Fortunately, no one was killed in the crossfire. \n\nCauthorne spent the next seven weeks in jail. Finally, in January of 2003, prosecutors dropped the charges against him, concluding that Cauthorne had reason to believe his life was in danger. Damn right, he did.
799300
Nope. Technically, a criminal is someone who does something wrong legally. He's taking a legal action, government has the right to war. It's not illegal.
1091870
Of course it’s a matter of opinion.  Just this week a law was passed, by the Supreme Court of the U.S.A., that search and enter, bust your door down anytime for any or no reason, without warrant is not only okay (always was). Although now any evidence found, in this what I will call illegal action, is admissible in a court of law. That’s just one example. \nI like the Patriot Act 2 answer- I too hope all know and read the PNAC (project for a new Amerikan century) I couldn't resist the "K".\n\nMy Answer is the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.\n(today)
1039069
Ethically, it's not okay for anyone to invade the privacy of an innocent person.  It's stupid and potentially dangerous to stalk celebrities, and many suits have been brought against various photographers and publications.  However, we have the right to know what the government is doing-- because it's with our money.  Governments steal from us, then use the fruits of their theft against us.\nAnyone arguing that the 4th Amendment protects our privacy from the government is living under a rock.  The 4th has been effectively nullified by SSNs, gun records, increasing search & seizure to look for a "probable cause", phone tapping, and the fact that the government is so vast and powerful that businesses are being forced to collude with bureaucrats and hand over what little privacy we had left.
865708
The 13th Amendment.  Here it is:\n\n\nAmendment XIII\nSection 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. \n\n\nSection 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
157210
It violates the 6th amendment in that it allows the government to jail citizens indefinately without a trial. This also violates the 13th amendment (punishment without conviction). It violates the 4th amendment in that it allows wiretapping, survalience of internet use,  and disclosure of library records without probable cause. It violates the first amendment in that it criminalizes ANY discussion of specific FBI searches. \n\nBad legislation from the worst administration EVER.
1017584
This is state law, so it depends on your state.\nHowever, if the property is illegal it will never be returned.  If there is an ongoing investigation, they can keep the property until the case is resolved, in the event of a cold case, this could be indefinate depending on the property in question, or until the statute of limitations runs out on the crime.\n\nFor a more specific answer, the property, the reason for seizure, and the state would be required.
1051024
This opinion has nothing to do with exigent circumstances or "knocking if they see a crime occuring through a window."  This also has nothing to do with officer safety as there is a no-knock procedure availble already.  The police in this case did not obtain a no-knock warrant (Michigan does not provide for it), nor did they argue exigent circumstances, which the dissent says they would have probably won on.\n\nI think it is a very bad opinion.  Law enforcement will not follow the law, if it is not enforced against them.  The exclusionary rule was designed to do just that.  It is a joke that the Supreme Court implies this could be remedied through civil suits and proffessionalism in police departments.  I'm willing to bet most police departments are having meetings today or planning them, to get the word out they don't have to knock anymore.\n\nAnd all you people with "nothing to hide" can be consoled by the fact that nothing was found while you are replacing your door frame and front door the police kicked in, and calming down your kids whose home was just invaded by guys with guns. \n\nThis is a direct result of Bush's recent appointments.
923306
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'\nprobably not. it all depends on the skill of the prosecutor, and the strength of their evidence. if it's a constitutional issue (which 4th amendment is) you'll need to hire a separate constitutional lawyer (believe it or not, hillary clinton is one of the best!) to address the constitutionality of the point in case. any more ?'s, just ask. "i ain't passed the bar but i know a little bit.....enough that you won't illegally search my shit."  - jay z
165580
That's the thing. The 4th admendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizes, not all searches and seizures unconditionally. Supreme court cases have shown that ... for example, your locker in school can be searched despite the admendment.\n\nI do not believe that any searches prior to getting on an airplane violate the letter, or even the spirit of the law. When you get on an airplane, your rights come secondary to the safety of everyone aboard that plane and the people on the ground who could be harmed if that plane crashes. \n\nThe 4th admendment is to stop the government from knocking down your door and looking for evidence without a warrant. It was from the days where writs of assistance were used to arbitrarily search people's houses.
643752
Most definitely PRO.  The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, and details the requirement for warrants.  Unfortunately, it has been assaulted for years in attempts to give the police more powers.