2007-01-10 16:48:55 · 10 answers · asked by Alan~ 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
ok, regularly to verify that the Police to seek a house they the two want a seek warrant or consent to seek the abode from somebody they extremely have faith has authority to offer consent to seek it. There are some exceptions. as an occasion, in the event that they seen somebody being assaulted interior the abode they could enter the abode. Or in the event that they observed contraband interior the abode and that that they had a clever perception that the information could be destroyed or bumped off at the same time as securing a seek warrant they could enter and grab the information. on your case in the event that they got here to the abode for a noisy occasion call and observed human beings smoking marijuana interior the abode then they could enter the abode and defend it and grab the information via fact for sure you adult males could do away with the weed by applying the time they went and have been given a warrant. that's in basic terms logical. I additionally advise that once the home is secured and the occupants are below administration the Officer the two defend a signed consent form to seek the valuables or get a seek warrant on the abode earlier doing an entire seek of the abode. The consent or seek warrant strengthens the Officer's case and helps insure the information would be admissible. To the clueless human beings obtainable. We will possibly no longer seek a house based fullyyt on probably reason. We ought to apply that probably reason to guard a seek warrant if we won't get consent. additionally, the Patriot Act has no longer something to do with this question.........in case you do no longer understand something approximately regulation Enforcement do no longer answer questions in this section.
2016-12-12 08:52:22 · answer #1 · answered by scheiber 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if you think violating the Fourth Amendment is a good idea
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.
2007-01-10 16:55:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No The most important right enshrined ion our constitution is the protection of our civil liberties against the grounds of unreasonable search & seizure. Certainly in the aftermath of 911
many civil liberies have been eroded in the name of security and the war on terroism. It is my belief that government must find the right balance between fighting terrorsim and using the poers of the sttate to limit perosal freedoms
2007-01-10 16:56:43 · answer #3 · answered by Alex H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The government MUST have a search warrant...its the law.
2007-01-10 16:53:00 · answer #4 · answered by ZORRO 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
NO.
It's about as good of an idea as most everything 'government' (read elitist factions controlling government) has done in the last... ohh.. 100 years.
2007-01-10 17:04:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
let me be sarcastic for a moment...
"hey... why shouldn't they do a strip search when ever they want?... only people who have something to hide would object!!!"
Pardon my sarcasm. But I keep hearing the same nonsense when it comes to opening your mail, installing video cameras on every street corner, eavesdropping on citizen's conversations, etc...
Who's going to protect us from the police?
2007-01-10 16:56:12 · answer #6 · answered by lovefights 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2007-01-10 18:06:52 · answer #7 · answered by gatwick100 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does the Constitution mean nothing to you?
2007-01-10 16:52:45 · answer #8 · answered by Paladin 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
hello no
2007-01-10 16:51:51 · answer #9 · answered by jbo 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I dunno about you, but I like what little rights I do have left.
2007-01-10 16:56:26 · answer #10 · answered by WeezyBaby 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋