another right given to marshall law!

This is all above my ability to understand. It seems like splitting hairs from all angles.

Granting more rights to criminals--if the case turns out that way--is the exact opposite of martial law.

Law and Order is perishable. Making the police ineffective will not only increase crime, but lead us to anarchy in the ugliest sense of the word.

If I guess correctly though, whatever cushy, gated community the Ginsbergs live in won't suffer quite as badly from such a decay into lawlessness as my neighborhood will. So all I can say is,

"Thank you, Ruthie, for so high-mindedly defending the low-life drug dealers in America!"

It is not "giving more rights", it is protecting the rights we already have.

If cops enter private property without a warrant, or expressed permission, then all evidence should be thrown out. Period.

Their excuses, long and drawn out though they may be, are completely invalid in the face of our protected rights. If they are right, they should have got a warrant. It is that simple.

That is our right, enshrined in the 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."

If the search is reasonable, the officers can get a warrant.

So, is it your opinion then that anytime anyone enters your house, they have the right to invite in anyone they want?

Should the cops be able to get the neighbor kid to go to your house so they can come in and make sure you are not doing anything illegal?

How does this differ from just letting the government install cameras in your living room so they can check on you anytime they want?

Umm - the first poster was referring to giving the police the right to come into your home anytime they want - that would be martial law.

Making the police follow the laws they are sworn to uphold is a civil society based on law.

This story was posted at 4:20. Now that's funny, given its context.

She lives in another world where it is all theoretical. And she certainly doesn't care about Utah law inforcement. Martial law? Are you kidding, that's what would happen if we tied the polices hands. Ginsberg wants to take away the police and then take away home owners guns. Go figure.

Hey @Law and Order, what if the perpetrator was beating his wife, or his kids, or the neighborhood kid you mentioned in your post and that wife or kid called to the police for help? Should they call in for a warrant? And cameras? Get off it! I am always very suspicious of those who get worked up over search and seizures when it comes to illegal drugs but who have no problems with government able to enforce government ids, background checks, etc. Why do the low-life drug dealers get to be secure "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" when I have to constantly surrender personal information in the name of "public safety"?

The spirit of the 4th ammendment is oft confused with the letter of that law. Written restrictive, flexible in spirit. It's intent, prevent unreasonable searches.

Over years the Supreme Court interpreted 'modified' so cops can do their job. Some cirumstances {evidence destroyed or disposed of and harm to persons) are reasonable exceptions. Cops can enter a house upon belief someone is being harmed (a cry for help or scream is all that is necessary in a fight); or, evidence will be gone (fancy term for flushed down the toilet) has become possible since the writing of the ammendment.

Incidentally, cops coming in anytime they want is not Martial Law - Military Occupation is. Martial Law turns an entire area over to the Army. Bigggg difference?

I think the case will be interesting and probably decided over the ability to get a warrant before evidence could be gone. The factors of that will be the availability of a judge to issue it and the ability of the cops to get it delivered in time to be effective.

If somebody who lives in the house calls the police and invites them in - that is legal. If a police officer is walking by and hears screaming or calls for help, that is an exigent circumstance and is legal.

Do you really object to background checks when someone is buying a gun? Keeping in mind that without one the individual selling the gun has no way of differentiating you from a drug dealer or other criminal.

This case is about a druggie trying to get a lighter sentence by turning over his dealer. The druggie had enough knowledge to provide probable cause and allow the officers to get a warrant. They decided to bypass that.

I have nothing to hide - but the neighbor kid does not have the right to invite the police(or anyone else) into my home.

The 4th Amendment was written to protect the innocent. I am not willing to give up that protection because the cops want to take a short cut.

(If there had been no other way to get into the house, I might rethink my position - but they had other ways.)

Thank you for your comments. Your last paragraph expresses what this case is about very clearly. It makes it easier to understand why this is such an important case.

Hey Cameras?: if things weren't the same, they would be different. There are no allegations of imminent danger or wife beating. The facts here are the only facts the court can consider in deciding this case. The bright line rule they establish may take into consideration other factors like imminent danger and imminent destruction of evidence, which would actually reference other fourth amendment decisions that address those issues. The masses are always so quick to invoke " safety" as a trump card for constitutional rights, when those situations are the exception and not the norm. It's rarely a good idea to act on exceptions, rather than the norm. Calm down, and look at he facts and put yourself in the defendants position ( and yes, you can even assume you're innocent) and ask yourself if you would want your constitutional rights treated as you suggest. If you're honest with yourself, I imagine you would find pause.

The spontaneous order of anarchy would be much more peaceful and prosperous than the calculated chaos of state-sponsored aggression that plagues civil society today.

This case was submitted to the Supreme Court because the Drug dealer filed a civil suit against the police officers. It was only supposed to be about that only. It was the Supreme Court that insisted Peter Stirba argue the 4th amendment issue. So it was the court that wanted this argued.

The issue pertaining to the civil suit is whether or not the officers have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is the premise that as long as officers acted in a manner they believed to be consistent with "clearly established law" they cannot be held liable for damages, even if their actions are later found to be unlawful.

The district courts are split on whether or not an undercover officer has the right to prevent other officers into the residence.

Without examining the case law on this issue, it is not possible to know if the officers behaved in a reasonable manner. If they did not, then they are liable in a civil suit. If they did, then they are not liable.

Having clear precedent for this situation will provide guidance to police officers in the future.

Considering they had been doing the same operations for years with other CI's and this was the standard operations for the drug task force's in several other Federal District's, I would safely say they didn't do anything wrong. Only until a court first says it was illegal should these cops be held liable, but not retroactively. Watch the HBO's The Wire to get a better feel on the problems in getting a timely warrant.