Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: SCOTUS declines cert in Quinn v Texas, RKABA moots Fourth Amendment protections.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    SCOTUS declines cert in Quinn v Texas, RKABA moots Fourth Amendment protections.

    March 12, 2014 WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. In denying a petition for certiorari in Quinn v. Texas, the Court let stand a lower court ruling that essentially makes lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment and improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Rutherford Institute had asked the Court to weigh in on the case and protect Americans against encroachments on their Second Amendment rights.

    https://www.rutherford.org/publicati...amendment_case

    http://statecasefiles.justia.com/doc...370476354:cry:
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    CT residents are now one step closer to gun confiscation.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    CT residents are now one step closer to gun confiscation.
    ? How so? This was a drug case. The reason for the warrant was drugs. They then did a no knock based on guns. The warrant was going to be serves either way whether they knocked or didn't. The only affect the guns had was the method of execution, not the warrant itself. Big difference. Which is probably why the USSC didn't take the case.

    So completely irrelevant to CT unless a lot of CT residents have drugs. And then if they do and they have guns they can worry about the method of entry.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  4. #4
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    ? How so? This was a drug case. The reason for the warrant was drugs. They then did a no knock based on guns. The warrant was going to be serves either way whether they knocked or didn't. The only affect the guns had was the method of execution, not the warrant itself. Big difference. Which is probably why the USSC didn't take the case.

    So completely irrelevant to CT unless a lot of CT residents have drugs. And then if they do and they have guns they can worry about the method of entry.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

    I'm sorry, did you think this through? Let's take your comments. "The reason for the warrant was drugs." Why? Why would "drugs" be a reason to serve a warrant? If drugs are legal, there is no need. But drugs are not legal. So let me ask you this, is it legal in the state of CT to own an unregistered "assault weapon" of evil? The "drugs" is too specific. They issued a warrant due to an illegal activity. Something nearly 100k CT residents are currently committing. In fact, the CT residents are currently committing a felony according to the new law. So, illegal gun possession is a felony. Warrant requested based on evidence that a felony is taking place. No-Knock requested because guns are involved. OC for ME is right.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    I'm sorry, did you think this through? Let's take your comments. "The reason for the warrant was drugs." Why? Why would "drugs" be a reason to serve a warrant? If drugs are legal, there is no need. But drugs are not legal. So let me ask you this, is it legal in the state of CT to own an unregistered "assault weapon" of evil? The "drugs" is too specific. They issued a warrant due to an illegal activity. Something nearly 100k CT residents are currently committing. In fact, the CT residents are currently committing a felony according to the new law. So, illegal gun possession is a felony. Warrant requested based on evidence that a felony is taking place. No-Knock requested because guns are involved. OC for ME is right.
    I'm failing to see how this is "news" or anything to warrant a "step closer". This just means nothing is changing. To say a "step closer" means that something..... well stepped. Or changed. Nothing has.

    Even if you go with the "guns are now illegal" thought. Ok. Think of through.... then the warrant will still be for an illegal item.

    Again the case wasn't going to supreme court of serving warrants it was METHOD. We know the METHOD changes based on circumstances at the place being served.

    This was "business as usual" hence the reason the USSC didn't accept it. Now the conversation can/will be that the this method sucks even if its common.

    But that conversation is different then "one step closer to confiscation". Again no steps were taken, forward or back.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    ? How so? This was a drug case. The reason for the warrant was drugs. They then did a no knock based on guns. The warrant was going to be serves either way whether they knocked or didn't. The only affect the guns had was the method of execution, not the warrant itself. Big difference. Which is probably why the USSC didn't take the case.

    So completely irrelevant to CT unless a lot of CT residents have drugs. And then if they do and they have guns they can worry about the method of entry.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    This case was not about drugs but the manner in which the drugs were found. So, it need not be a "illegal drug" to authorize a no-knock warrant if a "AW" is reasonably believed to be present in the structure to be searched. If the cops can generate PC then a no-knock can be authorized to seize the contraband rifle and other guns because the possession of a "AW" that is not registered is a felony and as such the "owner" of the "AW" is reasonably suspected of committing that felony.

    You are a cop, a good one as far as I can tell, but you did miss the point of the appeal by Quinn. He is a convicted drug user (less than a gram, what a joke) and deserves his fate no matter how bogus the charge is.

  7. #7
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I'm failing to see how this is "news" or anything to warrant a "step closer". This just means nothing is changing. To say a "step closer" means that something..... well stepped. Or changed. Nothing has.

    Even if you go with the "guns are now illegal" thought. Ok. Think of through.... then the warrant will still be for an illegal item.

    Again the case wasn't going to supreme court of serving warrants it was METHOD. We know the METHOD changes based on circumstances at the place being served.

    This was "business as usual" hence the reason the USSC didn't accept it. Now the conversation can/will be that the this method sucks even if its common.

    But that conversation is different then "one step closer to confiscation". Again no steps were taken, forward or back.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Remember in court cases it is important to read what the party requesting review is saying as their argument. It's not the event that is being reviewed it is the argument made by in this case the defendant as to why the event was wrong. The defendant in this case argued that:

    ... in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.
    By declining to hear the case, SCOTUS is stating that no evidence of danger to police is required to justify no-knock raids in contradiction to 4th amendment protections. IE, a "hunch" is adequate reason to violate a persons 4th amendment rights. The only information the police has was that guns may be present at the home. In fact, legally owned guns. Whether you think the bar is moved or not, this is a precedent that can be used to embolden future actions. Right or wrong, agencies will use this case as justification for increasing the use of no-knock raids. That is a change.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    <snip> Right or wrong, agencies will use this case as justification for increasing the use of no-knock raids. That is a change.
    I don't think LEAs need this case to justify their increasing use of no-knocks. They have been increasing the use for years, with no let-up in sight.

  9. #9
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    NKW need to be outlawed, under any circumstances. There is always a alternative to kicking in doors without warning. Not only is it dangerous to all parties it is much more expensive than collecting the suspects on the street and then serving the warrants while they are detained. I hate to say it, but when as many LEOs pay the same cost as innocent citizens maybe the police unions will demand this practice stop.

    As it stands now the only purpose of NKW is to justify the existence of raiding teams, and to put money in police unions pockets. More police, means more union members, NKW needs more personal than actually doing the job the intelligent way.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  10. #10
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I don't think LEAs need this case to justify their increasing use of no-knocks. They have been increasing the use for years, with no let-up in sight.
    Ok, well, true. But I do believe it will embolden more agencies to expand them. It's one thing to be unclear of it's legality and proceed hoping you're justified. It's another thing to say, it's been shown to be legal by case precedence, so charge ahead full steam.
    Last edited by mobiushky; 03-14-2014 at 12:43 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Ok, well, true. But I do believe it will embolden more agencies to expand them. It's one thing to be unclear of it's legality and proceed hoping you're justified. It's another thing to say, it's been shown to be legal by case precedence, so charge ahead full steam.
    As long as the federal government continues to fund expanded police activities it will keep increasing. The money for these raids is being funded by the printing of monopoly money. Departments feel compelled to fight the drug war(cough cough) to get more of this monopoly money.

    Not only are citizens losing rights, they are paying for it. In the meantime when the debt is ballooning we are not raising hell that feds are paying local police bills. If the feds said we will give you money and things for arresting people for playing with themselves, the local police would do it.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    This case was not about drugs but the manner in which the drugs were found. So, it need not be a "illegal drug" to authorize a no-knock warrant if a "AW" is reasonably believed to be present in the structure to be searched. If the cops can generate PC then a no-knock can be authorized to seize the contraband rifle and other guns because the possession of a "AW" that is not registered is a felony and as such the "owner" of the "AW" is reasonably suspected of committing that felony.

    You are a cop, a good one as far as I can tell, but you did miss the point of the appeal by Quinn. He is a convicted drug user (less than a gram, what a joke) and deserves his fate no matter how bogus the charge is.
    I understand, like I said before it was about the method if entry not the actual warrant. No knocks are a big deal I agree with that whole heartedly.

    All I can say is this.... is a legal firearm an less lethal then an illegal firearm? Either a person as the capability and propensity to hurt someone or they don't. The gun being present whether its legal, illegal, big, small, registered , unregistered, black and scary, or purdy like the guns the guys on this forum carry, takes care of the capability. I think the other prong needs more work, the propensity to do harm.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  13. #13
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I understand, like I said before it was about the method if entry not the actual warrant. No knocks are a big deal I agree with that whole heartedly.

    All I can say is this.... is a legal firearm an less lethal then an illegal firearm? Either a person as the capability and propensity to hurt someone or they don't. The gun being present whether its legal, illegal, big, small, registered , unregistered, black and scary, or purdy like the guns the guys on this forum carry, takes care of the capability. I think the other prong needs more work, the propensity to do harm.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    It's about where the bar is set. According to Rutherford:

    Although established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence dictates that police officers entering a dwelling must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry, police may disregard the knock and announce rule under circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence or a danger that evidence will be destroyed.
    In other words, at what level is it acceptable to violate a persons rights. Yes, there are levels of danger that justify the temporary violation of a persons rights, that's clear. The point here is that the bar has been lowered. It's not a "complete anarchy in the police force!!!" It's a one step lower than it was the day before thing. The bar has effectively been lowered from "evidence of a threat of violence to the police" to mere "suspicion of the presence of a firearm even if legally owned". That's all. Sure it's subtle, but each lowering of the bar usually is subtle.

    ETA: I just had this thought. Let's take it one more small step. Not to the absurd, but one slightly lower step of the bar. If the legal possession of an item that might be dangerous is grounds for no-knock, then what prevents a police dept from saying they want to serve a warrant on a person based on evidence that they are a drug user, but because people often have some knives in their residence it needs to be no-knock. Are knives not "dangerous"? What line is there that cannot be crossed? If we keep lowering the bar, what's the point of even having lines that cannot be crossed?
    Last edited by mobiushky; 03-14-2014 at 01:49 PM. Reason: Sudden thought.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    It's about where the bar is set. According to Rutherford:



    In other words, at what level is it acceptable to violate a persons rights. Yes, there are levels of danger that justify the temporary violation of a persons rights, that's clear. The point here is that the bar has been lowered. It's not a "complete anarchy in the police force!!!" It's a one step lower than it was the day before thing. The bar has effectively been lowered from "evidence of a threat of violence to the police" to mere "suspicion of the presence of a firearm even if legally owned". That's all. Sure it's subtle, but each lowering of the bar usually is subtle.

    ETA: I just had this thought. Let's take it one more small step. Not to the absurd, but one slightly lower step of the bar. If the legal possession of an item that might be dangerous is grounds for no-knock, then what prevents a police dept from saying they want to serve a warrant on a person based on evidence that they are a drug user, but because people often have some knives in their residence it needs to be no-knock. Are knives not "dangerous"? What line is there that cannot be crossed? If we keep lowering the bar, what's the point of even having lines that cannot be crossed?
    Here's a very serious question and one that goes to the heart of the matter.

    What right is being violated by a no knock warrant?

    The 4th clearly stipulated what you need to execute a search/seizure. A warrant.

    It doesn't say how said warrant must be executed.

    Even the parts you quoted said "jurisprudence says....." about the reasonable announcement then wait time , which varies from something like 3-5 seconds or some odd ball number depending on what court case you cite.

    So again... please cite the right that is violated.



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  15. #15
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Here's a very serious question and one that goes to the heart of the matter.

    What right is being violated by a no knock warrant?

    The 4th clearly stipulated what you need to execute a search/seizure. A warrant.

    It doesn't say how said warrant must be executed.

    Even the parts you quoted said "jurisprudence says....." about the reasonable announcement then wait time , which varies from something like 3-5 seconds or some odd ball number depending on what court case you cite.

    So again... please cite the right that is violated.



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Reasonable search. Jurisprudence defines what is a reasonable search and defines that no-knock is not a reasonable search. However, given specific evidence of threat to law enforcement, the bar of reasonable search is lowered to protect the officers in some cases. With this non-ruling, that bar is lowered. You no longer need evidence of danger, you only need mere suspicion of presence of something that might be dangerous. The presence of a firearm does not by default necessitate danger. SCOTUS is clear that presence of a firearm does not rise to the level of RAS (Terry). There has to be evidence of a specific threat to safety. With this case, that requirement is not needed anymore.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

    In this discussion it is the right to security against unreasonable search.

    Maybe the best way to say is, we're redefining what "reasonable" means now.
    Last edited by mobiushky; 03-14-2014 at 02:09 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Breaking into a person's home is a home invasion. As such deadly force is appropriate, the unknowing homeowner has no obligation to determine if it is police or a criminal.

    I am sorry to say the only thing that will put a stop to this is bloodshed by those who are invading a home. And IMO is completely justified.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Reasonable search. Jurisprudence defines what is a reasonable search and defines that no-knock is not a reasonable search. However, given specific evidence of threat to law enforcement, the bar of reasonable search is lowered to protect the officers in some cases. With this non-ruling, that bar is lowered. You no longer need evidence of danger, you only need mere suspicion of presence of something that might be dangerous. The presence of a firearm does not by default necessitate danger. SCOTUS is clear that presence of a firearm does not rise to the level of RAS (Terry). There has to be evidence of a specific threat to safety. With this case, that requirement is not needed anymore.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

    In this discussion it is the right to security against unreasonable search.

    Maybe the best way to say is, we're redefining what "reasonable" means now.
    Thank you now for clarification, I agree with your last statement.

    I just don't agree that this case defined anything. There was nothing new presented. He was not the first nor the last person to have a no knock served for drugs due to firearms being present. He may have been the first to say "my guns shouldn't count because they are legal", but again a guns "legality" doesn't change the dangerousness of the situation. That's all I'm saying no more no less. And I'm pretty sure that may be at least similar to what the ussc was thinking.

    Again... defining a gun as "legally owned' does NOT change the lethality of said firearm.

    Lastly, this doesn't change anything in business for either side. Its not a step in either direction. Its not a win nor a loss and doesn't raise or lower any bar. If there are guns present and a warrant is being served the warrant may be a no knock.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Thank you now for clarification, I agree with your last statement.

    <snip>If there are guns present and a warrant is being served the warrant may be a no knock.
    Please excuse my tenaciousness on this specific issue.

    It is not a "if" guns are present situation. It should be a guns "are" present situation. Any judge that permits a no-knock based only on "if" guns are present, or, we "think" guns are present, is a idiot. The cops need to do a little leg work and make 100% sure guns are present. Thinking guns are present places the cops in a specific mindset while entering which will result in unarmed citizens being killed.

    Appeal to emotion, using facts, follow:

    Folks have been shot by cops during no-knocks cuz they held a golf club or walking cane, and no guns were found on the premises. Those cops thought they saw a gun because they were in a frame of mind to look for a gun whether gun was present or not.

  19. #19
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Thank you now for clarification, I agree with your last statement.

    I just don't agree that this case defined anything. There was nothing new presented. He was not the first nor the last person to have a no knock served for drugs due to firearms being present. He may have been the first to say "my guns shouldn't count because they are legal", but again a guns "legality" doesn't change the dangerousness of the situation. That's all I'm saying no more no less. And I'm pretty sure that may be at least similar to what the ussc was thinking.

    Again... defining a gun as "legally owned' does NOT change the lethality of said firearm.

    Lastly, this doesn't change anything in business for either side. Its not a step in either direction. Its not a win nor a loss and doesn't raise or lower any bar. If there are guns present and a warrant is being served the warrant may be a no knock.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    And I think you're missing the point. Prior to this case law enforcement had to show evidence of threat to police. Specific evidence. IE, the target is known to carry firearms and has a violent past. There is a known threat of danger. In this case, the target was suspected of having drugs. The home was not his. It was his fathers home. There was no evidence that pointed to a specific threat of danger to the police. The father has not been shown to be a threat in the past. The firearms he owned were legally owned and he was not the target of the raid. Based on that lack of evidence, the bar has moved. The bar is no longer specific evidence of a threat. The bar is now (essentially) an uneasy feeling of maybe bad things. That's moving the bar. That sets precedent that any perceived potentially dangerous item can be deemed to be a threat and therefore grounds for a violation of the 4th. Anything. Yes in this case it was a firearm. But there is no evidence to show that that firearm was a threat to the officers specifically. In other words, a standard warrant served on the house would not have resulted in danger to the officers because there was no evidence to show that the father (John Quinn) was a dangerous felony in possession of a dangerous weapon. In fact, the police violated the terms of the warrant in the first place. Read:

    In August 2006, Collin County (Texas) police obtained a warrant to search John Quinn’s home based on information that Quinn’s son might be in possession of controlled substances. The warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. Nevertheless, based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household, the SWAT team forcibly broke into Quinn’s home after he had gone to bed and proceeded to carry out a search of the premises. During the raid, Quinn was shot by police, who panicked and opened fire on him through a solid wood door. Quinn had been reaching for his lawfully owned firearm, thinking that his home was being invaded by criminals.
    The police violated the terms of the warrant by conducting an unauthorized no-knock. Their justification was not that John Quinn was a dangerous man in possession of a gun. It was that there was a gun present in the house. John was not the target of the operation. By not reversing the lower court, the supreme court is stating, that's ok. You can arbitrarily alter the conditions of a warrant if you have an bad feeling about it. That IS lowering the bar.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Common law right a person's home is their castle.

    The right to feel secure in your home and your self.

    The right of due process, no knocks pretty much erase that right.

    The right of self defense and of resisting false arrest, most who do end up dead.

    The better question is by what authority do these no knocks exist?

    Invent a standing army and they will invent ways to invade your liberties.

    Those smuggling founders who wrote the constitution must not of understood that "contraband" and the RKBA magically makes rights disappear.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Common law right a person's home is their castle.

    The right to feel secure in your home and your self.

    The right of due process, no knocks pretty much erase that right.

    The right of self defense and of resisting false arrest, most who do end up dead.

    The better question is by what authority do these no knocks exist?

    Invent a standing army and they will invent ways to invade your liberties.

    Those smuggling founders who wrote the constitution must not of understood that "contraband" and the RKBA magically makes rights disappear.
    Yep. A person has the right to resist false arrest. In order to protect this right, nkws cannot be tolerated. Due process demands that one must be given a chance to challenge any warrant BEFORE it is enforced.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Yep. A person has the right to resist false arrest. In order to protect this right, nkws cannot be tolerated. Due process demands that one must be given a chance to challenge any warrant BEFORE it is enforced.
    Challenge warrant how?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The court did not answer if the no-knock was OK ... just ruling that even finding that it was would be irrelevant to suppress the evidence.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    I believe that the term is quash, as to quash a warrant, subpoena or other writ. My jurisdiction's statutes have many mentions of "quash."
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Challenge warrant how?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "Knock Knock!!! We have a search warrant!!"

    "Give me a copy so that I may phone my attorney to verify and challenge. If it is proper, then you may enter."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •