wtf!

[simon]

whats up with the police in the USA,just watch this Tv progrmme and a pedo that abducted 2 boys and had one of them for over 4 years!!! the police find his car and ask can they serch his car and house because it matches the details they have,the ploice said he started to act weird when ask to search his house and said no! so what do the police do,they just go away and ask him again the next day and only then after hours of asking him does he then give consent for them to look in his house,they then find the 2 boys alive,the pedo could just have easily gone and killed the boys that night,just amazing!:mad:

they didn't even ask for a warrant,they said it was late so they would ask the next day!

the boy that saw the van drive off with the abducted boy gave a very detailed discription of the van,guess what the police do....give the boy a lie test:eek:

when you can get arrested in the US just by someone saying you have committed a crime,and maybe be in jail for a day or 2,it's a bit off that the police didn't go to the bother to get a warrant!

yeah its hard to comment when you haven't watch the show but trust me it was so maddening:mad:

they thought it was important enough to go to his work the next day and ask again,here in that situation the police would not just go home for the night and "try" again they would take you to a judge there and then!

I think the American constitution needs to be looked at again,it's like the bible written for the age back then and not as the world is now.

I'm beleive if someone were to accuse you of a crime then the people would arrest you? ok I'm just going from talk shows etc but it does seem less evidence is needed to be arrested than over here.

well thats good to know,maybe I won't put off my next trip.

Judge judy is not the best source of info :redface:,but the amount of times you hear "I got him arrested" for saying he hit me etc

maybe you haven't read the full thread but the car match too,it wasn't just because they thought he was acting weid but that only started acting weid when the house was mentioned,it wasn't just a standard car but had custom parts that also match,the question is not if the person would like their home sercched but whether the police had enough to ask for a warrant,you say you wouldn't want your home serched but I'm sure if you knew two boys had been abducted and letting the police look in your house would help,I would think most everyone would help.

yes it was a customed car,

,if the police were to knock at your door and say a boy has just been abducted could we please check your house,you would say no? hope people are more helpful if you ever need the police.

making more work for themselves and maybe getting an abduced boy killed in the process would be when they have reason to ask to search a car or house,but someone like you would say no,does that reduce the police's work...no,because you may be surprised but they don't just walk away but will then have to question you why they can't search and go get a warrant,which is time and more work,because we are not talking about the police just going to random houses to search,I in this thread and the police in the TV show have made it quite clear it was going to be a search on a house of someone that matched the details of the abductor,for some reason you keep missing the point,first post you say the police wanted to search because he was acting weird,when there was more to it,now you imply I'm suggesting searches on ramdom houses!!! I know you understand what is being said here but for some unknow reason want to argue I case no one is making.

I'm sorry that explanation is beyond you.

yeah it looks that way!

[fredv3b]

I am not trying to be difficult, I am trying to understand what you are saying.

Beyond this particular TV show, which I have not seen and am not commenting on, what are you trying to say? That the police wouldn't ask to search a property if they didn't already have sufficient suspicions to justify a warrant, and that we can all take the police on trust and forgo the formalities of a warrant? That even if the police do not have sufficient suspicions to justify a warrant we should allow them to search our homes anyway? Or what?

[simon]

I am not trying to be difficult, I am trying to understand what you are saying.

Beyond this particular TV show, which I have not seen and am not commenting on, what are you trying to say? That the police wouldn't ask to search a property if they didn't already have sufficient suspicions to justify a warrant, and that we can all take the police on trust and forgo the formalities of a warrant? That even if the police do not have sufficient suspicions to justify a warrant we should allow them to search our homes anyway? Or what?

I think my post are clear enough , you started posting on this thread with a comment that was clearly wrong and have continued to miss the point of this thread,you say you are not commenting on the show which this thread is about,so nothing more needs to be said,I will not to replying to any more posts in this thread from you.

[fredv3b]

I think the American constitution needs to be looked at again,it's like the bible written for the age back then and not as the world is now.

My mistake, I thought that since you had suggested that the US Constitution should be revised that you had moved beyond talk about just that particular case.

You are quite correct that my original post was wrong, however that is because you had not mentioned that the car was customised. When you did, I immediately admitted that changed things.

[Wintereis]

I think my post are clear enough , you started posting on this thread with a comment that was clearly wrong and have continued to miss the point of this thread,you say you are not commenting on the show which this thread is about,so nothing more needs to be said,I will not to replying to any more posts in this thread from you.

I'm afraid Fred has a point. I don't want my privacy violated unless just cause is shown for that violation. That seems to be something you point to as a problem in the American Civil Code in your statement that the Constitution should be revised. So, it seems that you brought that thought to the forefront before Fred ever did.

You also seem to contradict yourself, stating that American police don't do their job by searching suspects homes and then by stating that they seem to arrest people without cause.

I think the generalizations and blanket statements are a problem, a big one in your argument. I would refrain from doing so and consider the fact that some things are just isolated incidents rather than a universal practice.

Here is the law regarding search and seizure:

Search and Seizure - Illegal Unreasonable Search Without Warrant Legal Searches Exclusionary Rule

Origin of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: The Fourth Amendment was written directly in response to British general warrants (called Writs of Assistance), in which the Crown would grant general search powers to British law enforcement official. These officials could search virtually any home they liked, at any time they liked, for any reason they liked or for no reason at all. Since many of the founding fathers were smugglers, this was an especially unpopular concept in the colonies.


As far as the police actions in this scenario, if everything you state and the program states about their actions are correct, they were in the wrong and should be fired for not doing their duty as officers of the law. I imagine, if those statements of yours and the programs are true, their is likely an investigation of the incident going on or soon to begin.

[simon]

I'm afraid Fred has a point. I don't want my privacy violated unless just cause is shown for that violation.

where do I disagree with that?







That seems to be something you point to as a problem in the American Civil Code in your statement that the Constitution should be revised. So, it seems that you brought that thought to the forefront before Fred ever did.


yes in relation to my thread,Fred says himself he was not commenting on the TV show and was making a blanket statement that he wouldn't allow the police to search his house,I was saying in some situations I'm sure he would



You also seem to contradict yourself, stating that American police don't do their job by searching suspects homes and then by stating that they seem to arrest people without cause.


how is that a contridition? getting arrested for little reason and not carrying out a search of a pedos house,to me are both not doing their job



I think the generalizations and blanket statements are a problem, a big one in your argument. I would refrain from doing so and consider the fact that some things are just isolated incidents rather than a universal practice.


sometimes generalisation are needed,there are always cases that don't fit but only talking on a case by case basis would not work



Here is the law regarding search and seizure:

Search and Seizure - Illegal Unreasonable Search Without Warrant Legal Searches Exclusionary Rule

Origin of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: The Fourth Amendment was written directly in response to British general warrants (called Writs of Assistance), in which the Crown would grant general search powers to British law enforcement official. These officials could search virtually any home they liked, at any time they liked, for any reason they liked or for no reason at all. Since many of the founding fathers were smugglers, this was an especially unpopular concept in the colonies.


I'm not saying if they did or didn't follow the law,I'm saying if they did it needs changing and if they didn't they need sacking


As far as the police actions in this scenario, if everything you state and the program states about their actions are correct, they were in the wrong and should be fired for not doing their duty as officers of the law. I imagine, if those statements of yours and the programs are true, their is likely an investigation of the incident going on or soon to begin.

the police were talking for themselves in the show so I would think it was true,it just adds to the maddness that they would own up to "going back the next day as it was late"

[zeon]

whats up with the police in the USA,just watch this Tv progrmme and a pedo that abducted 2 boys and had one of them for over 4 years!!! the police find his car and ask can they serch his car and house because it matches the details they have,the ploice said he started to act weird when ask to search his house and said no! so what do the police do,they just go away and ask him again the next day and only then after hours of asking him does he then give consent for them to look in his house,they then find the 2 boys alive,the pedo could just have easily gone and killed the boys that night,just amazing!:mad:

I think if the police suspect something very serious there should be an under written law with good effect which says we are searching the premisis regardless

[Wintereis]

I think if the police suspect something very serious there should be an under written law with good effect which says we are searching the premisis regardless

ot every search, seizure, or arrest must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. The exceptions made to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement reflect the Court's reluctance to unduly impede the job of law enforcement officials. The Court has attempted to strike a balance between the practical realities of daily police work and the privacy and freedom interests of the public. Always requiring police officers to take the time to complete a warrant application and locate and appear before a judge could result in the destruction of evidence, the disappearance of suspects and witnesses, or both. The circumstances under which a warrantless search, seizure, or arrest is deemed reasonable generally fall within seven categories. First, no warrant is required for a FELONY arrest in a public place, even if the arresting officer had ample time to procure a warrant, so long as the officer possessed probable cause that the suspect committed the crime. Felony arrests in places not open to the public generally do require a warrant, unless the officer is in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing FELON (see Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 [1967]). The Fourth Amendment also allows warrantless arrests for misdemeanors committed in an officer's presence.
Second, no warrant is required for searches incident to lawful arrest. If a police officer has made a lawful arrest, with or without a warrant, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to conduct a search of the suspect's person, clothing, and all of the areas within the suspect's immediate reach. This kind of warrantless search is justified on grounds that it allows police officers to protect themselves from hidden weapons that might suddenly be wielded against them. Accordingly, officers are only permitted to seize items from the area in the immediate control of the arrestee.
Third, automobiles may be stopped if an officer possesses a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist has violated a traffic law. Once the vehicle has pulled to the side of the road, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to search the vehicle's interior, including the glove compartment. However, the trunk of a vehicle cannot be searched unless the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains CONTRABAND or the instrumentalities of criminal activity. But similar to a search incident to arrest, once a vehicle has been lawfully impounded, its contents may be inventoried without a warrant, including the contents of the trunk.
Fourth, an officer who reasonably believes that criminal activity may be afoot in a public place is authorized to stop any person who is suspected of participating in that criminal activity and conduct a carefully limited search of the suspect's outer clothing for weapons that may be used against the officer (see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 21 L. Ed. 889 [1968]). The officer may also ask for identification, but the suspect is under no obligation to produce it. However, A suspect's refusal to identify himself together with surrounding events may create probable cause to arrest (see People v. Loudermilk, 195 Cal.App.3d 996, 241 Cal.Rptr. 208 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. [1987]). This kind of warrantless search, called a Terry stop or a Terry FRISK, is designed to protect officers from hidden weapons. Accordingly, items that do not feel like weapons, such as a baggie of soft, granular substance tucked inside a jacket pocket, cannot be seized during a Terry frisk, even if it turns out that the item is contraband.
Fifth, warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests may be justified by "exigent" circumstances. To determine whether exigent circumstances justified police conduct, a court must review the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the underlying offense and whether the suspect was fleeing or trying to escape. However, the surrounding circumstances must be tantamount to an emergency. Shots fired, screams heard, or fire emanating from inside a building have all been considered sufficiently exigent to dispense with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
Sixth, the Supreme Court has upheld brief, warrantless seizures at fixed roadside checkpoints aimed at intercepting illegal ALIENS (see United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 428 U.S. 543, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 [1976]) and drunk drivers (see Michigan v. Sitz, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 496 U.S. 444, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 [1990]). Both checkpoint programs passed constitutional muster because they were tailored to remedying specific problems that law enforcement could not effectively address through more traditional means, namely problems relating to policing the nation's border and ensuring roadway safety. However, when the primary purpose of a checkpoint is simply to detect ordinary criminal activity, the Supreme Court has declared it violative of the Fourth Amendment (see Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 [2000]).
Seventh, searches, seizures, and arrests made pursuant to a defective warrant may be justified if the officer was proceeding in "good faith." The Supreme Court has said that a search made pursuant to a warrant that is later declared invalid (i.e., it fails to meet the requirements for a valid warrant enumerated above) will still be considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment so long as the warrant was issued by a magistrate and the defect was not the result of willful police deception (see U. S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 [1984]). This exception to the warrant requirement was created so as not to punish honest police officers who have done nothing wrong while acting in accordance with an ostensibly valid warrant.