Monday, February 8, 2021
Sunday, February 7, 2021
SOMEONE VANDALIZED THE BACK OF THIS LOSER'S TRUCK...
My Bitchute Channel:
Follow Me You Deplorable, Trump Supporting, Flag Waving American Citizen!
Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant
The 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches of a person’s home is a pillar of Americans’ constitutional liberties. Before a police officer, or any other government official, can enter your home, they must show a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime.
There are some limited exceptions to this right. There is an “exigent circumstances” exception. If a police officer looks through a home’s window and sees a person about to stab another person, the officer can burst through the door to prevent the attack. There is also the “emergency aid” exception. If the officer looked through the same window and saw the resident collapsing from an apparent heart attack, the officer could run into the house to administer aid. Neither of these cases violates the 4th Amendment and few would argue that it should be otherwise.
However, there is a broader cousin to these amendments called the “community caretaking” exception. It originally derives from a case in which the police took a gun out of the trunk of an impounded vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court held that there is a community caretaking exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement because police perform “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." The Court held that police activity in furtherance of these functions does not violate the 4th Amendment as long as it is executed in a “reasonable” manner.
Note that, unlike the first two exceptions, this exception is not limited to immediate emergencies. In the Supreme Court case just described there was only a general concern that vandals might eventually break into the impounded car and steal any weapons that were in the trunk. So the community care exception is far broader than the other two.
The 4th Amendment right against warrantless searches of a person’s home is a pillar of Americans’ constitutional liberties. Before a police officer, or any other government official, can enter your home, they must show a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime.
There are some limited exceptions to this right. There is an “exigent circumstances” exception. If a police officer looks through a home’s window and sees a person about to stab another person, the officer can burst through the door to prevent the attack. There is also the “emergency aid” exception. If the officer looked through the same window and saw the resident collapsing from an apparent heart attack, the officer could run into the house to administer aid. Neither of these cases violates the 4th Amendment and few would argue that it should be otherwise.
However, there is a broader cousin to these amendments called the “community caretaking” exception. It originally derives from a case in which the police took a gun out of the trunk of an impounded vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court held that there is a community caretaking exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement because police perform “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." The Court held that police activity in furtherance of these functions does not violate the 4th Amendment as long as it is executed in a “reasonable” manner.
Note that, unlike the first two exceptions, this exception is not limited to immediate emergencies. In the Supreme Court case just described there was only a general concern that vandals might eventually break into the impounded car and steal any weapons that were in the trunk. So the community care exception is far broader than the other two.
Also, all three exceptions allow warrantless searches so long as the police officer acted “reasonably”. That is one of the easiest constitutional standards to meet and is a significantly lower standard than “probable cause”, which is required for...
There are some limited exceptions to this right. There is an “exigent circumstances” exception. If a police officer looks through a home’s window and sees a person about to stab another person, the officer can burst through the door to prevent the attack. There is also the “emergency aid” exception. If the officer looked through the same window and saw the resident collapsing from an apparent heart attack, the officer could run into the house to administer aid. Neither of these cases violates the 4th Amendment and few would argue that it should be otherwise.
However, there is a broader cousin to these amendments called the “community caretaking” exception. It originally derives from a case in which the police took a gun out of the trunk of an impounded vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court held that there is a community caretaking exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement because police perform “community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." The Court held that police activity in furtherance of these functions does not violate the 4th Amendment as long as it is executed in a “reasonable” manner.
Note that, unlike the first two exceptions, this exception is not limited to immediate emergencies. In the Supreme Court case just described there was only a general concern that vandals might eventually break into the impounded car and steal any weapons that were in the trunk. So the community care exception is far broader than the other two.
Also, all three exceptions allow warrantless searches so long as the police officer acted “reasonably”. That is one of the easiest constitutional standards to meet and is a significantly lower standard than “probable cause”, which is required for...
Anti-White, Impeachment “Witness” From Facebook Board Who Mocked Barron Trump Joins Biden Justice Dept
Pamela Karlan, who testified during President Trump’s impeachment trial, is joining President Biden’s Justice Department.
Karlan will serve as principal deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division.
She previously served on Facebook’s far-left oversight board and was selected by Democrats to serve as a ‘Constitutional Expert’ during President Trump’s House impeachment inquiry.
While testifying, she mocked President Trump’s 13-year-old son, Barron.
She also has attacked white men while speaking to the American Constitution Society in 2006, where she proclaimed “we have to seize back the high ground on patriotism and on love of our country, because we have more reason than they do to love America” to a fawning, liberal audience.
She continued: “The rich, pampered, prodigal, sanctimonious, incurious, white, straight sons of the powerful do pretty well everywhere in the world, and they always have. But what about us? Snarky, bisexual, Jewish women who want the freedom to say what we think, read what we want, and love who we do.”
Remember When This Feckless Cunt Made Mocked Barron Trump?:
Remember When Hillary Clinton's Senate Finance Director Was Implicated In The Panama Papers?
Jump back, what's that sound?
Here she comes, full blast'n top down
Hot shoe, burnin' down the avenue
Model citizen, zero discipline
Don't you know she's coming home with me
You'll lose her in that turn
I'll get her!
Panama, Panama
Panama, Panama
Ain't nothin' like it, it's a shining machine
Got the feel for the wheel, keep the movin' parts clean
Hot shoe, burnin' down the avenue
Got an on-ramp comin' through my bedroom
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, whom Caruana Galizia targeted in her blog “Running Commentary, condemned the killing as a “barbaric” act, Agence France-Presse reported.
“What happened today is unacceptable on various levels. Today is a black day for our democracy and our freedom of speech,” he told reporters.
Caruana Galizia, 53, had just driven away from her home in Mosta, near the capital Valletta, when the bomb obliterated her Peugeot 108 and sent her body flying over a wall and into a field.
No one has come forward to claim responsibility for...
“What happened today is unacceptable on various levels. Today is a black day for our democracy and our freedom of speech,” he told reporters.
Caruana Galizia, 53, had just driven away from her home in Mosta, near the capital Valletta, when the bomb obliterated her Peugeot 108 and sent her body flying over a wall and into a field.
No one has come forward to claim responsibility for...
Biden to De-list Houthi Rebels as Terrorists; Cotton: ‘Appeasing Iran’
Corrupt Joe Biden is de-listing the Houthi rebels of Yemen as a terrorist organization, despite the fact that the group attacks civilians, considers the U.S. an enemy, and is armed and funded by Iran.
As Breitbart News has previously reported: “The Houthis are a jihadist organization whose slogan is ‘God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, a Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam.'”
The Biden administration announced the move on Friday, ostensibly to allow humanitarian aid to reach Yemen. It follows an announcement by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan that the U.S. was ending its support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen on behalf of the legitimate government.
The Houthis launched the war in 2014. Iran backs the rebels, partly because control of Yemen gives Iran a strategic position across the Bab el Mandeb Strait from U.S. forces that are stationed in Djibouti on the Red Sea. Both sides in the civil war have committed atrocities.
The move is Biden’s latest slap to U.S. allies in the region — and an apparent attempt to appease Iran, which the Biden administration hopes to entice back to the negotiating table.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) accused Biden of appeasement in a statement Saturday:
The Houthi rebels are armed and trained by Iran’s overseas terror corps, the IRGC and Hezbollah. They fire missiles at civilians and American sailors while chanting ‘Death to America.’ And they’ve plunged Yemen into a protracted war that has immiserated the Yemeni people. If that’s not terrorism, I don’t know what is. President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken may foolishly believe that...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)