Court Opens Door To Searches
Without Warrants -- Dissenting Judges Call Ruling "the Road to
Alex Jones: "This 5th Curcuit ruling is criminal,
similar to Supreme Court rulings of the past declaring black people
slaves. It is a total violation of the Bill of Rights and is null
The US Congress and legislature of Louisiana should
call an emergency session to investigate possible criminal charges
of sedition against those ruling to eradicate the 4th
Note from Infowars.com: Look at how calmly they
introduce this information -- it's all "for your safety." This is
the Essence of the Sovietization -- the Courts aligning Themselves
against the People in Favor of the Patriot Act. The Fourth Amendment
was the keystone that separated the United States from despotisms
like Nazi Germany and soviet Russia.
Two articles and related info posted below
Warrantless searches OK'd, sometimes
In a ruling two judges dubbed "the road to
hell," a federal appeals court opened the door for police officers
in three states to search homes and buildings for evidence without a
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals ruled Thursday in a Baton Rouge case that authorities don't
need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a swift sweep of private
property to ensure their own safety.
Any evidence discovered during that
search now is admissible in court as long as the search is a
"cursory inspection," and if police entered the site for a
legitimate law-enforcement purpose and believed it may be dangerous.
The ruling -- which stands in
Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi -- replaces a standard set in 1994,
when the 5th Circuit held that police can make a so-called
protective sweep only if officers are there to arrest someone.
In the majority opinion, Judge
William Lockhart Garwood wrote that any in-home encounter poses a
risk to police officers -- even if it's simply to interview someone.
"Although arrest may be highly
relevant, particularly as tending to show the requisite potential of
danger to the officers," Garwood wrote, "that danger may also be
established by other circumstances."
Judges Carolyn Dineen King, Patrick
E. Higginbotham, W. Eugene Davis, Edith H. Jones, Rhesa H.
Barksdale, Emilio M. Garza, Fortunato P. Benavides, James L. Dennis,
Edward Charles Prado and Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., sided with the
majority opinion. Dissenting were Judges E. Grady Jolly, Jerry
Smith, Carl E. Stewart, and Harold DeMoss Jr.
In their opinion, the justices noted
that other federal appellate courts have issued similar findings --
including the 1st, 6th, 9th and Washington, D.C., circuits.
The decision came in the case of
Kelly Donald Gould, a Denham Springs man who was arrested in October
2000 on federal gun charges after allegedly threatening to kill
unidentified judges and police officers.
Deputies went to Gould's trailer
after getting a call from a co-worker that the previously convicted
felon was planning to kill two unnamed Baton Rouge state judges over
their decision to award custody of his daughter to another family
The deputies had no search or arrest
warrant, but were invited into the trailer by another resident, who
told them Gould was asleep in the bedroom. Because of the threats
and Gould's criminal history, the deputies said they looked for him
under the bed and in two closets, where they found three rifles.
They later found Gould hiding in the
woods and seized the weapons after they got him to sign a permission
for the search.
U.S. District Judge James Brady
ruled that the three guns could not be used as evidence in a federal
trial because they were obtained illegally. A 5th Circuit
three-judge panel upheld that decision, but encouraged prosecutors
to request an en banc -- or full court -- hearing to reconsider the
legal precedent on which it was based.
"Gould was not in his bed asleep …
nor was Gould otherwise visible," Garwood wrote. "So the danger and
imminence of ambush then dramatically increased, justifying the few
seconds 'sweep' looking under the bed and opening the two bedroom
Dissenting justices argue the ruling
creates another exception to constitutional protections against
unlawful search and seizure. Some of them contend the officers
created the dangerous situation by entering the mobile home, and
should have approached Gould as he left.
"I have no doubt that the deputy
sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good
intentions," DeMoss and Stewart wrote.
"But the old adage warns us that
'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' In my judgment,
that is precisely where the majority opinion wants to put us by
unhooking the 'protective sweep' from its connection with the
execution of an arrest warrant in a home," DeMoss and Stewart wrote.
U.S. Attorney David Dugas of Baton
Rouge said the case illustrates the "difficult situations"
law-enforcement officers often face.
"They're expected to make
split-second decisions in potentially dangerous situations," he
said, "involving constitutional issues that the courts and legal
scholars can spend years debating."
But Mike Walsh, a defense attorney,
said the 5th Circuit decision "grossly expands" the definition of
Said Walsh: "In my opinion, this is
a further erosion of everyone's -- not just criminals' --
constitutional rights to be free from intrusive and unlawful
Defense attorney Jim Boren said the
ruling still limits police to searches in certain circumstances, but
still represents a "scary trend."
"After the king signed the Magna Carta and
granted power back to the people, he woke up, said, 'I made a
mistake and need to get it back,' " Boren said. "And the
government's been trying to do that ever since. We had a bright-line
rule that said no searches without an arrest warrant. Now we have
one that says sort of, maybe."
Court Opens Door To Searches Without
The New Orleans Channel | March 28 2004
NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court
decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police
officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to
conduct a brief search of your home or business.
Leaders in law enforcement say it will
provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that
could be abused.
The decision was made by the New
Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges
called it the "road to Hell."
The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in
Denham Springs in 2000.
New Orleans Police Department spokesman
Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect
immediately and won't be abused.
"We have to have a legitimate problem to
be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the
search," Defillo said.
But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has
big problems with the ruling.
"I think it goes way too far," Murray
said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears
for his safety -- a subjective condition.
Defillo said he doesn't envision any
problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.
"There are checks and balances to make
sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor,"
"The government has created an atmosphere
of fear and is now shifting the police powers to be focused on the
American people. It was the military-industrial complex that carried
out 9-11 as a pretext for more control. So, when President Bush says
the terrorist attacked us because they hate our freedom he is
telling the truth. They are the terrorists, and they are taking our
America is America because we have these
basic freedoms. The elite is killing the soul of our country. Check
out my analysis of Patriot Act II and find out what their real plans
Learn more about the Police
Police state 3 -- watch the trailer:
Media Broadband -- Click Here
Media 56K -- Click Here
Go to the Original