I find it shocking that a bunch of leftists are suddenly concerned about constitutional rights.

Slicer97 said:

---

I find it shocking that a bunch of leftists are suddenly concerned about constitutional rights.

---

Maybe it's a great way to find some common ground.
I want the government to stay the F off my property and I want to make it as difficult for them to invade my home as humanly possible.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harding_Street_raid

rgvag11 said:

---

The whole point of this thread is about the federal government trying to carve out a new exception to our 4th Amendment right.

I asked you why this new exception should exist, and you have deflected with exceptions that already exist, and for which we were not discussing. You then followed this up by asking me to justify why this new exception to our 4th Amendment right shouldn't exist, as if you have no concept of people's right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable government intrusion into their lives and property.

Anybody can pretend to be a lawyer. There have been many here that have done it before. IMHO, a person that "own(s) a law firm with multiple lawyers and staff working for (them)" would not commit so much time and effort to a fruitless conversation. Add in all the ego trips and it comes off as too desperate.

---

Who the hell is starring your posts? It's unbelievable how dense some are.

This whole thread - which you started - is about the 4th Amendment's S&S clause.

You asked me why this should be allowed. I never told you that it should be. I pointed out that the 4th Amendment isn't absolute pursuant to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, much like the 1st and 2nd. You defeated your own position on those two with your argument here. I never advocated either way; I simply pointed out constitutional. law that you're clearly ignorant of. You keep stating that I, somehow, have the burden to prove why an exception should exist when you're the doofus that started the damn thread. It's unbelievable.

Nobody's pretending buddy. You're welcome to ask me anything that would make whether I'm telling the truth or not obvious. You should probably leave that to another attorney, given that it's obvious you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Weren't you agreeing that the plain view exception should apply?

---

No. I made reference to that exception as one that could be determined to be similar.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I just find it shocking any time someone considers themselves to be conservative/small government/doesn't trust the government/etc looks at something like this and goes "Yep, that's a win for the good guys"

---

There seem to be way less true conservatives on this board than I remember 10 years ago.

I wonder what's changed since then?…/s

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Illegals do have rights, they are just limited to a certain subset that are basic constitutional rights for all human beings under the authority of our government. If they are hostile agents however, those rights are limited in the context of any ongoing threat to the USA. This might mean they can be pursued or sought on private property without protection if they are engaged in ongoing threatening activities.

---

What about the rights of the homeowner?

---

If ICE or whomever is at the point that they believe illegals are being harbored or held in a house that they invoke this Act as authority to enter without a warrant, they are at the point where they could use probable cause anyway.

And if they do F up and enter a house without a warrant and without probable cause or reasonable justification - hope the government gets its ass handed to them in court and the homeowner is compensated very well for such an egregious error on their part.

---

Then make them use ****ing Probable Cause.

---

Nobody's advocating otherwise. A search can be lawful with PC, and not require a warrant.

Jack Boyette said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Illegals do have rights, they are just limited to a certain subset that are basic constitutional rights for all human beings under the authority of our government. If they are hostile agents however, those rights are limited in the context of any ongoing threat to the USA. This might mean they can be pursued or sought on private property without protection if they are engaged in ongoing threatening activities.

---

What about the rights of the homeowner?

---

If ICE or whomever is at the point that they believe illegals are being harbored or held in a house that they invoke this Act as authority to enter without a warrant, they are at the point where they could use probable cause anyway.

And if they do F up and enter a house without a warrant and without probable cause or reasonable justification - hope the government gets its ass handed to them in court and the homeowner is compensated very well for such an egregious error on their part.

---

Then make them use ****ing Probable Cause.

---

Nobody's advocating otherwise. A search can be lawful with PC, and not require a warrant.

---

Of course it can. Police can search your car without a warrant because they smell marijuana "based on their training and experience." I think that's bull****, but that's a topic for another day. But we're talking about not needing a warrant to go into someone's home, and there are few exceptions for not needing a warrant (exigent circumstances, pursuit, etc.). I don't believe "possibly belonging to an international gang and here illegally" should be one of those exceptions.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Illegals do have rights, they are just limited to a certain subset that are basic constitutional rights for all human beings under the authority of our government. If they are hostile agents however, those rights are limited in the context of any ongoing threat to the USA. This might mean they can be pursued or sought on private property without protection if they are engaged in ongoing threatening activities.

---

What about the rights of the homeowner?

---

If ICE or whomever is at the point that they believe illegals are being harbored or held in a house that they invoke this Act as authority to enter without a warrant, they are at the point where they could use probable cause anyway.

And if they do F up and enter a house without a warrant and without probable cause or reasonable justification - hope the government gets its ass handed to them in court and the homeowner is compensated very well for such an egregious error on their part.

---

Then make them use ****ing Probable Cause.

---

Nobody's advocating otherwise. A search can be lawful with PC, and not require a warrant.

---

Of course it can. Police can search your car without a warrant because they smell marijuana "based on their training and experience." I think that's bull****, but that's a topic for another day. But we're talking about not needing a warrant to go into someone's home, and there are few exceptions for not needing a warrant (exigent circumstances, pursuit, etc.). I don't believe "possibly belonging to an international gang and here illegally" should be one of those exceptions.

---

That's fine; that's your opinion. I need to look at the facts of the case, how the government is actually going about determining its grounds for doing so, etc. Most of us (lawyers) have been through enough to know a quick reaction isn't the right way to go about it, which is why I'm not bleeding all over the thread like some and declaring a constitutional crisis.

Those of us lawyers who have defended accused gang members know that government lists of who is and isn't in a gang are BS and conjecture

Suits me just fine. I'll offer them a snack.

SuhrThang said:

---

Suits me just fine. I'll offer them a snack.

---

The only person who says something like this doesn't understand how dangerous this is.
Cops can't help you in court. Just remember that.

This entire thread is definitely "spreadsheet updated" material

HTownAg98 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Then make them use ****ing Probable Cause.

---

Nobody's advocating otherwise. A search can be lawful with PC, and not require a warrant.

---

Of course it can. Police can search your car without a warrant because they smell marijuana "based on their training and experience." I think that's bull****, but that's a topic for another day. But we're talking about not needing a warrant to go into someone's home, and there are few exceptions for not needing a warrant (exigent circumstances, pursuit, etc.). I don't believe "possibly belonging to an international gang and here illegally" should be one of those exceptions.

---

Where is that even being argued, besides this thread (based on conjecture)? I haven't seen where the govt has said they think they can enter a house based on what you (and others) have posted.

This whole argument is a rinse and repeat of what we got in the years following 911. We gave up liberty for security then, we're giving it up now, and all it will do is ensure we have neither.

What people need to realize is now the good guys are in charge.

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

Those of us lawyers who have defended accused gang members know that government lists of who is and isn't in a gang are BS and conjecture

---

Oh, so you've defended perceived gang members being pursued by ICE per this recent policy? No?

You might wanna sit back and wait to see how it shakes out before you declare it unconstitutional on its face.

If you've read the complaint, you'll find they have a much stronger as applied challenge.

HTownAg98 said:

---

If you've read the complaint, you'll find they have a much stronger as applied challenge.

---

I haven't. As I've said many times, it would be interesting to see how the Court rules in this case and how broad or narrow an exception they provide for. I think this situation is a little bit different than any LEO barging into any door they want for any reason.