Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

High Court Grants Police An Exception To The 4th Amendment

May 20, 2011 by  

High court grants police an exception to the 4th AmendmentThe Supreme Court has ruled that police officers have the right to enter a private residence without a warrant if they believe a suspect may be destroying crucial evidence.

On May 16, the nation’s highest court decided 8-1 in favor of the State of Kentucky over Hollis King, who filed a lawsuit after police entered his home without a warrant. King was arrested for possession of cocaine and later convicted of drug trafficking.

In defense of their actions, police claimed that the smell of marijuana emanated from King’s residence, and they heard noises that sounded like evidence was being destroyed. The Supreme Court ruled that the officers’ conduct “was entirely lawful.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg provided the only dissenting vote, saying that the decision grants law enforcement officials an excuse to ignore the 4th Amendment, which protects citizens against unwarranted search and seizure of their property.

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and forcibly enter?” Ginsburg asked.

John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark., told the Los Angeles Times that he was shocked by the ruling. He was surprised that eight of the nine justices condoned the idea that police can enter a private residence if “they hear suspicious noises inside,” the news provider reported.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “High Court Grants Police An Exception To The 4th Amendment”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Kay

    It would be very interesting to read the opinions of the others judges as well, as to why they decided as they did. It feels as though we have reached somewhat of a new low for our freedom rating.

    • Al

      At first I was concerned by the heading of the topic. But having read
      thru the story, I don’t see the ruling giving police authority to disregard the 4th amend. Police don’t need a warrant to enter a building/house if they use one of our/there senses. For ex., a police officer hears a woman screeming for help inside her home. He doesn’t need a warrant to enter the house. In the story cited, police smelled and heard etc. Therefore the entry would be legal under those circumstances and not be in violation of the 4th amend. That’s my recollection of having a degree (many years ago) in criminal law as well as U.S. Constituional law.

      • wandamurline

        So where does this go? Do we have the right to shoot an officer if they come crashing into our homes? The Constitution provides relief to the people by protecting them from infringements….these infringements should not be done by the police no matter what the reason they feel they should enter a private home. A woman screaming for help is an “invitation” to enter a home…smelling something is not. I don’t condon drug trafficing or anything of that nature, but once the police have precedence from the Supreme Idiots, then who is guaranteed any rights under the 4th Amendment. I would ask for a rehearing on this one…the Supreme Court was DEAD WRONG. You cannot give that kind of authority to anyone as it will utimately be abused and used on innocent people. Our freedoms are falling everyday…this country is heading for a full fledged revolution and the removal by force of the perpetrators of this nation.

        • Robert

          i agree. the issue is that our rights are the most important such that infringement must be in the most exceptional of cases and very limited if it is determined at all. now all police have to do is say they “thought” and they will be absolved of their responsibility. and police never lie right? they never destroy evidence. they never put innocent people in prison. sure for the most part cops want to do right and help the community against the scum that just like being scum in the first place. the problem is never the good guys; the good cops; the problem is the bad guys; the bad cops. give the bad cops an inch and they’ll take a mile and the next thing you know you’re shooting a cop when they bust down your door, the wrong door, and they lie to save their careers or they lie to save the chief of police’s career because a lieutenant dorked up and now you’re in prison just for defending your house. of course they said they thought they heard something from your house so they went in or they thought they smelled smoke and so viola(!) you’re the target. oh and it’s all legal so enjoy your prison time.

        • Doug

          I agree 100% most police are nothing but organized crime just like the politicians! Smoking weed in many states is legal for many residents due to medical weed or some it okay period. Of course police never lie about something. What if the hear a woman screaming and they are in the middle of having passionate sex and they break in. And I agree what happens when we shoot them for breaking into our house in the middle of the night. Because gee police never break into the wrong house right! All of these judges should be impeached because it quite obvious they don’t know the Constitution!

          • Al

            screaming for help is different than what you imply. Also, how do you know that apolice officer doesn’t have a warrant to enter your house ?

          • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Randy 131

            People today claim that Obama and the Democrats are destroying the US Constitution, but in actuality it is those who’s job it is to protect it and tha American people from the other two branches of government, the judicial branch and especially the US Supreme Court.

          • Carol J

            It would be justice to have the police break into one of these judges homes. I wonder how they would feel then?

        • Al

          If a police officer uses his or her senses, ex. sight, smell, or sound, it would be justified w/o a warrant. I recall a case where an officer detected the odor/smell of death. The entry was justified w/o a warrant. The whole story in the article doesn’t appear to be told. Why were police there in the 1st place ? An attorney that refutes the ruling mentions about police hearing noises inside. They heard and smelled more than just noises inside. It doesn’t seem the article is
          reporting the full story of what transpired. And even what is reported, goes beyond police just breaking or entering a house w/o a warrant. There have been other cases where the time to obtain a warrant would not be in the best interest of society, provided the aforementioned applied. I think some are jumping to false conclusions about police just breaking into homes for no reason. Unfortunately there does exist some who abuse their authority, but I don’t see that in the case mentioned.

          • Vic

            Al, when you say you’ve studied criminal law, you should know that law does not establish justice but only an order. As such, only the facts that could be proven in the court later could be acceptable. I know that oftentimes law is not like this but instead of trying to argue to make this common practice I guess we as citizens should do exactly the opposite.

            In other words, as soon as unprovable “fact” gets legitimacy, that turns the law to it’s opposite, i.e it begins to establish chaos instead of an order. For example, if it is enough for officer to smell something or to hear something to enter a residence without a warrant, it gives an excuse for entering any residence at any time warrantless by simply saying later in the court “I smelled something fishy there”. This indeed nullifies the 4th amendment.

          • FrankO

            Al you are starting to sound like a corrupt cop.

        • EverAfterPatrick

          Yes. But don’t expect the court system to agree. Best to talk to your friends/potential jurors.

          • Al

            replying to Vic. I fully understand where you are coming from. Using the senses wouldn’t be a free “license” to make things up. You would have to justify your actions, and for the most part police would act appropriately. It would be upon the officer to show they acted in good faith. Again, getting back to the story that started this conversation, it appears the police did act in good faith when they used their senses & it appers there was not enough time to get a warrant. The ruling doesn’t mean police can now come and break down your door and enter your premises w/o a warrant under normal circumstances. Some comments (not yours) regarding this are frankly rather —–. I could site other examples of when using one’s senses would be lawful cause to enter a premise w/o a warrant. Because one can use one’s senses justifiably so, doesn’t mean the end result would be justified in all cases. Difficult to really get into all the ins and outs/facets in this limited forum.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          As I stated the other night about this ruling, the first time a cop is shot entering unannounced, the courts will then start a movement to disarm ALL citizens to protect the police!!! See, the difference here is they will be shot by a legal gun owner and not a crook!!! That will do away with the statement that the only ones shooting at the police are the criminals!

        • FrankO

          I agree. They are declaring war on the American people plain and simple. According to the Constitution we shouldn’t even acknowledge a bogus ruling like this. Its null and void.

      • FrankO

        People wonder whats wrong with the country today and all they have to look at is people like you Al to see the sheeple mentality. What a pathetic excuse for trashing the Bill of rights.

    • EddieW

      Those justices should be impeached for TREASON!! They are sworn to uphold the constitution!! This is exactly the same crime England commited against their own people, that caused the American revolution!!! Police could simply write their own wartrants and burst into anyones home and search to their hearts content…One “stamp” missing, and you were in jail!!!and you had to pay a good price for that stamp!!

  • Joe

    Here we go again,authourity!!! ! ! It has to presuppose something!
    That leaves the door wide open for more (AUTHOURITY).
    People, can’t you see what is going on?? You have NO rights,you have NO recourse of action,you have NO representation from your reps.
    You have no one but yourself,and others who believe in being FREE!
    Free form big govt. worthless politicians ,who will lie in your face to get elected,then stab you in the back once in office.
    America,when are you going to wake up!!!!!!!!

  • james karalis

    That’s the reason i have a 6ft fence and bad @ss dogs and keep locks on the gates at night .

    • http://?? Joe H.

      james k,
      I hope you don’t get your dogs killed!!! There have been a lot of damn good dogs killed just for growling or barking at the police!!

    • Vigilant

      JK, “That’s the reason i have a 6ft fence and bad @ss dogs and keep locks on the gates at night.”

      I’m sure you do. An antisemitic neonazi like you no doubt needs those things to feel secure. Are they German Shepherds?

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Don’t blame the breed, blame the OWNER!!!! Too many of these ba$tards getting good animals killed every day!!!

        • Vigilant

          Joe H.,

          I don’t blame the breed of dog. German Shepherds are beautiful animals in my book. The whole intent was the play on words, i.e., “German.” Karalis has posted such Neonazi BS on this site in the past that I give no legitimacy to anything he says. He’s a poor excuse for a human being, period.

          I have a 3-year old Siberian Husky (“Shadow”) and I value his friendship and loyalty above all else.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Like I asked before, is it a silver tipped?? I hitched a ride with a guy while I was in college that had one in the car. Those blue eyes haunted me for a long time after that. What a beautiful animal!!! I envy you if it is!

          • Vigilant


            Sorry for the late reply. Shadow is back and white with beautiful facial markings, but yes, indeed, those piercing blue eyes are the center of his physical appearance.

  • Average Citizen

    Let’s not forget that we as citizens have the right to bear arms and to protect our property, our families and ourselves from intruders. So watch out. Bust through my door, you’re gonna get shot. I don’t care who it is. And neither should you. That’s the way to fight fire with fire and send a message to the growing gestapo we call “police”.

    • Al

      Again, how do you know they don’t have a warrant ? The best course of action would be to co-operate. What concerns me more is when police with a warrant go to the wrong house/wrong block. Rarely happens, but I’d be more concerned about that happening.

      • john

        Perhaps I’m mistaken but doesn’t a warrant have to be “served?” I presume breaking and entering isn’t “serving.”

        • Al

          I think you are confusing being served to appear in court, for ex. Police may have a warrant to search empty buildings, so who would you serve the warrant to ?

          • jibbs

            DING! wrong, As long as I know I’ve done nothing wrong, beware if you break my door down. You should join the SHEEPLE club. So, what was the point of all those men & woman dying to preserve OUR FREEDOM??? by the way, some of those that died for us, were my relatives!!!!
            Please let me know what it costs to prove you did nothing wrong in court and the cost of repairs to your home, and if you still have your job.

          • Dan az

            I have heard that if they break in with out stating who they are and get shot even if they where not heard was legal to shoot them.Can you prove that with your education on the law?I’m not sure of it.Anyone?

      • http://yahoo richard

        if they have a warrant they will knock first, they better be sure im not home if they break down my door

        • Al

          Guess you don’t know about a “NO KNOCK” warrant.

          • Cawmun Cents

            They know less about no knockers than Dolly Parton.

          • Robert

            Not all states allow no knock warrants. None should. Of course any historian could tell you this judgement should not have happened either but here we are…

        • Cawmun Cents

          I would never make a good law enforcement agent,I have a tendency to fire my weapon several times,just before I yell,”freeze sucker!”

      • FrankO

        First off I for one am a law abiding citizen so Im not expecting an officer at the door with a warrant. If he is then he has the wrong address and it is not rare by any stretch. The more power the cops have the more corrupt they become and that human nature. Power corrupts and absolute power as this ruling is indeed granting will corrupt absolutely.

  • Jennie

    Hey, Joe. Hope no one ever breaks into your house, beats you, gags you and ties you to a chair while they ransack your house. It will probably use up valuable time while the police file for a warrant to enter and save your sorry life.

    • james karalis

      Just be sure you use a rifle with steal core ammo like cal-223 the SS109 head stamp ,however if its the swat team even that well do you no good with the body armor they got . the next thing coming is to booby trap the house . and they say we live in a free country in a lot of European country’s the police cant even search you in the street’s until you are under arrest.

    • jibbs

      Jennie says:
      May 20, 2011 at 7:48 am
      Hey, Joe. Hope no one ever breaks into your house, beats you, gags you and ties you to a chair while they ransack your house. It will probably use up valuable time while the police file for a warrant to enter and save your sorry life.
      Hey Jennie, hope the cops never have the wrong address and crash into your house and kill you by “mistake”. By the way, the average responce time where I live is 30 to 45 minutes. I have no choice, but to defend myself.

    • Vic

      Hey Jennie,

      That’s what we have the 2nd amendment for. Protect yourself, otherwise, with warrant or not, police will only arrive to hand your dead body to coroner.

      By the way, police may enter residence without a warrant in case inhabitant of the residence invited officers in, that is provable in the court either by 911 record or by witness of inhabitant him/herself.

    • Dan az

      I guess you didn’t hear of the case where they kicked in the door of the wrong house and shot to death a little old lady that was in bed and grabbed the gun on her night table to defend the home invasion that she was worried about.Yea things happen all the time, that’s why there is rules to abide by,it gets messy when they make up their own.Or try to change it.

      • Al

        Dan, I don’t know of any legal grounds ref. your prev. post about shooting at police if you didn’t hear them knock or announce themselves. If that were the case, anyone can say they didn’t hear the knock etc. Laws do vary from state to state, but I can’t see any state having a law on the books making what you ask justifiable. I’m not a 100% sure (been a while) but I think after knocking and identifying yourself, you are supposed to wait 10 seconds before busting in. I could be wrong. I’d like to know myself what a defense attorney would present as a defense. What concerns me more is what you mentioned & I brought up. Going to the wrong house to execute a warrant. There was another case a few years back where the police had a warrant, went into the wrong house (correct #, wrong block) and the guy had been in bed sleeping with his wife when the police entered his bedroom. Thinking it was a home invasion when he woke up, grabbed his handgun & was shot and killed by the police (in self-defense). But it seems we are not staying on the topic, that being the court’s ruling.

    • FrankO

      Hey Jennie, I hope a SWAT team kicks in your door and when you grab your cell phone shoots you down with 70 bullets.

  • 2WarAbnVet

    Who’d have thought that Ruth Bader Ginsberg would be the only justice to uphold the Constitution?

    • Vic

      Yeah, I was shocked…

    • Al

      It’s a no brainr, she’s on the side of the alledged criminal and against law enforcement.

    • Vigilant

      Not so fast. Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts are very well-versed on the Constitution and consistently render the most conservative (strict constructionist) judgments. My confidence in Thomas and Scalia is so complete that I would be willing to admit that their opinions are correct.

      We are DEFINITELY not hearing the whole story about this particular case, and damned if I can Google up anything of substance on it. It appears that, once again, PLND has offered up a story because of its surface controversiality without providing the whole context. MUCH is missing.

      If ANYONE can come up with a reason why the 8 judges were in agreement, let me know. The whole thing, in the absence of any detail by “news” outlets so far, leaves me with only one explanation: the constitutionality of the search must have been so compelling that the 3 socialists and one swing vote judge (Kennedy) had no choice but to vote in its favor.

      Before you guys all jump on your horse and try to run off in 4 directions at once, wait for the truth. I suspect there will be a few red faces out there when the truth does come out.

      • libertytrain

        I agree with you, there must be more to the story that for some reason, hasn’t been allowed out yet. I am pretty respectful of Scalia as well -

  • Joe

    Lets talk about Supreme Court Judges, I do not believe anyone should be elected /selected/nonminated/put in place for a life time.
    Look at what we have today,sitting in judgement over this great nation,in the last year or so, what kind of (judges ) have been appointed?? Socialist committed,active,pushing a socialist agenda,making decisions,defileing the Constitution.
    This is not America anymore.In the White House ,there is no LEADERSHIP,a lot of lip service,no stamina.
    This adminstration has stigmatized the whole political system.
    If only we could get a law passed that there will be NO MORE life time appointments to any govt. position, why not????
    Americans, come together,lets rid this nation of those who will not stand up for this nation!!!!!
    Vote,vote,vote,let the people make the change,for better.

  • CJ

    I,m not at all surprised by this diminishment of the 4th amendment.The language of the bill of rights is the most straight forward language short of breaking it down “barny style”.All of the bill of rights have been watered down to virtually no protection whatso-ever,by creative interpretation allowing for reasonable infringement or whatever leagalistic doctrine they choose.Didn’t one of the founding fathers say “that if you let federal judges be the ultimate and/or sole arbitrator of federal authority,then that authority will know no bounds” or something like that.Besides didn’t the U.S. supreme court stop using the constitution as the only basis for decisions about what is constitutional in 1938 in the Eerie railroad case.Something about contractual liability or lack thereof.The courts have stopped judging on a common law or constitional law jurisdiction but in equitty or maritime juridiction.
    Look it up the courts have been judging on what seems fair and have only been paying lipservice to the constitution to avoid a massive uprising among the american people.We have the numbers,we have the guns,but we have no balls.

  • ray

    Oh, what a slippery slope we are on. We need to start using the Constitution again.
    All of Washington needs an enema

  • unarmedandscaredinmyhouse

    the police know u screwed them on protection payoff from your drug sales. they know when u collect your cash. they brake down your door shoot everybody in the house, pick up the cash, call the event in for backup. they explain they heard a woman screming and no one would answer their knocks on the door. a good shooting. what a country.

    drug dealers cant mess with the cops.

    • Rob

      I don’t think the mexican drug dealers follow those guide lines.

      • Cawmun Cents

        yes but they dont know Miranda and Miranda dont know them.

  • Crashaxe

    This is what happens when you stack the court with socialist judges that oppose the constitution.

    • eddie47d

      Crashaxe; Ginsberg is a Liberal so what do you have to say about the Conservative Judges who voted for this? I say shame on all of them that voted in favor whether Liberal or Conservative. Who gave the police permission to even be at this house. I doubt if they got a whiff of marijuana driving by in their patrol car. It seems more like a deliberately planned raid so why is that missing piece of the puzzle left out of this article. Was this considered a major drug house? Smelling only Marijuana is a lame excuse to be busting doors or possibly busting heads.

      • Vic

        Should that be a planned raid there’s no excuse for not having a warrant.

        • Al

          As I’ve said, we haven’t been told the full story. If this was a planned raid, I can’t figure why they wouldn’t have a warrant. This story is definately missing some key elements. I don’t see this ruling as others have, that it trashes the 4th amend. Using the senses has limited scope in justifying an entry into a building. My opinion is that the police met the laws requirements and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled with an 8 to 1 decision. Some past decisions of the court were flawed, but in this case their ruling was correct. Sleep tight, we still have 4th amend. protection.

          • Dan az

            Knock knock bang!

  • Push comes to shove

    I have seen something that i thought was one thing and turned out to be nothing harmful or criminal.

    I have smelled things that i thought was one thing and turned out to be nothing harmful or criminal.

    I have heard things that i thought was one thing and turned out to be nothing harmful or criminal.

    Is there not a rule of imminent dnager. From the article there did not appear to be a treat of imminent danger.

    The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    If imminent threat is not present then the fourth amendment still applies even if they smell marijuana or any other drug. They could have gotten an emergency warrant within an hour to search the premises. If evidence was destroyed while they waited that is thier bad for not using the right investigation tactics that would have yielded a warrant without the slime ball drug dealer being tipped off.

    Long live the Bill of Rights, I hope.

    • Al

      you quoted the 4th amend. no where does it mention imminent danger that you state. It does state unreasonable search etc. So going in after a drug dealer with probable cause in your opinion is unreasonable. I still say the whole story is not being told. There appears to be a lot more that went on before they entered the premises than we are being told.

      • Vic

        Al, the guy is not a drug dealer, is not guilty until convicted, remember?

        • Al

          Oh ! Pardon me, I didn’t realizew I had to be politically correct in this type of forum. Alledged drug dealer. I have to amend my ways. Thanks for the clarification which I thought was obvious, guess not..

          • FrankO

            Thats not politically correct assclown. Its called innocent until proven guilty which thanks to idiots like you disappeared a long time ago. Like a pot dealer is a dangerous criminal. How about Mexico letting out all their violent killers and rapists and taking them to our southern border so they can come here and do some real crimes. Why don’t the police focus on real crime???? I guess its to dangerous so they victimize innocent law abiding citizens and when they feel righteous they go find some guy smoking a joint watching south Park in the privacy of his home and fill him and his place full of bullets. People like you Al call that justice.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      I’ve smelled a lot of incense that smells real close to pot!! does that mean if you burn incense that they can break down your door to arrest you??? What if your wife is a “screamer” during love making??

  • Eric

    The United States has become a totalitarian police state. No warrants, no probable cause, no presumption of innocence, and let’s not even start about what happens at the airport.

    • ValDM

      You forgot due process. With all the “activist” judges, do you think a fair trial is in the cards? Come to that, forget the trial; let’s have the police be judge, jury, and executioner.

      • Al

        1st of all the police are witnesses and present evidence. You’re getting a bit carried away with your statement. Before the case would go to court it 1st would go to the Grand Jury. If the Grand Jury so rules on the evidence presented that it is sufficient to go to a trial, that’s what will happen. And as you know, in a criminal trial, the verdict must be unanimous. On top of that, if the prosecutor doesn’t feel there is enough evidence the case won’t even reach the Grand Jury.

    • Al

      If we really want to get riled up about our rights and freedom taken away, Eric, I 100% agree with you. Just look at how our rights are being trampled on at the airports. Talk about unreasobale search, I don’t think you can get more unreasonable than that.

  • Oklahnee Efa

    When I read articles on subjects such as this it just makes me feel all sick inside. Sick because of the lack of understanding of the “Spirit of the law”. Sick because of the government taking our freedoms away from us under the disguise of safety and “Law Enforcement”.

    First, the Fourth Amendment PROTECTS a God-given natural right of individuals that is ABOVE the law-making powers of governments: “THE Right … Shall not be violated”. It is an absolute with no exceptions!

    Second, because government is continually trying to “make loopholes” that they and the paramilitary police forces can use against “We the People” for their own convenience for control over us, “We the People”.

    Third, because there are people who can not see or understand the “Spirit of the law” as laid out by our Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson said it best on this subject: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”

    Fourth, our controlling and tyrannical government and the so-called “laws”, no matter how unconstitutional and oppressive they may be, it has enacted or ruled upon, has become so large and viewed almost as a god within itself, neglecting the “Spirit of the original laws of protection” of the people by the people for the people, that any action against such, no matter how tyrannical or unjust they may be, will be viewed as a “crime against the government” and thus inflict the demise of any of “We the People” who try in earnest to correct it!

    Our government has taken control of us, “We the People”, and we are now subservient to it! Not vise-versa as originally intended.

    “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
    I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
    Thomas Jefferson

  • Rennie

    The politicians who nominate and elect/confirm these judges are the first ones you should complain to. When they feel the wrath of voters on election day maybe the signal will get across we don’t need judges who ignore the Constitution or Bill of Rights, as many have said, these were not written to give the government power but rather to limit the government and protect our rights as individuals. Maybe the new litmus test should be: “Would they do this to an illegal immigrant?”

    • Oklahnee Efa

      Very interesting concept! The Branches(government)should bend and bow in the forces of the breeze (the people), that is what is only natural. A very natural and ordered concept. BUT, what if the branches have grown so large, so arrogantly and blatantly elitist in attitude and have shielded themselves from the breeze? What then?

      For example:
      There was once this Wicked Witch of the West that proudly proclaimed in blatant arrogance “We must first pass the law before we can know what is in the law!” And now we know! And now we are screwed!

      Now, let me ask you, what would you do if you went in to buy a car and the salesman said “You have to sign the contract before I can tell you what is in the contract?”
      How many laws of civil rights and fraud would this salesman have violated and how many years would he spend in prison?

      Now, just think for a moment, this Wicked Witch of the West was elected, over and over again by the same gullible lazy selfish ignorant constituents. Ones who did no more than listen and believe based solely on her lies, without question, without record, and without proof! Ignorant, gullible, and selfish without regard for the well being of the whole.

      Well apparently we have a whole lot of people repeatedly signing contracts with the Wicked Witch of the West, over and over again without reading them!

      How can we replace ones like this wicked Witch of the West IF the people will not cast a responsible, educated vote?

      YES, we do need to complain, we need to scream! And maybe, just maybe, some will penetrate the dense halls of Congress. BUT, government(the branches)has grown too big, government has grown too powerful, government has grown too shielded, a god-like entity within itself over the people(the breeze)who were suppose to own it!

      It took decades to get where we are now, and it will take decades to get back to the Constitution and true Liberty as laid down by our Founding Fathers.

      To answer your litmus test question: “Would they do this to an illegal immigrant?” YES, they would! When they finally had no more use for them!
      As it is right now the anti-Constitutional progressive socialist elitists need the illegal immigrant (supporters) vote, (by lying to them) to maintain their positions of power.

      So, the real question is: Do they not only support, but defend and live by the individual rights and freedoms as laid down in the Constitution and ALL of the documents, words, writing and principles of our Founding Fathers? Or are they trying to undermine and bastardize our Individual Rights into a Socialistic Regime of the masses? That is the real question!

      • Dan az

        Very well put.Excellent work thank you.

  • David Ihde

    Which part of the 4th amendment do the Supremes not get? It says upon probable cause you can get a search warrant. It does not say upon probable cause you don’t need one. This needs to be taken care of in court and by the second amendment. By court with everyone serving on a jury. No search warrant, no convictions! Period! Don’t be intimidated by your jury peers and remind them about jury tampering. Same to any —— judge.
    As for the second amendemnt, it speaks for itself. “Go ahead, Make My Day”

  • Bobby D.Denning

    The federal govt is the cancer , marijuana is the answer. The more they fight the bigger the problem. Marijauna has been and always will be around as long as mankind exist. The only problem that we have is the feds,which has spread to the supreme court. Cancerous lies have infected our broken govt. The feds took advantage of this. This is not an option, only death on all sides. Including our Constitution and etc. Sympathies.

  • HT

    I’m curious what particular type of smell do officers have to encounter before they can give themselves the authority to enter a private citizens home without permission. Was the specific “fragrance” identified in this ruling. What about masking fragrances? If an artificial fragrance is used to conceal the smell of marijuana for instance would the police have a reasonable cause to knock on the door and interpret noises on the other side as “scurrying” and attempting to get rid of evidence? Any smell will do?

    • Raggs

      I figure the smell they will have will becoming from the pants when they break into my house!

    • Al

      It would come down to each individual situation and case. I don’t see the ruling giving police authority to enter premises w/o a warrant except under limited circumstances. I strongly hope so. Whether we agree or disagree a search w/o a warrant is justified under certain circumstances. It’s been that way for many years and it doesn’t violate the 4th Amend. We can come up with all these hypothetical comments, I thought i smelled this but it was something else etc. is frankly, ridiculous. I see flames coming out of a window, I break in to see if the house is occupied & alert the residents. Unlawful entry ? What right does the officer have to break into the house. I know you saved my life officer, but you violated my 4th amend. rights. I know, now I’m getting ridiculous, or am I ?

      • Raggs

        Your liberal justification of an unlawfull act is ridiculous..

        No matter how you throw your spin an univited enter by any person cannot be justified by a suspision!!!

        • Al

          What’s ridiculous is posts such as yours. I’m not spinning anything, just stating what I know to be lawful, with rulings going back many years, long before this ruling by the Supreme Court. Of course there have been other court rulings that certain similar actions were not justified. That’s why each case would have to be heard on it’s merit or lack thereof. Some of the posts are going overboard on what is stated. I can’t see how smelling marijuana outside a building would lead to a lawful entry w/o a warrant by police along with other warrantless (no pun intended) statements. I’ll throw you a curve ball. A friend of mine was arrested after his house was searched, AFTER A JUDGE ISSUED A WARRANT. He told me exactly what transpired and I told him from what he said, the warrant should not have been issued. So here we had a judge that issued a warrant, but the issuance of the warrant was illegal based on the 4th Amend. It took several years but the case finally reached the State Supreme Court who ruled that the warrant issued by the judge was unjustified & the entire case the police had was dismissed. The only thing was he did agree to some minor infraction, a slap on the wrist. One more time, tho using the senses can be at times a justifiable entry w/o a warrant, doesn’t mean that is so on every situation. That’s why I’ve said it depends on each individual case. It does not give the police an excuse for an illegal entry or search w/o a warrant. I’ll give you another example of an entry justified w/o a warrant. Police get a call that neigbor a hasn’t seen neigbor b and is concerned for neighbor b. The police will attempt to contact a relative but if they can’t, they will make forcible entry as a wellness check. Is that a violation of your 4th Amend. rights ? No ! The entry was justified under the circumstances. In such cases they have found the house empty, sometimes simeone who has oassed away, & yet other times someone who was in need of immediate medical attention. If under such an entry an illegal activity or whatever was in plain view, the evidence gathered most likely would be admissable, since there was no 4th amend. protection under the circumstances. The 4th amend. does say “unreasonable”.

  • Raggs

    I feel alot safer dont you?

  • Raggs

    I dont use any drugs… But what is to say that if you have a speeding ticket in the morninmg the cop has your address and he gets pissy at you.. Will he plant something in your house while you are at work and then later that day BUST in and arrest you… F**K that!!!@!

    • Al

      Really getting carried away now with this anti-police talk. Why not just get a speeding ticket even tho you weren’t speeding. You get a summons for going thru a red light even tho the light was green. It seems we should be discussing what the ruling was on a more intelligent level than some of the posts which have gotten quite ridiculous.

      • Raggs

        Oh come on .. no anti-cop comments just anti-intrusion.

        If you really think that you can justify raiding a home without a warrant due to a SOUND or SMELL.. What is next there dude?
        Shoot first ask later?

        • Al

          Anti-intrusion by whom ? The police. Read some of these posts, a good many are anti-police and you have to see that. Also these posts about shooting police or implying that who make entry into your premises in and by themselves can be taken as threateneing, illegal, remarks. Guess some of you think such statements are protected under the 1st amend. They are not. That’s another topic for another day and I won’t say any more.

          • FrankO

            I can see Al you are a Kool aid drinking libtard. First off how do we know those who just broke into our homes is law enforcement in the middle of the night as our wife and children sleep????? Do you know how many police impersonators are busting into peoples homes right now in America? If they can bust into you home when they feel like it and thats what this ruling does you will see an increase in this growing home jacking crime by criminals dressed as cops. Im sorry but uniform or not anyone breaking into my home will get shot first and asked questions later. I will protect my family. If just saying that is now a crime to the likes of you Al then maybe I should find another country to live in.

  • GJD808

    The facts of the King case are as follows:

    “Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside an
    apartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As
    soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from
    the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent
    with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent
    to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and
    others. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of
    the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent
    search”. Kentucky v. King, October Term, 2010, Slip Opinion.

    So,the entry into the premises was occasioned by the presence of a suspected drug dealer, the smell of marijuana detectable outside the premises, and following knocking on the door and the police announcement of their presence, sounds emanating outside the premises which were consistent (according to the police) with the destruction of evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court did not, in fact, determine that the warrantless entry into the premises was justified by the exigent circumstances rule, as set forth in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), but remanded the case back to the Kentucky Supreme Court to determine whether an exigency existed sufficient to forego obtaining a warrant. For a discussion on destruction of evidence as creating an exigency, see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).

    So, of the many misconceptions recited above, the police did not break down the door to the premises unannounced; the smell emanating to outside the premises was identified as marijuana (whether marijuana should be legal/illegal is outside the scope of this discussion); the police apparently testified at trial that sounds they heard emanating to outside the premises they identified as destruction of evidence (the Kentucky Supreme Court is left to decide the validity of those conclusions); the Court in King did not carve out a new exception to the Fourth Amendment proscription against warrantless entry upon premises,searches, and seizures, the exigent circumstance rule was well established before Mr. King’s arrest, as was the establishment of destruction off evidence as creating an exigent circumstance.

    • Raggs

      NOOOO ! that is CRAP!!!!

      How can you justify a sound as a lawfull reason to BREAK into a home?
      Where does this stop???? Good grief if I am heard farting does that mean my ass is on fire?

      Give me a frekin break…. I’m not totally stupid…

  • Al

    GJD808 , Thanks for the your very informative post.

  • SpiritualMadMan

    Well, Georgia is a “Castle Doctrine” and a “Stand and Defend” State.


    They better bring SWAT and better be convinced that whatever it is they thought I was doing was worth my life!!!

    And, a few of theirs!

    Because, unless a uniformed officer presents a Badge, Picture ID and a Warrant I am *NOT* acquiessing to such an unlawful and blatant misuse of police powers.

    What did Jefferson say?

    The tree of Liberty must at time be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots…

    The supreme court should be ashamed of themselve for setting such an easily abused precedent! (lower case intentional!)

    Especially when we see the blatant ignorance of their own laws such as the Philadelphia Police recently did to a guy Carrying Openly which was entirely legal with a License he had! But wasn’t allowed to show.

    My God! This is effectively a “00″ License to Kill!

    • R. Smullen

      You must think you are a regular bad ass, SpiritMadMan. A regular tough guy. Wow, you sure do impress me. You would not last 5 seconds against a SWAT team member.

      • FrankO

        You must of read what they did to the Marine that just got back from the war. They pumped 70 bullets into him and turns out they got the wrong house.

  • Raggs

    You want to know what a fine supreme court we have?
    Just look at the link above, more corruption have a three dollar bill!!!

  • R. Smullen

    Thank you Supreme Court, this will keep these criminals from hiding behind the law and getting away with their crimes. Anything to keep these scum of the Earth out of society.

  • chuckb
  • newspooner

    It would really help to see a complete replay of the Court proceedings. It is hard to judge this specific trial from the outside. The title of the article would make me think that the Supreme Court got it wrong.


    The one dissenting Justice was the most communistic of the entire nine. That speaks volumes. I wouldn’t trust that Justice to defend the Bill of Rights any more than I would trust Bill Clinton with my daughter.

    • El Lobo Feo

      Right News!
      Gingsberg is very Liberal, but you would think Obama’s 2 appointments (Kagen & Sotomoyor) would side with her. I wonder what’s up with that?

  • Raggs

    It appears that I will now have a last word…

    The police state will do nothing but get people killed.
    When the hamburger police grow a pair of nuts I will welcome them into their final resting place…

    Point being… they are trying to enforce what I eat etc… so here we go.

  • Tom Raines

    Its a sad day when a right leaning court allows such a decision to gut our bill of rights just for the expediency of getting a drug conviction.
    These sacred rights have been for over 200 years have protected us from the tyranny of governments and the lynch mob attitude of the people.
    Its the police job to get evience lawfully obtained according to the constitution,Now they can say just like the officer following a car on the open roadway,whom is looking for an excuse to say he had probable cause ,to say he wandered over the yellow line a couple of times ,when in most cases it was because he was distracting the driver with his bright lights while being inches off thier bumper,sound familiar.
    Its your word against thiers,in my younger days as a truckdriver I have been told to keep my opinions to myself or they would make sure something was found in my truck and its a funny thing this was in Kentucky also.

    • FrankO

      Oh I hear that. I used to be a long hair musician and I got pulled over countless times for some made up bogus reason. I remember one cop said after I asked why I was being pulled over and he said just wait a minute. He pulls a nickel out of his pocket and checks my tires and says the tread was to low. I kid you not. I have many stories like that. I have the police kick in my door a few times when I lived in LA with guns pointed at my head and they said a neighbor said we were being broken into. Well the neighbor hated my bands loud music so he set us up. That was real fun. That was 91 and no warrant. My roommate almost got killed because he was drunk and belligerent and they hit him with the butt of a shotgun in the head and down he went. Then they left.

  • Tom Raines

    If they were not invited into a closed door or denied entrance by a lawful home owner or legal ocupant then a warrant should have been provided.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.