Go Back   Suijuris Forums > Articles > Office of Information Retrieval
Supreme Court limits police searches in split decision; Roberts dissents Supreme Court limits police searches in split decision; Roberts dissents
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-22-2006, 04:46 PM
Admin's Avatar
Admin Admin is offline
Administrator
  
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 302
Supreme Court limits police searches in split decision; Roberts dissents
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court's unity under new Chief Justice John Roberts was shattered Wednesday by a dispute over an old adage: A man's home is his castle.
Article Tools

The justices ruled 5-3 that police without a warrant cannot search a house when one resident agrees but another says no.

Read Full Article
__________________
Sui Juris Webmaster
"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall."

THIS POST IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE IN ANY CAPACITY WHATSOEVER
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-22-2006, 05:29 PM
Livefire's Avatar
Livefire Livefire is offline
Come and Get Some!
  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,450
We now see that Roberts is a good Bush lackey!!! Souter is absolutely right on this....the pigs dont need the search to provide "protection" for an abused spouse. They have the ability to take the abuser into custody. Now if in the process they see dope or paraphanelia in plain sight while busting the dude, they could use probable cause as an excuse to search or get a warrant based on information given to a copper. Its about time the government quit trying to side step due process! Its all about another attempt on the part the state to gain more control!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-22-2006, 07:02 PM
Akira's Avatar
Akira Akira is offline
Sui Juris Moderator
  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Maine state
Posts: 873
Hey Admin,

We have a new section for members to post acticles and news... called "Articles & News".


Or weren't you aware of that?


oh wait.. I see how you are... you elitist upper management pigs think you can just do what you darn well please !!


Man.. that was just to easy !! hahaha..


('scuse the off-topic remark)
__________________
Akira = Akira-
Counselor in Law (student) - I live it, I don't 'practice'
No post is ever intended as 'legal' advice. Lawful perspectives discussed openly.
"Pro and Con are opposites, this is plainly seen.
If progress means 'to move forward', what does congress mean?" - Nipsy Russel
"It's not the will to win, it's the will to prepare to win." - Bobby Knight
Last edited by Akira : 03-22-2006 at 07:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-22-2006, 08:02 PM
Admin's Avatar
Admin Admin is offline
Administrator
  
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 302
Yeah we do have a new articles section but that's for articles for which we want to re-publish the whole text on our site, as you can see by the example of the article we have in that section.

Let me clarify the sections use. If you would like to write your own articles, or re-publish an existing articles entire content, then thats where that section comes in handy. If you are merely supplying a link, then this is where we would do so as we have been doing.

Can't I get some love.
__________________
Sui Juris Webmaster
"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall."

THIS POST IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE IN ANY CAPACITY WHATSOEVER
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-23-2006, 01:43 AM
idknow idknow is offline
Banned User
  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,117
objection!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admin
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court's unity under new Chief Justice John Roberts was shattered Wednesday by a dispute over an old adage: A man's home is his castle.
Article Tools

The justices ruled 5-3 that police without a warrant cannot search a house when one resident agrees but another says no.

Read Full Article

it was reported that ROBERTS, C. J. didnt "dissent" - that's the wrong word to use; HE didnt participate in the decision.

__________________
I claim ownership of and accept responsibility for every word I have written; I cannot claim ownership for any quotes I have made, being the words of whomever I quoted, to whom I say `thank you'.
Reply With Quote
Reply

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cites - FDCPA (Title 15, Chapter 41, Subchapter V) suijuris Banks, Collectors, and CRAs 38 11-04-2007 03:54 PM
Judges dont enforce statutes? kgod999 Court 4 11-05-2004 12:00 AM
Anyone have Lexis? HenryBowman Misc. Discussion 34 10-21-2004 10:14 AM
Debt Attorney/Collection Agency gregtu Court 2 09-21-2004 09:13 AM
From The Archives SKYGZR Taxation 0 07-10-2004 02:20 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
2003-2007 Copyright by Law Research Group, LLC Terms of Use | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Notice/Disclaimer