worrisome shit

[rone]

So is the decision in US v. Kelly Gould a stomping on the 4th Amendment? It seems to me that the officers behaved correctly in that case, but should that sort of assumption be made by default?

I'm trying to look for more information on this, but it seems very sparse or very partisan.

Comments

[omarius.livejournal.com]

I think this paragraph is telling:

When officers went to question Gould, they were told he was asleep. The officers asked if they could look inside for Gould, and were allowed to enter.

I'm not sure who did the telling and allowing (insert rant about passive voice in journalism here), but assuming it was someone with authority to grant such permission, there's probably no violation here.

What I don't understand from the article is how that turns into "a new search power." If it's something that didn't violate any rights (i.e., it would have been allowable yesterday, today, and the day after tomorrow), then how is that something new?

The article makes it sound like the cops can go busting down doors now.

BTW, the gray-on-gray text on your comments box is pretty hard to see/read.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, i see what you mean about the comments box. Didn't use to be like that... i'm gonna have to redo my style. Beh.

The article should definitely say "they were told [BY A CERTAIN PERSON] he was asleep. The officers asked [A CERTAIN PERSON] if they could look inside for Gould, and [A CERTAIN PERSON] allowed them to enter." It seems like a crucial detail.

The article seems to be saying that this sets a precedent that allows cops to enter a household whenever they feel that they are being threatened, but i'm not sure that what i read supports that.