In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court just killed the rights of citizens outlined in the Fourth Amendment by stating that police officers may enter a home, or parts of the home, without a warrant and can seize evidence to use in the arrest and prosecution of citizens.

The Fourth Amendment states that unreasonable searches and seizures are not allowed and that the only legally recognized search and seizure is one that is preceded by a warrant granted by courts. The warrant must be supported by probable cause.

The deciding vote was cast by Justice Rebecca Bradley who was appointed by Governor Scott Walker, a member of the Republican party. There has been skepticism surrounding this decision because Justice Bradley was not present for the oral arguments and instead listened to them later on a tape recording, stating that it was sufficient enough for her to make a decision.

The case that reached the Supreme Court and begged the question of whether officers have the right to search and seize without a warrant was the case of Charles Matalonis. After admitting that he had been in a fight with his brother, who the officers found bloodied in a nearby residence, Matalonis allowed the cops to come into his home. They saw blood, presumably from the fight, and cannabis before asking Matalonis to open a locked door in the house for them. After he refused, the cops broke the door down and found marijuana growing in the room. They then arrested and charged Matalonis with the manufacturing of marijuana.

Though the Court of Appeals initially ruled this search and seizure to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court "found that the police were not investigating a crime but exercising their 'community caretaker' function by checking to make sure no other people were injured in the house." The three Justices that challenged the decision stated that between arriving at the house and breaking down the door, 20 minutes had passed and there was no reason to suspect anyone else had been injured. There was, however, reason to suspect that more cannabis would be in the room and that is the real reason the officers unlawfully entered the room. Had the decision remained deadlocked at 3-3 before Justice Bradley was appointed, the Court of Appeals decision would have been final.

In regards to the new Justice, this has been a controversial start for her in the Supreme Court. When she arrived, there were five earlier cases that had been argued but hadn't been decided and she chose to cast the deciding vote on this one. The Free Thought Project points out that,

An unelected judge appointed by a partisan politician cast a single vote, without being present during arguments, which effectively nullified the Fourth Amendment in that state.

These are serious but true allegations, and it paints a clear picture of what exactly this decision has done to the state. Because of this single vote, cops may now enter a person's home without a warrant and search and seize evidence to arrest and use against a person in a court of law.

This article(State Supreme Court Rules That Cops Do Not Need Warrants To Enter Homes And Forcibly Seize Evidence)is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com

The facts of the case here really appear a bit spurious, and I would doubt, if the appeals continued to the federal courts, that the federal circuit court of appeals nor the SCOTUS would reach the same conclusion, based on the inherent fact that there was no articulable reason to believe that injured persons were within the restricted portion of the dwelling (based upon what you've said were the facts of the case, anyways, and assuming this was the way the government defended the case.) However, I would also state that this wasn't a case that would have required a warrant anyways, based upon the fact that it was search incident to arrest, based upon the simple possession charge that properly lied before the search. The facts also, based on what I read, would allow search based upon the federal decision in Terry V. State of Ohio, due to the need to secure the scene for officer safety.

The fact that he allowed the cops in makes a huge difference. They then have the right to search if they smell or see something. This is really not a case of "coming into or breaking into a home without a warrant" as you state. Once you allow or invite them in(a stupid move)you are rolling the dice.
In any event, I agree that it will probably be overturned by the Fed courts.

the main thing that me was the appointed judge who ruled on the case without hearing the proceedings...that sounds a bit sketchy and unlawful, but i'm guessing the liberals aren't going to let any republicans break the law in an election year...

No offense but this is wisconsin. It's not the Constitution. Any city that goes along with this "cheesey" desicion will get a tail full of violation of the fourth.. I agree it is an assault on the fouth. It will never fly in the country of Texas, I mean counties.

I have to laugh. While people were laughing their ***** off calling me a conspiracy theorist and every other pejorative ad hom under the sun that they could think of for exposing this and a very long list of other government lies and attacks upon the american people from its inception forward, now some 14 years later they arent laughing any more. Well some arent anyway, many still have the blinders on.

Fact is probable cause has been replaced with probable suspicion a very long time ago.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3166653141854441994&q=STATE+of+Iowa,+Appellee,+v.+Craig+Allen+KINKEAD&hl=en&as_sdt=6,50

Neither probable cause nor probable suspicion come into play when you invite them into your home. If you have anything to hide, tell them to get a warrant!

read the case I posted.

I assume its the one where the guy proved there was nothing wrong with the muffler, if not I will find the right one.


Here is the real problem, in history look up the opium wars where england tried to force china to buy heroin, the drug trade. The cia is the us mirror image of mi6 here in the us. The problem is we live in a mobacracy who have a monopoly on certain things, like certain drugs and they insure their lil monopoly is remains secure.

Actually, it is common for a judge to rule on the pleadings. Most of the appellate cases which are brought by criminal defendants are ruled on in this fashion. Determination of the facts of the case is an issue for the trial courts to address and therefore the appellate courts almost never address determining new issues of fact. Secondly, in general rules of appellate procedure do not provide a right to oral argument, unlike in the trial courts, and this has been longstanding tradition in criminal law, and really is nothing new.

well the T v Ohio case if I remember correctly was a lame version of police insuring their safety, however, securing themselves from danger that rises to the level of 'imminent danger' is reasonable, but thats not the situation here,

This case takes it to a whole new level, (of unconstitutional thank you US supreme court) The test used is 'community caretaker’!1


http://www.aele.org/law/2011all01/2011-01MLJ101.pdf


What the courts are doing is protecting the officers under the guise that because the search resulted in producing guilty verdict for some crime they are justified in making rulings that violate the constitution and people simply accept it mostly because they do not see beyond their noses the blank check being given the gov for corruption.

case in point; If you look at the steven avery case people give government a free pass for far more heinous crimes mean while hanging each other.

Its not a bit surprising that scalia just happened to die with all these constitutional abominations on the books.

just don't call them in the first place...or let them in when they come to the door...

Thats not the problem, someone 'else' most often calls them. The problem is the actions of the cops once called. They are taught to escalate everything, NOT de-escalate as SOP. Though they always lie in court [and judges simply overlook their commission of perjury as they do for most attorneys] that they tried to de-escalate a matter and were only doing their job. The proper procedure would have been to call for a warrant to legitimize the change in venue to a search. However the overlord courts simply rule against our rights any time it is possible when its statist v individual. judges also mix and match, first through synthesis the eliminate over the years the privacy of ones car, and they reason [through said synthesis] that since one has no privacy in the car neither do they in their home and as long as they do not cite anything that is not so far over the top insane that anyone with an iq over 20 can figure out, they claim its 'reasonable' as the core of their decision [despite its unconstitutional]. If a cop enters a home under one pretext that does not give them the authority (with certain narrow exceptions) to deviate from that pretext. [legitimately]

Wisconsin?

Figures....

Have yall ever read the Constitution? come on, everybody can read just the parts they want but have you ever read Article I Section VIII, and Article II. read the entire constitution, not the parts you think you should read.

whats your point here?

You are a conspiracy theorist.

Just because you have a new profile doesn't change that fact.

Tinfoilroom!

Bad bad MI6,inciting those damn Opium-Wars in 19th Century China!