This apparently came from the Louisana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; however that court's website seems to lag in reporting the opinions.
Anyone have any other ideas where to find a copy?
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/02/02-30629-CV0.wpd.pdf
Press reports overstate it... essentially cops went to question a convicted felon over some threats he had allegedly made against a judge. His roommate let them in voluntarily (but didn't have authority to consent to search of his bedroom). Arguing that they had to protect themselves against risk he was in bedroom or closet waiting to ambush them, they searched and found rifles in the closet. He was charged with felon in possession. Court says the "protective search" was okay, even tho they weren't planning on arresting him, just questioning him.
In theory, not a very dramatic holding, and hardly the abolition of the warrant requirement that the news accounts suggest. My worry is that in practice in most courts the only time you win a motion to suppress (and thus give at least a tiny disincentive to unreasonable search) is when police violate a bright line test. No Miranda warnings, etc. This turns the (mostly) bright line test of you need a warrant to search a residence (with some exceptions) into something with a lot of grey areas. And in practice would be apt to become "so long as the police get thru the door legally, as by consent, they can search anytime they can articulate a reason for safety concerns" -- which is almost always, just as you can almost always articulate a reason for a vehicle stop. Driver seemed upset when he saw you ... or tried to act unconcerned, even more suspicious. He was on a highway which is a drug smuggling route (as every one in the state is). He had another car near him, and smugglers often travel in pairs. When he was pulled over, the other car kept going, presumably trying to decoy the officers away (or perhaps because the other car had no connection at all with him). I know of a stop, upheld on appeal, on just about those facts.
So it might just in practice boil down to "if you can get into the house legally, and are there for any LE related reason (and what other reason would there be) you can do a search unless it's really beyond all reason. And maybe even then.
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:27:24 -0500 (EST), Henry Schaffer wrote:
Somewhat related to firearms law issues: "It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business."
Since the basis is apparently "safety to offices" - this could easily be applied to firearms related incidents.
But I'm reassured, "New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused."
http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
-- _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
