KNOCK, KNOCK - BUT THIS ONE IS NO JOKE

Ruling Erodes Constitutional Protections

First came the U.S. Patriot Act passed by Congress mere months after
the 9/11 events. Then, in 2003, came the addendums to the Patriot Act,
which Congress has been asked to extend and approve.

Much of the Patriot Act - after more careful review - has little to do
with terrorism abatement and more to do with the intrusion of
government and law enforcement agencies into the privacy of
individuals. These intrusions border on, or are an outright stripping
away, of some basic constitutional rights guaranteed to a free people
in this country.

Now much closer to home comes a recent federal appeals court ruling
from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which ruled
that evidence found or seized by law enforcement from a warrantless
search, can be used in court.

Considering the number and types of abuses already recorded against
law enforcement agencies across the country - from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation on down to local police departments - this ruling now
opens the door for more possible mischief and abuse.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling covers Louisiana, Texas and
Mississippi, and has an immediate and direct effect - not only in the
state - but in municipalities as well.

What the court has basically said in its ruling is that police
officers in these states can search homes and buildings for evidence
without a warrant if they have a "legitimate law enforcement purpose."

The 11-4 ruling replaces a previous standard set in 1994, when the 5th
Circuit held that police can make a so-called protective sweep only if
officers are there to arrest someone.

The ruling came from a Baton Rouge case which was heard first in U.S.
District Court then appealed to the 5th Circuit Court.

The Associated Press reported on Friday that the decision came in the
case of a Denham Springs, La. man, Kelly Donald Gould, who was
arrested in October 2000 on federal gun charges. He allegedly
threatened to kill unidentified judges and police officers.

East Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's deputies went to Gould's trailer
without a search or arrest warrant, but were invited into the trailer
by another resident. Gould, authorities were told, was asleep in a
bedroom at the time the deputies arrived.

Because of the Gould's threats and criminal history, the deputies said
they looked for him under the bed and in two closets, where they found
three rifles. They later found Gould hiding in the woods and seized
the weapons after they got him to sign a permission for the search.

U.S. District Judge James Brady ruled that the guns could not be used
as evidence because they were obtained illegally. A three-judge panel
of the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, but encouraged prosecutors to
request a hearing before the court to reconsider the legal precedent
on which it was based.

Dissenting justices argued the ruling establishes another exception to
constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure.

The AP story goes on to report that Judges Harold DeMoss Jr. and Carl
E. Stewart writing for the court, said "I have no doubt that the
deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good
intentions. But the old adage warns us that 'The road to hell is paved
with good intentions."'

Any evidence discovered during that search is now admissible in court
as long as the search is a "cursory inspection," and if police entered
the site for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and believed it
might be dangerous.

What's a "cursory inspection?" Who defines what is "dangerous?" Would
they define a "legitimate law enforcement purpose" after they enter
and then find evidence to support a crime? Are these terms left up to
local law enforcement to define and interpret as they want? One would
hope not.

What does this mean for local residents?

Well, it wouldn't matter if a person lived on Nelson Street, Bayou
Road or VFW Road, any police officer can now enter your house without
a warrant if he/she felt it was for a legitimate law enforcement
purpose and, then, basically go on a fishing expedition for evidence.

And the police can say, well, it was a dangerous situation and we had
to enter to protect ourselves.

This is surely a case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where one would
hope the constitutional rights of individuals against unlawful
searches and seizures would be upheld.