Jump to content
Advertise With Us! Or Sign Up To Remove Ads!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Uncle Thanky

Police Can Now Say These 2 Words To Enter Your Home Without A Warrant, Judge Rules

Recommended Posts

 Uncle Thanky    1,155

"A federal judge has ruled that police have the right to enter homes without a warrant as long as they claim to be conducting a “welfare check.”

Lieutenant Joseph Buccilli did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he forced his way into the home of Timothy, LuAnn and Joseph Batt without a warrant in 2012, U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci Jr ruled earlier this year. The case currently is being appealed, and a ruling is expected this fall."

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/welfare-check-police-now-can-enter-your-home-without-warrant-judge-rules/

What's next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Groove    1,948

Oh that's BS. You still ain't coming in my house with out a warrant. Welfare check my ass, any one you want to see can come to the door and see you and if you don't like it and you trespass onto my property then I won't feel sorry for what follows. Self defense is a two way street.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Sky Cat    1,532

USSA gonna USSA.  I hope you take your country back, and SOON!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 2QIK4U    315
3 hours ago, Uncle Thanky said:

"A federal judge has ruled that police have the right to enter homes without a warrant as long as they claim to be conducting a “welfare check.”

Lieutenant Joseph Buccilli did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he forced his way into the home of Timothy, LuAnn and Joseph Batt without a warrant in 2012, U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci Jr ruled earlier this year. The case currently is being appealed, and a ruling is expected this fall."

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/welfare-check-police-now-can-enter-your-home-without-warrant-judge-rules/

What's next?

Anything that takes five years to get to this point was sure to fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...welfare check....the government is the biggest welfare program for the biggest losers on the planet...that run the government...so that means that all of them illegal immigrants will be getting a knock on their door soon...oh wait sorry....you didn't specify whether we were talking about welfare recipients or the people who pay into welfare...my bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That is not correct. The case Text is located here. Batt V Buccilli (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017)  The Judge did not rule on the 4th amendment issues in this matter. The Court dismissed the matter as even if the 4th amendment issues were true the officer has qualified immunity. "For the following reasons, the Court declines to resolve the first question, because even if a violation of the Fourth Amendment occurred, Lt. Buccilli is indeed shielded by qualified immunity, and this case must be dismissed." 

 I understand the fear that such things bring. It is in the details that we win or lose in Court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding and reading of the Stare Decisis in this Area, the exclusionary rule would apply to any evidence gathered outside of the scope of the welfare check. Usually this is limited to the Officer Physically seeing the person who is at risk. There are also some questions as to what classifies a person "At Risk". I would not worry to much about this ruling. It only apply's to New York and it only dismisses the Case based on Qualified Immunity. If there had been a ruling to the 4th amendment issues then I would be more concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Automan63    2,198
2 hours ago, counterintelligence said:

Hmmm...welfare check....the government is the biggest welfare program for the biggest losers on the planet...that run the government...so that means that all of them illegal immigrants will be getting a knock on their door soon...oh wait sorry....you didn't specify whether we were talking about welfare recipients or the people who pay into welfare...my bad...

No no. That would be an "EBT check" 

Thats an Entitlement, don'tcha know.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 gxer    208
2 hours ago, Desertwolf1723 said:

From my understanding and reading of the Stare Decisis in this Area, the exclusionary rule would apply to any evidence gathered outside of the scope of the welfare check. Usually this is limited to the Officer Physically seeing the person who is at risk. There are also some questions as to what classifies a person "At Risk". I would not worry to much about this ruling. It only apply's to New York and it only dismisses the Case based on Qualified Immunity. If there had been a ruling to the 4th amendment issues then I would be more concerned. 

Isn't this how we got into this tyranny;  we pushed aside one small detail at a time?

I understand the technical issue of the 4th amendment, but are we willing to let things happen by chance anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×