Flushing Your Toilet Negates Your 4th Amendment Rights

So says the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cops do not need a search warrant to enter a home if, after banging on the door, they hear sounds that suggest evidence is being destroyed.

Residents who “attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Here is my translation:  “Cops who wish enter a home without a warrant may now do so by claiming after the fact that they heard the sound of evidence being destroyed”.

Because, there is no such thing as the sound of evidence being destroyed.  It’s not like a gun shot or a scream or loud music.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. “Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down,” she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

Is anyone still under the delusion that the government is there to protect your freedom?

RIP Fourth Amendment.

Thanks to Agitator reader Buddy Hinton for the link.

Categories: Uncategorized

3 replies »

  1. WTF? Are we on the last straw yet? I think the public at large has demonstrated that it is willing to tolerate and even cheer on further oppression at home.

  2. And I thought Alito, Thomas et al. were pro-Bill of Rights conservatives, not neocon slime. Sorry, my mistake. And the only upholder of the Constitution…a Jewess. Downright disturbing.

  3. This SCOTUS ruling is compatible with my analysis of totalitarian humanism, i.e. that the mainstream of liberalism and the Left have abandoned any pretense of civil libertarianism. Notice that the two Obama appointees, the most leftward members of the court, voted with the police state on this one.

    While I’m not convinced that Ginsberg’s ethnicity has anything to do with this issue, she’s hardly a consistent civil libertarian. For instance, in the Bennis v Michigan case (1996) Ginsberg voted in favor of applying civil asset forfeiture laws to innocent owners whose property was unwittingly used to facilitate a crime.


Leave a Reply