Tuesday, May 17, 2011

House Searches No Long Need Warrants To Be Executed, In-N-Out Burger Opening Brings All The Fat Texans To The Yard, Epic Meal Time: Candy BBQ, I'm A Climate Scientist Rap, The Great Fan Escape At Astros Game On May 13, 2011

Hello everyone, this is a little later than I hoped to post it but at least it is still up. I don’t know why my Water For Elephants review has so many views, but whoever is viewing it should start reading my Thor review instead. It needs some love too! I posted a review for the game L.A. Noire as it came out today and you can read it here on the Band Of Nerdz blog. I also have four hours of gaming footage yet to be uploaded to YouTube, so subscribe to the Band Of Nerdz Youtube Channel as well. Now for today’s news!

House Searches No Long Need Warrants To Be Executed

Police now do not need a search warrant in order to look around a suspicious person’s house, as the Supreme Court has rules so under 8-1. The decision was made yesterday to settle the confusion of what “exigent circumstances” allowed warrantless entry and searches into and on households. This has been decided because when one policeman banged on a suspect’s door without a warrant, they still crash through on the idea that the home owner could possibly be destroying evidence in the crimes they have committed. It was settled in a court hearing that the police could have gotten a warrant before knocking in the first place. This happened in 2005, when in Lexington, Kentucky there was a crack-cocaine sting operation. The informant purchased the cocaine from a suspect outside an apartment complex and when the suspect walked through a complex breezeway, the officers lost him on foot. The police had smelled marijuana outside an apartment, but it was not the apartment that the suspect had entered. They knocked and yelled “police” when they heard some noise inside and kicked the door down to let themselves in because they though evidence of drug use was being destroyed. The suspect they wanted on the crack-cocaine case was not there, but three others were arrested for possession. Hollis King, one of the arrested men, challenged this arrest when he claimed it was based on an illegal entry. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced ten years, on the condition of an appeal. The local judge said the authorities had the right to enter the apartment because of the smell of marijuana and the sounds of rumbling around inside. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed this and said that the entry was a breach of the Fourth Amendment. It is being quoted by someone named Alito: “The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the exigent circumstances rule does not apply in the case at hand because the police should have foreseen that their conduct would prompt the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence,” Alito wrote. “We reject this interpretation of the exigent circumstances rule. The conduct of the police prior to their entry into the apartment was entirely lawful. They did not violate the Fourth Amendment or threaten to do so. In such a situation, the exigent circumstances rule applies.” The decision was derived from a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 1980 that said police may not enter a residence that is private without a warrant unless there was a probable cause and “exigent circumstances.” Authorities in the case decided yesterday claim that the belief that drug evidence was being destroyed was an exigent circumstance. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes that the police needed a warrant before they entered the apartment residence and says: “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.” The Supreme Court of Kentucky had found the potential evidence destruction was an exigent circumstance, but ruled in January that it was unlawfully created by the police. “Where police are observing a suspect from a lawful vantage point, and the suspect sees police, then the exigency is generally not police-created. But where police unnecessarily announce their presence, and this creates the fear that evidence will be destroyed, police have created their own exigency, and cannot rely on the fear of evidence being destroyed as a justification for a warrantless entry.” At least sixteen states had weighed in on the case and are urging to set it as a nationwide standard. The following are the states Indiana, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

In-N-Out Burger Opening Brings All The Fat Texans To The Yard

As the video above shows, Texans had their first taste of the In-N-out franchise which was mostly a California chain. It is a nostalgic place which it’s 50s and 60s carhop burger joint style, so it is a big draw. It was too big of a draw in Texas as the lineup was large and more than twenty cars turning in right. Police had to moderate the entrance as cars turning in left had to be allowed entry as well. This doesn’t count all the people who were lined up to enter the restaurant as well. I guess this just goes to show, Texans aren’t just stereotypically fat!

That’s it for today, I hope you enjoyed today’s blog. To end it I have three videos for you. First we have Epic Meal Time as they tell us to call up our dentists and tell them they’re little bitches with their latest tasty creation the Candy BBQ. Next is a funny video of climate scientists rapping, I am not sure who made this video but it is pretty funny. Last we have the great fan escape from the Astros baseball game from four days ago.

No comments:

Post a Comment