Here it is, the DOJ’s (Bondi) amicus brief where they argue against the 4th Amendment rights of American citizens.
Here’s some interesting lines from the Trump admin’s DOJ’s amicus brief,
Petitioner contends that for a warrantless
emergency home entry to be reasonable, the officer
must have “probable cause” to believe that a person in
side the home is in danger. That argument has no basis
in constitutional text, history, or precedent.
As a textual matter, the phrase “probable cause” in
the Fourth Amendment attaches to “warrants,” not all
searches and seizures. Therefore, since emergency-aid
entries do not require a warrant, the text does not re-
quire probable cause. Instead, the sole textual require-
ment is to avoid “unreasonable” entries, a standard that
here does not equate to the criminal-investigation-
focused concept of probable cause. As a historical mat-
ter, that standard responds to overzealous policing of
criminal wrongdoing, not government officials’ efforts
to save lives in emergency situations. Indeed, the
Founding-era common law recognized a robust neces-
sity doctrine, under which even cherished property
rights could give way when life and limb were at stake.
(So it’s reasonable to break in to a man’s house and shoot him, as long as the only ones claim it wasn’t due to a criminal investigation and instead to save his life? Talk about a word salad.)
This Court accordingly has never required “probable
cause” for an emergency-aid entry.
(“Emergency-aid” after the only ones shoot the citizen?)
Instead, it has found entries reasonable when officers have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone in
side is in danger or needs medical help. Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 406. That standard does not invariably require probable cause.
(The only ones can do whatever they want as long as they call it, “objectively reasonable basis for believing”? That’s Kamala Harris style word salad.)
(It must be noted, that the only ones were so worried about Trevor Case’s wellbeing that they waited, how long?)
About 40 minutes after the responding officers had first arrived, the chief made the decision to enter petitioner’s home.
(Remember, they waited 40 minutes… And then?)
The officers opened the unlocked front door, loudly announced themselves, and continued to yell out as they walked through petitioner’s home. Ibid. One of the officers, Sergeant Richard Pa-
sha, was walking through an upstairs bedroom when he
saw petitioner “jerk[] open” a closet curtain. Id. at 6a.
Petitioner had an “ ‘aggressive’ ” look on his face and
“ ‘gritted’ teeth.” Ibid. Sergeant Pasha also saw a “dark
object,” which looked like a gun, pointing out of the cur-
tain from petitioner’s waist. Ibid. Fearing that he was
about to be shot, Sergeant Pasha drew his weapon and
shot petitioner in the abdomen. Ibid. The other officers
entered the room, and one immediately began adminis-
tering first aid to petitioner. Ibid. Another officer then
spotted a gun lying in a hamper next to petitioner. Ibid.
President Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi is arguing against the 4th Amendment, and for the ability of the only ones to be able to break in and shoot American citizens.
On forums I’ve been given countless excuses about how Bondi is not responsible, and cannot be held accountable for this. Yet, the MAGAmerized refuse to acknowledge, Bondi’s AG, she’s the DOJ boss, and she works for Trump. The buck’s gotta stop somewhere…
Equip, train, pray and never disarm.
Update,
Leave a Reply