Police Powers: Taking of property, papers, life, effects

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bon_Croix

Guest
Is it just to ensure that the government’s power to take a citizen’s property, life, papers, and/or effects require probable cause (as in it is probable the person has broken a law)?

Or should a government be able to exercise the aforementioned police power with less than probable cause?
 
Probable cause should probably be required.
But nowadays probable cause can be so many things it’s like it doesn’t even exist.
 
What kind of insane question is this?

You want to live in a totalitarian police state or something?

Nazi German OrPo and GeStaPo didn’t need probable cause… neither did authorities in fascist Italy.

Is that the type of system you want to live under?
 
Absolutely, there should be probable cause. Why do you think it might not be necessary?
 
Probable cause supporters against the Constitution need to heed the call in North Korea. They are needed elsewhere.
 
The old saying was that a good prosecutor could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Now, if often seems that a judge can find probable cause depending on whether he’s had a second up of coffe that day.
 
I wonder when Texas law and American law are going to combine totals. Good one on the sandwich bit!
 
There is nothing in the 4th Ammendment that requires probable cause to take someone’s property, etc…
 
A legal expert can verify but I believe the notion of probable cause is more ancient than the US constitution and is part of the Common Law.
 
I read a fair amount of police reports, and I have to say I am appalled at the amount of fabrication I find in them.
 
perhaps the least catholic thread ever stared here; and that takes in a lot of territory 😦
 
Last edited:
How about contributing as opposed to making off topic comments?
 
Last edited:
brian_custer said:
perhaps the least catholic thread ever stared here; and that takes in a lot of territory 😦
Click to expand...
Is it “uncatholic” to follow the Scriptures?

13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. I Pet. 2

Romans 13:1-2
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

I propose that there is no topic to which Catholic faith cannot be applied.

Is the story of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion “uncatholic”? Was He not deprived of his belongings, dignity, and life without probable cause?
 
Jesus also said: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”.

So, does probability have to be objective or can it be subjective?
 
Last edited:
How about you contribute to your own thread? You’re questioning one of the bedrocks of American criminal procedure. Which, hey, cool. That’s an interesting discussion. But you kind have to put some meat on the bones here. Why do you think probable cause might NOT be a good idea?
 
I think probable cause is a good idea. I also stated that probable cause
is not a criterion for such activity in the 4th Ammendment. Such activity
is lawful only when due process is followed. Warrants can’t issue without
probable cause, under the 4th. However, warrants are not required for
taking property, life, effects, papers as is written in the 4th.

Regarding subjective probability, some police officers can take property if
he believes it is being used in a crime and if he can’t take the suspect
into custody for some reasonable excuse. For instance, game wardens are
often said to have more power than the state police; they can apprehend
property when they can’t take suspect into custody (as long as they report
the taking of property to a superior within 24 hours).

In France, after the terror incident at the concert, police raided homes
without probable cause. This was lawful in France.

So, what is so bedrock about probable cause if it is not required in U.S.
and in France? Again, nothing in 4th requires probable cause for taking
property.
 
Last edited:
Probably cause is only grounds for getting a warrant to search. No property should be taken until due process has been satisfied.
 
Last edited:
“No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause”

Enshrined in the founding documents.

“Facts and circumstances, known to the investigator or magistrate, which lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person in question committed that crime.”

No, it does not have to be in a nation’s law, but the founding fathers saw to it that a higher level of evidence was needed than mere suspicion. They, having felt the heavy hand of King George III, made certain that governmental intrusion into various freedoms was limited.

They spoke of freedom in a distinctly Judeo-Christian light. Today, freedom has been widely misinterpreted as license.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top