The knock on the door

: knock knock :

"Yes?"

"Good evening. We're investigating a report of a prowler in the neighborhood. Do you mind if I come inside and ask a few questions?'

"Uh, well, no, I guess not, officer.... Okay, come on in."

: police officer enters your house :

"Your demeanor gives me cause to have concern for my safety. I'm going to search your house."

"Huh?? Do you have a warrant?"

"I don't need one. Now stand aside or you'll be arrested for hindering a police investigation."

Hey! Is that legal?

If you live within the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, it is. In what local media call a "groundbreaking" decision,

[p]olice officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.

This arose from a case where police went to a home and once allowed inside, conducted a "cursory" search - which involved looking under furniture and other places not immediately visible - looking for weapons on the grounds that they felt their safety was in question.

The did find guns, although the person who would supposedly wield them was not there. When he was arrested, a motion was made to suppress the evidence of the guns based on the argument that it was illegally obtained. The Court disagreed, ruling that if police fear for their safety, they have may conduct a search so long as it's "limited." What's more, anything they find in the course of that search, even if it has nothing to do with anything that could threaten them, is admissible in court.

Another slice of the baloney. Another piece of the whole taken away. And with each slice we're told some variation of this:

New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.

Don't worry, be happy - even though two dissenting judges called the decision "the road to hell" and even a former US prosecutor said "it goes way too far."

Some years ago, Jules Pfeiffer had a wonderful comic strip story about atmospheric nuclear testing. After each test, some official of whatever government did it announced "this test has added no appreciable amount of radioactive fallout to the atmosphere." Eventually, the air started to contain visible black specks, which grew larger and larger as the tests continued. In response, the governments hired PR experts to run campaigns with slogans like "Big Black Specks Are Pretty." Eventually, of course, there was one super test - which took out everyone and everything.

What I've always remembered is the part about the continued reassurance that each test was insignificant - even as the specks were growing.

I don't know about you, but with regard to our civil liberties and privacy, I'm seeing black specks.

Footnote: TalkLeft has more on this here.

Update March 31: I had the facts of the case a little wrong, but in a way that doesn't change the implication. The police went to the home - a trailer - to question a suspect in connection with a recent crime. They were given entry by someone else who was there, who told them that the man they were seeking was asleep in another room.

The police, saying they felt their safety was at risk because they didn't know for certain where this man was, looked through the trailer, supposedly for him. It was in the course of that search that they found the guns. The court ruled in effect that the cops' subjective opinion as to their safety made the search "reasonable," outweighing any constitutional protections against unreasonable searches, and that anything found in the course of such a "reasonable" search is admissible evidence.

What's most interesting - and disturbing - about the decision is that the judges could have found (I'm not saying they should have, only that they could have) that the search for the suspect was legitimate based on safety issues - but only for that purpose, that is, only for ensuring safety. They then could have said that nothing found in the search was admissible.

It would have been interesting to see the police department's response to such a ruling; I suspect it would have been outrage, which is the usual police response to any ruling that stops short of "do what you flipping please." In any event, the fact that course wasn't taken is, I think, sufficient proof that there was a lot more on the judges' minds than the officers' "safety."