Thanks, Blarman.

I re-read the entire article and see that I was incorrect in my summation.

The case isn't about probable cause (which the defense didn't argue against), but obstruction of justice based on simple inaction. The judges here ruled that the individual had a duty to assist - a very dangerous ruling.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this has been law for a very long time. In fact, I believe it's the law in nearly every state in the country.

The way I read the article, the officer believed there was a crime in progress, so a warrant was not a requirement to enter the guy's home and he "was" likely obstructing.

There was some accuracy in The Hunger Games...

Interesting. I suppose eventually everyone will have to pay fir the sibs if the big cities, but maybe not right now

The unfortunate thing is that most of those states are run by a few major cities - the rural provinces aren't succumbing to the progressive lies. Eastern Oregon is actually quite pleasant, as is New York outside of the City, and especially Illinois outside Chicago.

I would never live in Washington, Oregon, California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois to name a few. I am even getting tired of Nevada, as its changing to the left and being over run by illegals.

Which is a pity for all of us.

Judge Narragansett ... shrugged. I haven't seen him in quite a while.

I'm an idealist. I expect those in the legal profession - especially judges - to be honest even though I know deep down there are many who are not. I'm an optimist, I guess.

You don't expect courts/lawyers/politicians to be able to have a reasoned debate that comes to a positive conclusion, do you?

How to legalize breaking the law.
Me dino be staying put right here in Sweet Home Alabama.
Well, at least it's sweet for right now.
Maybe it's good me dino be 72.

One of the most disgusting things was that the Court just "gave up" because they were split. It was a complete cop-out.

That court is operating under the same premise that those who claim Trump obstructs justice by not allowing Congress to see his tax records.

Ayn Rand was a master of rejecting false premises.

"The right of the people to be secure in their... houses...". As I read that this thought popped into mind: Who's house is it anyway? Failure to pay the Royal Rent (property taxes and who knows how many other fees and regulations) and the residents will find out very quickly who the property owner really is and it isn't the folks that paid the bank's mortgage. Given that, why would government agents need any kind of warrant to enter property effectively owned by the government? Scary thought, isn't it?! However, as the Neo Communists gain more power over our lives this is bound to become another issue.

It infringed, no question. (Technically, they can't take away a right. All they can do is punish you for exercising it contrary to moral law.)

I sincerely believe this Homeland Security 'Patriot
Act' took away a lot of our God given rights!

It certainly should have, I agree. That's why this was so startling coming from a State Supreme Court.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think this covers the situation, or am I wrong????
Enough Said.

+1

Precisely what makes it a very dangerous accusation indeed.

Obstruction of justice seems to be a subjective offense.

Heavily loaded with political interest.