Latest Supreme Court Decision--4th Amendment Rights in peril.
Posted by Scotty T on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 23:19 in It is really safe to say that Thomas Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave. To think that Jefferson's state of Virginia would take this all the way to the Supreme Court. The basic facts boil down to the search and siezure powers of both state and federal agencies. I got this link from the AP site that led me to a west Texas paper. Anyway, give the story a read. I find the decision somewhat distrurbing.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_SEARCH?SITE=TXMID&SECTION=...
Here is the slip opinion from the SCOTUS site:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1082.pdf
I still haven't read the facts, reasoning or holding yet; so I will keep posting on this thread. I'm a first-year law student who is very concerned about my rights. Hopefully everyone else is as well.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 236 reads
I had my 4th Amendment Rights violated once. I asked what I was pulled over for. He said for speeding. I said well I want to see it on radar, he said I don't have it on radar and I don't have to show you and now I'm going to deal with the liquor on your breath. I wasn't so much as speeding, but never was charged with speeding, but with DUI and convicted at .068. The police report was fabricated like night and day. I thought the law was .08. But my point is the cop made up probable cause. And I then got fired, paid about $15,000 in legal bills and fines. They let me drive home.
You would think you go to court and get a fair shake, but all they did was lie.
I thought I got screwed. But then well, it just goes to show that there are others that are going to get screwed worse and the cops will do it and the courts will back them up, after the prosecutors distort reality with sheer lies.
Kind of like the cops that shot the unarmed black man with 50 bullets that was to be married the next day. Think his (never to be wife) has more distrust for the courts than I? Probably so.
I am a State Trooper in Wyoming and I don't understand the ruling.
Search Incident to an arrest is meant to preserve evidence related to the actual crime that the subject is arrested for... what evidence would there be for the charge of DUS? (Driving Under Suspension)
It seems fairly clear that the Officer(s) arrested the subject in order to conduct the Search Incident to the Arrest, knowing (or believing) that it would turn up something much more substantial.
I guess it is possible they were truly working on Good Faith, but it doesn't seem like it from what I've read... but what the heck do I know out here?
Again, I may have all the issues messed up here, but I can't believe that Detectives worry a lot about driving offenses across the country and if the arrest was only made to gain access to the subject thru a search, well... not that it matters what I think, but I think it is wrong.
"Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it."
-George Bernard Shaw
I think you might like this audio interview of G. Edward Griffin on what has been taking place, is, and will happen in the future.
http://www.breakthematrix.com/U-S/Recent-Interview-of-G-Edward-Griffin-o...
But as you know being an officer, so called "profile" stops are legitimate so long as the person commited some offense, no matter how slight. Just follow a guy around for awhile and you can get some objective basis for a stop.
In this case, the officers made an illegal arrest for driving with no license (it was a citation only offense) and found drugs incident to the (illegal) arrest. The Sup Ct said the evidence does not need to be suppressed because even though the arrest was illegal by Virginia law, it was "reasonable" under the 4th amendment because the officer had probable cause to think the driver was driving without a license.
This decision sucks. There is no sugar coating it. The question is - - if you are an officer and think (based on a hunch, not the more detailed reasonable suspicion required in Terry stop situations and definately lacking probable cause) someone is hiding something like guns or drugs or something - should you just illegally arrest them for something minor and search?? The minor arrest may get thrown out - but you get the bigger prize of a felony offense and jail term since you can use whatever else you find in court? Seems to encourage lawless actions by the officers. Combined with earlier precedents, including the one allowing pre-textual stops - its a disaster out there. I guess people should be wary what they put in their cars, because if the officer wants to tear it up, they have permission from the sup ct to illegally arrest you and search anyway. What a fucked up state of affairs in a country founded on the principles of liberty (i.e, freedom from government intrusion into our personal affairs)
"It's not a war on drugs. It is and always has been on a war on personal freedom."
I should note that it is no coincidence the Sup Ct granted cert on this case because it was from Virginia. In Virginia, to my knowledge (i dont practice there) they don't have a state authorized exclusionary rule. Thus, it was easy for the sup ct to reach the decision they did because they can say that it would be unfair to virginia to suppress evidence under the federal constitution (in a state court proceeding) that the legislators of virginia had specifically said they dont need nor want to suppress evidence found in an arrest later held to be illegal.
Whats worse is the Sup Ct decision was for all intents and purposes unanimous (9-0 with one concurring opinion by Ginsberg).
SERENITY NOW!!!!!
"It's not a war on drugs. It is and always has been on a war on personal freedom."
We are seeing a planned transition from a government of laws to a government of men.
Any objections? You'll be labeled a terrorist, and labeling substitutes for due process
ever since the first Bush Regime's "War on Drugs" and the grievous precedents involving
asset seizure based on accusation. Assets are now seized and sold before a trial has
ever taken place, conviction being a foregone conclusion. That this practice has been allowed
to continue says all that need be about the validity of a the legal profession. It's just a
license to get in on the spoils of the theft of our country. You'll never change anything
now, with the enforced disdain for due process.
The government is controlled through blackmail and extortion, following the example set
by J. Edgar Hoover. Elect anybody you want. If he's legit, you'll know 'cause he'll fall to the
usual 'lone gunman' MKUltra stooge.
David McGowan's book ,"Programmed to Kill" exposes all the details of government complicity
in the ongoing epidemic of ritual satanic abuse on a worldwide basis.
***************
"So?"-Dick Cheney