|
Search and seizure? No problem!
Wire Services | Submitted by: anonymous
"The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law."
|
From: abluecommunist
[Red is for republicans, dammit!]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 15:51
Even though the man had drugs on him, the police had no reason to detain him for what should have been a ticketable offense. Any evidence procured from a search conducted during an illegal detention should not be admissible in court. Fourth Amendment? Not yours.
From: azdollarbill [Jim Jones]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 16:01
Quote:"Virginia allows unlicensed drivers to drive away with a ticket?? Wow!" =-=-=-=-= As usual, aulduron states the smoke and mirrors response, instead of addressing the meat and potatoes. The US of A becomes more Fascist with each and every ruling by the Supremes. The definition of Fascism is the unholy marriage of corporate and government, with the people existing only to serve. Sound familiar?
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 16:12
Smoke and mirrors, my ass. I've been arrested several times, in multiple states, for driving without a valid license. More than once, I lost my car over it. It was a unanimous decision. That means all 4 lefties (including your heroine Ginsburg) joined all 4 righties and the swing voter. Be sure you throw the blame evenly between parties.
From: studgerbil
[Stud]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 16:27
This should never have left the Commonwealth of Virginia. Now, one miserable miscreant of a crack-head driver and his lawyer have allowed the Feds to take one more right and responsibility away from the states. Was it worth it?
From: azdollarbill [Jim Jones]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 16:32
Quote:"It was a unanimous decision. That means all 4 lefties (including your heroine Ginsburg) joined all 4 righties and the swing voter." =-=-=-=-= Did I say otherwise? No matter, the decision still sucks. The reality is that now, whenever the law wants to search someplace, and can't get a warrant for probable cause, that now they can merely arrest someone, do their search, and voila, they have legally admissible evidence, even if the original arrest is tossed. Yup, sounds like Fascism to me.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 16:50
No I don't agree with this but, "Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety." Just because this wasn't an arrestable offense, doesn't mean it wasn't a crime.
From: windtell [Noman]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 16:59
I thought no knock raids being allowed was horrible but this beats that hands down. Way to go US, you've now surpassed most 2nd world countries in what you'll allow to stand up in court.
From: crapola
[Quit_Bitchin]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 17:01
It's called Probable cause. If you are arrested for Jaywalking. The cops have the right to search you for weapons, drugs, etc., to ensure the safety of not only themselves but yourself as well. Remember the time when the cops fucked up and the perp had a pistol and shot himself in the interrogation room? http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1151840207/Suspect_Commits_Suicide_in_Interrogation_Room In this case, we had a happy ending. What if he shot some cop? or a prisoner? Or someone just stopping by the station to bail out a drunk buddy? # # # In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law. In other words, Fed law always trumps state law.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 17:09
Yours doesn't fit, Crapola, because he wasn't supposed to be arrested. However, they don't need to arrest you in order to search you. You just have to commit a crime in their presence.
From: windtell [Noman]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 17:23
Let's say you're walking on the sidewalk and commiting the crime of walking while black. The cop wants to take a look so books you for jaywalking to search you and finds a half ounce. The jaywalking arrest is thrown out but the half ounce stands. 4th amendment, wave aloha.
From: abluecommunist
[Red is for republicans, dammit!]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 17:26
Maybe it's just me, but some crimes you really don't need to search people for. Jaywalking, for instance. While the guy was possessing illegal drugs, the method used to obtain said evidence is dubious at best, and sets a bad precedent. Now the cops can basically say "Oh, we think you committed a crime, we're gonna search you" even if you haven't done anything warranting a search. If my memory serves me right (and it does, on occasion) this is the same kind of thing that got American colonists so pissed off at the British. This is an implied Writ of Assistance, where the police or federal agents can search wherever and whomever they like with virtually no cause whatsoever...indeed, they can search on 'probable cause' which is rapidly beginning to mean 'whenever we want'. It's a slippery slope, and a very, very steep one.
From: smokey
[krispy]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 17:47
i was visiting my realitives during 420, and got searched. they found my stash took me to jail and didnt even read me my rights. now i gotta go to court. virginia sucks stay the fuck outta virginia!!
From: abluecommunist
[Red is for republicans, dammit!]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 18:10
FTA: "David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go." Given that the police had no probable cause to detain him, they had no right to search. The arrest, search, and any obtained evidence is totally invalid. This ruling negates the generally accepted notion that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against you in court.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 18:20
I see that the FDA (under the aegis of the Supremes) has declared that is was not harmful to the public health to feed the Courts the fruit of the poisoned tree.
From: androloma
[the Manchurian Centurion]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 18:26
"They have the right to do anything to you you can't stop them from doing." Joesph Heller The only thing that makes America superior to other countries is the amount of freedom and prosperity its citizens are allowed. When warrantless searches are condoned as one more erosion of freedoms, further demoralizing a populace stunned by financial hardships, then where will be the incentive for a populace to cooperate with their own self-demolition? If we do slide down into the "second world" from the first, then the next place down will have to be the third world. Slippery slope indeed. And the culprits responsible will wear suits and ties and fancy as their banks accounts are large, as they take fiefdom into a new and more ruthlessly efficient system. What matters it if you're a literate or illiterate peasant? In a police state, a firm hand is needed to keep the peasants in line. And be adamant on never paying them too much, even if the government has to regulate salaries to trap generations into a thralldom for the sake of the greater good. There can't be a God. He'd have puked to death by now. 
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 18:34
The arrest for driving on a suspended was wrong, but they've been allowed to search people, without arresting them, all of my life, at least. Have you never had your person searched, without being arrested?
From: barbarossa58
[Phallus Maximus]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 18:36
In simpler times there were only the sheriff (nothing in the Constitution at all about police forces). Of course, everyone took care of themselves. Somebody messed with you, you took care of it. Maybe later, when partying with the sheriff later, you told him about it. Heck, the guy you just beat the crap out of was partying with you and the sheriff. (Not too past distance in my heritage in the Ozarks that was life, my great-grandfather was born in 1830). Then the municipalities created police (first known as peace officers). Then they became 'law enforcement'. That morphed into para-military. Swat teams, dressed like ninja turtles, army surplus M113s, etc. Folks, can you see where this is leading?
From: bgolds
Date: 24-Apr-2008 19:29
The Chief Justice is a Conservative golden boy who replaced a Conservative fossil. The Chief Justice sets the agenda of the Court. Furthermore, there is a Conservative majority on the Court despite the fact that Republi-tards whine continually about the court being 'too Liberal'. Fuck 'even blame', I think the Conservatives bear far more responsibility for this turd of a decision. 
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 19:51
Of course you think that, Bgolds, you're liberal tard who wouldn't recognize a fact, if it made you dig your own grave. Like it or not, it's the fault of all Republicrats.
From: greenfuzz [greenfuzz]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 20:11
From: aulduron [Aulduron] Date: 24-Apr-2008 16:12 Smoke and mirrors, my ass. I've been arrested several times, in multiple states, for driving without a valid license. More than once, I lost my car over it. It was a unanimous decision. That means all 4 lefties (including your heroine Ginsburg) joined all 4 righties and the swing voter. Be sure you throw the blame evenly between parties. //////////////////////////////// What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you ever learn anything?
From: barbarossa58
[Phallus Maximus]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 20:14
From: purevenom Date: 24-Apr-2008 19:52 Barbarossa; What part of the Ozarks? =========== My dad grew up along the Missouri-Arkansas line around the White river in the 1920s to early 1930s. I live in the Northwoods of Wisconsin now, not as hilly but just as woody...
From: lexdysic [John Soames]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 21:22
What scares me the most, besides Cliton, is now people are being investigated for simply being dissident. The term dissident was used in the Soviet Union during the period of 1965-1985, including Brezhnev stagnation, for citizens who overtly (or sometimes even subtly) criticized the practices or the authority of the Communist party. Guess my loud mouth is in deep shit now. How far can it go, I mean, putting Snipes in prison while the first black presidential candidate is running at the top. Fuckers will stop at nothing. Makes me want to move to Jerusalem and become the resident Atheist.
From: purevenom
Date: 24-Apr-2008 21:30
Barbarossa: beautiful country, the Ozarks. I spent my early childhood in the same area; Moody, MO, and then Taneyville, MO. Fond memories indeed. I often consider moving back, but would hate to find it a victim of "progress" I suppose that every generation has some "good ol' days" to cite, and I think that often times the memory of what once was, is far better than attempts at rediscovery.
From: clenis [its ALL my fault]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 23:20
There has been hundreds of people arrested in the last 7 years for political protest outside the "free speech" zones. I would say they were snapped for nothing more than being dissidents.
From: lexdysic [John Soames]
Date: 24-Apr-2008 23:33
Oh please, don't make me search where it was read. Had something to do with "Patriotism" towards the current state of the American government. I'll look tomorrow while at work, don't want to waste my freedom tonight. Follow up tomorrow night.
From: lexdysic [John Soames]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 00:04
Ok, I looked. May have read this on BBC, something about six people have been arrested by detectives investigating dissident republican activity in the Belfast area (Sic). As I've been back and fourth across the pond a couple of times this year, I tend to read the BBC news, and American propaganda sites with the same eye (the one that didn't get poked out).(used a spell checker on "propaganda" and I got it right!). Sweet Miss McKinley, 10th grade English teacher. Sure wish she would have taken me into the teachers lounge some late night and fucked my brains out. Should be able to file a claim or something about that. I want the memory of being molested by my High School teacher burned into my thoughts. Anyway, I'm in the Netherlands at this business, kind of similar to an army surplus store in the states (but much cooler shit, you should see the air rifles they have) and spot this full blown Soviet Officers dress jacket and cap. Patches, rank and all. I would have loved to walked into work sporting it, but I’m an XL. They would have locked me up before I got 20 paces through the guard desk. But the feeling had by the expression. Priceless. Yes, dissident actions in the United States is frowned on too. Just try it in the right places. One more thing. 12% beer is fucking cool! We should have it here. Lot of things we should have here. The Euro would be a good start.
From: ankharan [Ankharan]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 00:46
Bwahahahahaahha the hits keep coming. That's right AmeriKa. Keep on keeping on. Since you will not do the standing up for yourselves and act responsible for your lives... the government not only will be more than happy to do it for you, but by the looks of it... the government is being begged to do it. Bwaahahahaha... enjoy the shit you create... Death cannot come swift enough.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 06:03
Hmm, I see the confusion here.. so let me explain. Here is what the Virginia Law states: The all caps are mine to make the point. ----------------- Whenever any person is DETAINED BY or is IN THE CUSTODY OF an ARRESTING OFFICER for any violation committed in such officer's presence which offense is a violation of any county, city or town ordinance or of any provision of this Code punishable as a Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor or any other misdemeanor for which he may receive a jail sentence, except as otherwise provided in Title 46.2, or § 18.2-266, or an arrest on a warrant charging an offense for which a summons may be issued, and when specifically authorized by the judicial officer issuing the warrant, THE ARRESTING OFFICER shall take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice. Upon the giving by such person of his written promise to appear at such time and place, THE OFFICER SHALL FORTHWITH RELEASE HIM FROM CUSTODY. However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer may proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82. ---------------- So you see.. according to Virginia law.. The officer first places him under arrest and takes him into custody, then gets his name, address, and promise to appear in court (by signing the citation) then releases him from custody.. which means up until the citation is issued the officer has the individual under arrest and in custody.. you can't release someone from custody if they aren't in custody... Since he had probable cause to take the gentleman into custody for a violation of State Law then this is not a violation of the 4th amendment. ------------------------- 4th Amendment 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. ------------------------ So all the blathering on this thread could have been avoided if people would have just taken 5 mins and looked up the law on the internet.
From: jaybegood
[Sir Robin of D'Hood]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 06:20
"The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence" I may just be playing with semantics here but nowhere do I read that the police have been given the AUTHORITY to "conduct searches and seize.." Actually they've always had the POWER to do it, I mean with them uniforms, guns, tazers, etc.
From: crapola
[Quit_Bitchin]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 08:24
From: aulduron [Aulduron] Date: 24-Apr-2008 17:09 Yours doesn't fit, Crapola, because he wasn't supposed to be arrested. However, they don't need to arrest you in order to search you. ### Actually yes it does. The person in question violated a law. In many states, as mine, would warrant an immediate trip to the lock up. However, in VA it is not an just a "ticketable?" offense. A little thing to think about the next time you are pulled over. The traffic stop is arguably one of the most dangerous situations a police officer is placed in. And at any moment if the officer suspects that there is a probable cause that officer will conduct a search of the vehicle. Many drug runners have been caught in this similar manner. Many of my way former high-school compadres have been subjected to this. One such tearful story is a former acquaintance was pulled over for speeding. The cop then deciding that he would check the trunk because, he felt that it was "riding a little too low in the back." Viola. 20(?) cases of Heinie, 14 (?) bottles of booze, all dumped on the side of the road. Some of the passengers were almost in tears. It took them nearly an hour to dump it all. Pretty cool in my opinion. He could have busted him for underage alcohol, contributing to delinquency of a minor, transport across state lines, etc., etc., etc. Many of you are confusing rights with privilege. You do not have a right to drive. # # # You just have to commit a crime in their presence. No you don't. The overwhelming majority of all arrests are made after the crime was committed and without an officer witnessing the crime.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 08:36
Barbarossa: The weapon that officer is holding is a Teargas grenade launcher, not a street sweeper. "StreetSweeper" is a crap weapon. Now the USAS12 or a Saiga12.. now those are some nice weapons.
From: lexdysic [John Soames]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 08:54
Throw all the black jokes out you want, but this kind of sucks..... Re: Black Groom shot outside all night bar. Justice Arthur Cooperman said he found problems with the prosecution's case. He said some prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves, and he cited prior convictions and incarcerations of witnesses. He also cited the demeanor of some witnesses on the stand. So I'm setting on the stand, and some fucking hard dick cop shot my friend. What kind of face am I suppose to put on? Yea, I'm a white dude, and would have an attitude myself, especially with New Your cops and judges involved. Citing my demeanor? Yea judge, I didn't like the tone of that fucking question. 30 days Jerry, when your hot, your hot. Next it will be 1 year in jail for not paying DMV fees while Mexico sells 3.00/gallon fuel. What's up with that? Gas is more here, perscriptions are more here. A 70 year old drives to Canada to get life saving medication he wouldn't normally be able to afford in the United States. Upon return, he is arrested, dragged through court, fined and given 1 years probation for the drug charge, and labeled at a sex offender for having his grand daughter and friends photo in the glove box. (fiction). Sounds like a witch hunt to me. Funny to read all the lawyers here, where the governments law takes precedence over common sense, injustice and personal rights. Sir, do you know why I pulled you over? You have a tail light out. Sir, where did you get all this money? Officer, the banks are failing, and electronic transfer system is down all the time, I need to carry my cash around with me. Sir, I think your a drug dealing terrorist, your under arrest. Your money will be confiscated and returned to you after your court hearing and findings. Officer, I'm on my way to Costco to buy rice for my family. Sorry sir, your going straight to jail. Fuck officer, I really need to get that food. (clubs and stun gun come out, bunch of painful screaming in the back ground) This is officer Dick, send back up. I have a dissident under arrest. Wait until food is rationed. People won't riot due to injustice, over-taxation and political oppression, they burn down the house just for food. Buy ammo while you can.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 08:55
Crapola... I think the writer used affirm to mean ratify or confirm www.dictionary.com 2. to confirm or ratify: So The Supreme Court confirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law." better? 
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 09:00
Lessdicksick: huh? Honestly, I couldn't make heads or tails of that last post. Exactly what are you talking about? Take your meds and then try a repost.. this time making it where your point is readily evident.
From: bgolds
Date: 25-Apr-2008 09:16
4th Amendment 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. ____________ Morte, I wasn't aware a warrant was issued for the search. That's because there wasn't. All of the 'probable cause' and 'incident to arrest' traffic bullshit was fabricated by the Supreme Court and is primarily relegated to apply to traffic stops only, for some reason. I didn't read anything in the fourth amendment about 'traffic', did you? Are you suggesting that your home be searched if you are issued a citation for not mowing your lawn? Probably not. Was there any distinction made in that amendment? No. Maybe *you* need to read the fourth amendment a little more carefully.
From: crapola
[Quit_Bitchin]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 09:31
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. # # # Right what's the problem? And on a further note; you won't have to worry about this if you: A. keep your license current. B. obey the traffic laws. C. keep you vehicle in proper working condition. D. don't do CRACK. So what is the fucking problem again.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 10:02
Bgolds.. ooh this is gonna be fun. The Supreme Court has made many warrantless exceptions to the 4th Amendment over the years as new technologies and concerns arise. I don't need a warrant to search your person if I have you in Custody.. It is called a Search Incident to Arrest. The reason it came about was to keep criminals from having dangerous items on them and becoming a threat tot he officers, jail staff or other inmates. There is also a vehicle exception for warrantless searches. Basically because a vehicle could be out of the State by the time you have a warrant in hand it is not practical to wait to obtain a warrant before searching. There is also the "Hot Pursuit" exception... That isn't the actual name but that is what a lot of us cops call it jokingly referring to an old TV show. If I'm chasing you and you run into a house I do not have to wait to get a warrant before entering. Oh, and let's not forget the plain view exception. And before you start blathering about how "those exceptions ain't what the wording says" I'll go ahead and point out that our Founding Fathers specifically gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution because they, unlike you, were smart enough to realize that their basic guidelines would not cover every possible scenario. The whole reason for this case is because of another Supreme Court decision, BTW. The Court has defined two types of arrests... Custodial and Non-Custodial... each defined by where the Defendent winds up after the officer is finished with him.. if he is in Jail it is defined as a custodial arrest.. if he gets a citation then it is defined as a non-custodial arrest. About 2002 (I'm not exactly sure when the ruling came down but that is the general time frame) the Supreme Court limited the Search Incident to Arrest exception.. only allowing it for custodial arrests... before that we could do it for non custodial arrests, too. We can still do weapon patdowns on an non-custodial arrest or a Terry stop, but we can't do an all out search unless we are taking them to jail. Which is why this officer chose a custodial arrest... so he could search.. because he knew the guy was carrying. Anyway, Bgolds, you'd do better to argue with someone else.. these are the things I deal with daily. But if you want a rundown on how the whole system works, just ask and I'll run one of these scenarios from beginning to end and explain every step along the way. I'll even use simple words. You won't like it though because you'll find that a lot of what you "know" is crap.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 10:09
...There has been hundreds of people arrested in the last 7 years for political protest outside the "free speech" zones. I would say they were snapped for nothing more than being dissidents. ... Then you'd be wrong, as usual. Those people are arrested for actual minor crimes, and quickly released. This has been going on all our lives. Maybe it's wrong, but it's nothing new. ...No you don't. The overwhelming majority of all arrests are made after the crime was committed and without an officer witnessing the crime.... That's only felonies.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 10:17
Auldy: Actually I only need probable cause even for Misdemeanors. That is the main difference between a private citizen and a Cop, btw.. I only need probable cause where a citizen can only make the arrest if he or she observes the crime being committed.
From: jesussavez [Just hanging around]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 10:18
I keep reading the story and maybe someone can enlighten me, but nowhere does it say they searched his vehicle. Is it was on his person, there is a "possibility" that his actions while being detained for the license violation that an officer would pat him down and possibly lead to the discovery of a crack pipe. I find it hard to believe with a unanimous decision that it is as black and white as it seems. Maybe when I get time I'll look at the decision.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 10:30
...Actually I only need probable cause even for Misdemeanors. That is the main difference between a private citizen and a Cop, btw.. I only need probable cause where a citizen can only make the arrest if he or she observes the crime being committed.... That must depend on the state, or we're talking about different things. I was arrested for a misdemeanor in Ky, and they had to let me go, because the witness wasn't a cop. A security guard told the local cop I jumped the fence (to enter property I was renting). I denied it. I remember the state cop telling the Louisville cop "you know damn well you can't arrest someone for a misdemeanor unless you, or a different officer, witnessed it."
From: simonjester [Bill Vojtech]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 10:40
From: aulduron [Aulduron] Date: 24-Apr-2008 16:12 Smoke and mirrors, my ass. I've been arrested several times, in multiple states, for driving without a valid license. More than once, I lost my car over it. It was a unanimous decision. That means all 4 lefties (including your heroine Ginsburg) joined all 4 righties and the swing voter. Be sure you throw the blame evenly between parties. ---------------------- The only "smoke and mirrors" is that there are 2 parties. There's one party with 2 wings, controlled by lobbyists/corporate interests. By the time we get to vote we're given a choice between tweedle dum and tweedle dee. That's supposed to make us feel good about having a "choice" on election day. Most folks know this on a gut level, which is why they don't bother to vote. They know it makes no substantial difference who wins. We always lose.
From: jesussavez [Just hanging around]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 10:54
I am assuming you were saying there "aren't" 2 parties. But one party with 2 wings. Most "Presidential" ballots I have seen have at least 5 parties. If all you see is 2, who is the idiot? That is all most people see and that is why we keep getting shitty representation. If you can name more than 2 people on the ballot, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 11:09
...The only "smoke and mirrors" is that there are 2 parties. There's one party with 2 wings, controlled by lobbyists/corporate interests.... If you read my next few posts, you'll see I blamed it on "Republicrats". ....Most "Presidential" ballots I have seen have at least 5 parties. If all you see is 2, who is the idiot? That is all most people see and that is why we keep getting shitty representation. If you can name more than 2 people on the ballot, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.... But only the Republicrats have power, no matter how many times I vote Libertarian, Constitution, Tax Payer, or Reform.
From: bgolds
Date: 25-Apr-2008 12:23
I'll go ahead and point out that our Founding Fathers specifically gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution because they, unlike you, were smart enough to realize that their basic guidelines would not cover every possible scenario. ______________ Sure, I understand that. What you fail to understand is that circumstances have not changed since the amendment was written. People traveled on public roads in the 1770's just as they do today. As late as the 1970's many of these EXACT same searches were unconstitutional. The only thing that changed was the ideology of the court. Cops being scared for their safety is not justification to erode civil liberties. If you don't like it, find another line of work. Don't go crying to the court for 'protection'. Morte, since most of your time is spent following orders and obeying procedure, I would not expect you to have a firm grasp of these concepts. If you like I can write in more detail and use shorter words.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 13:34
I'm afraid I don't know any words short enough for you to understand, so I'll do this for the benefit of any idiots who might, for some reason, believe you. US vs Ross 1982 JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), the Court held that if police officers have probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of any containers found inside that may conceal the object of the search The Automobile Exception from US v Carroll (1925) was the precedent cited. US v Carroll 1925 Decision Upheld the warrantless search of a car, noting that probable cause existed and the mobility of the automobile made it impracticable to get a search warrant. Significance The ruling in this case created the automobile exception to the general rule that searches require warrants. Evidence from warrantless automobile searches is admissible in court as long as the officer had probable cause to search. Got anymore lies for us?
From: bgolds
Date: 25-Apr-2008 15:57
Doofus- once again I wonder if you bother to read your own posts. You do a lot of lifting to make my point for me. And no. I don't have any more 'lies' for you. I had none to start. In the same manner that slavery was ONCE constitutional, the scope and extent of searches has expanded considerably- and for no discernible reason other than a shift in ideology. I am unsure what point you are trying to illustrate by capitalizing Sandra Day O'connor. She is a conservative and a Reagan appointee. Your pea-brain probably can't see past the fact that she is a woman, and therefore must be an example of a 'liberal'. Just a guess. So... if the same court decided your house or apartment could be searched because of a citation issued for lawn care- you'd be OK with that? I am sure I could cite some precedent.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 16:41
Listen Dipshit, I'm not even OK what what the court just reaffirmed. You're trying to tell us that this practice was never allowed until the 70's, trying to make us believe that this is all Republicans fault, and trying to make us think that the Chief Justice has some kind of power to make everyone vote his way. This has been allowed since 1925. I'll type it slower this time 1 9 2 5. Let me spell it out for you: nineteen twenty five. Don't understand English? Here it is in Spanish: 1925. I regret that I can't type in your native language, but my keyboard doesn't have grunt or drool keys.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 25-Apr-2008 18:24
bgolds, even when you might be barking up the right tree, you defeat yourself with your silly political hyperbolas. Since when are the conservatives solely to blame for fucking with the Bill of Rights? Was it the conservatives that precipitated the police riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention etc.?
From: bgolds
Date: 25-Apr-2008 21:53
Listen, carbon blob... I should have known that by responding to Morte, I would have you in a tizzy. Grab a pen and a highlighter. This explanation might take some work on your part. I said: As late as the 1970's *many of* these EXACT same searches were unconstitutional. I also said: Fuck 'even blame', I think the Conservatives bear far more responsibility for this turd of a decision. Ad finally: The Chief Justice sets the agenda of the Court. You heard: You're trying to tell us that this practice was never allowed until the 70's, Not true. I said many of these same searches WERE unconstitutional. Why do you think this case made its way all the way to the highest court in the land THIS YEAR. If it was case law there would be no debate. ________ [You're] trying to make us believe that this is all Republicans fault, Not true. Read my post again. I said CONSERVATIVES. That is an ideology. Look it up. If both political ideologies are the same, why do you think the * Republican * party takes such pains vetting candidates for the court? It is because this shift is result of an ideologically-driven design. It is not 'tweedle-dum' and 'tweedle-dee'. Your polemic pea-brain has trouble with anything that is not an either/or proposition. Work on that, please. __________ [And] trying to make us think that the Chief Justice has some kind of power to make everyone vote his way. The Chief Justice sets the agenda of the Court. If a case is not heard by the court, NOBODY votes on it. Therefore, the Chief has a great deal of authority before a case is even argued. It's not that complicated. Finally, there IS a difference in political ideology. Why do you think there is such a stark contrast between our neighbors Canada and Mexico. Both nations have relatively abundant natural resources and other superficial similarities. They are different because of the political leadership that their citizens permit. It seems Canada expects a little more from their leaders. I wish you would expect the same of ours.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 00:01
Bgolds: The basics of the 4th Amendment haven't changed. To search your vehicle I need PROBABLE CAUSE to search your vehicle.. to get a warrant to search your home I need PROBABLE CAUSE to search your home... To search your person I need PROBABLE CAUSE to search your person. I only need reasonable suspicion to do a weapon pat down, but I need PROBABLE CAUSE to do a search. The exceptions just change whether I need to get a warrant. I still have to show a Judge my PROBABLE CAUSE even if I search without a warrant.. I just have to show it on the back end and not the front end. The reason they made those exceptions were because technology changed and new problems arose that the Founding Fathers didn't ahve to deal with. Drugs? The only thing they had that could kill you in the amounts that a heroin OD can was poison... they had nothing like LSD which could be used to incapacitate guards or fry the brain of the nearest prisoner you don't like... Their mode of transport moved at about 10 mph with burst speeds up to 25... ours move at 70 mph with burst speeds of over 120...their guns were big, clumsy single shot affairs, you can get a palm gun now that holds 5 shots, plus bring extra magazines for it that are easily hid... could you imagine the danger to prison guards or jailors if a couple of those got into the building? As for your little comment about officer safety should not be a factor in this.. if cops don't like getting killed they shouldn't be cops, basically... I'll start out with FUCK YOU.. and then reply. The courts have to take into account the safety of everyone in their decisions... the cops.. the crooks.. and the bystanders... some of their rulings go against the cops because of the danger to the criminals or bystanders.. some go for the cops because of a new danger to cops from the criminals... it is all a balancing act done by the courts.. that has always beent he case and will continue to be the case as long as our system fo Government holds up. I can't shoot an unarmed fleeing felon for running.. anymore.. though officers 40 yrs ago (or 150 yrs ago) were able to do that... You can't be sentenced to a week in the stocks.. though that was a normal punishment in our Founding Father's time. You have more rights now and more protections than people had at the founding of the nation and all you rant about is how your protections are being eroded. As for the the statement that all I do is obey orders and follow procedures.. well you are half right.. I follow procedures to the letter... which is why I have over a 95% conviction rate. As for the obey orders.. maybe you are one of the people who just doesn't realize that I get fewer orders than most employees at most jobs... Officers are expected to handle situations using their own initiative.. we usually work under a set of general guidelines and handle the specifics on a case by case basis. It is that lack of micromanagement that has kept me in the job for so long. You have to be independent to be a good police officer.
From: phyrricvictory
[bob]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 05:45
And what do our betters to the North do at about the same time? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/04/25/school-search.html?ref=rss The use of drug-sniffing police dogs in the random search of a southwestern Ontario school and a Calgary bus terminal was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday. Kudos Canadia. Using NAFTA, please export some that wonderful anti-dumb-fuckery that seems to occur naturally up there. You'll regret it if you don't. You can only have a bunch of frothing savages for neighbors for so long before you come home from work and find we've burned your house down and are masturbating with the entrails of a loved one.
From: crapola
[Quit_Bitchin]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 08:03
From: phyrricvictory [bob] Date: 26-Apr-2008 05:45 And what do our betters to the North do at about the same time? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/04/25/school-search.html?ref=rss The use of drug-sniffing police dogs in the random search of a southwestern Ontario school and a Calgary bus terminal was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday. Kudos Canadia. Using NAFTA, please export some that wonderful anti-dumb-fuckery that seems to occur naturally up there. You'll regret it if you don't. You can only have a bunch of frothing savages for neighbors for so long before you come home from work and find we've burned your house down and are masturbating with the entrails of a loved one. # # # There are two major differences with your post and the current arguemnt. You must be taking debate lessons from the illogical GD. Stop. You will only be defeated. 1) Your article sites a RANDOM search of persons. "But police admitted they didn't have a search warrant or any prior tip about drugs in the school. The officers had instead visited on the basis of a long-standing invitation from school officials." This is the very example of NOT-PROBABLE CAUSE. It is good that they found the fledgling drug addict, possible homosexual and identifed it but the process in which it was done was INCORRECT. In Rotten's posted article, the crack-head was not random. Crack head was pulled over for a reason. Crack head was found for what ever reason by the officer to be suspicious. We don't know if the the officer on running his license found a record of previous traffic offences or other legal actions. This may have greatly influenced the officer's desicion. And rightly so. 2) You can only have a bunch of frothing savages for neighbors for so long before you come home from work and find we've burned your house down and are masturbating with the entrails of a loved one. Don't knock it until you try it.
From: crapola
[Quit_Bitchin]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 08:23
morte266 [Old and Tired] Date: 26-Apr-2008 00:01 "As for your little comment about officer safety should not be a factor in this.. if cops don't like getting killed they shouldn't be cops, basically... I'll start out with FUCK YOU.. and then reply. " ### Morte, You forget these are the same whacked out drug-addicts that believe a soldier's PRIMAARY DUTY IS TO BE KILLED. But, that line made me laugh and I nearly snarfed hot coffee onto my keyboard.  It is refreshing to see someone here with actual experience talk about such matters. While I certainly do not have that experience, I can see the slight difference in scenarios and can determine whether or not my government has overstepped its boundaries. But, then again we live in not a black and white world or even a world of shades of gray but LIVE TECHNOCOLOR. (remember that?)
From: beavis4000 [Who?]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 08:30
4th Amendment down. I can't wait to see how they handle the 2nd Amendment.
From: bgolds
Date: 26-Apr-2008 17:55
Morte, I don't know if you've noticed this, but technology has changed for law-breakers AND law enforcement. You BOTH have access to the same high-speed transportation and weaponry. In addition law enforcement ALSO has tazers, infra-red detection equipment, satellite surveillance, FLIR, and air support, in addition to the limitless resources of the state. Does that mean we need to roll back constitutional protection of law enforcement for the sake of a more level playing field? Don't give me this nonsense about having to sacrifice time-honored American civil liberties just to keep up. There are legions of examples of the same constitutional founders you cite expressing their preference for liberty over 'safety'. You would be well-served to memorize a few. Here's one to get you started: "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" Instead, you have shown a typical intolerance for an individuals opinion that runs counter to your own. Perhaps you could work on formulating a reasoned response, rather than peppering your comments with profanity and insults. (Although you DO now have the kudos of some guy who calls himself 'crapola'.) Heaven forbid I suggest that you consider another line of work if you feel your safety is at risk! I guess you must not be accustomed to somebody who isn't either running from you or constantly blathering about what a 'hero' you must be! There are other points of view that fall between. The town in which I grew up had a population of about 8,000 souls. We had three full-time police officers. I recently returned to visit and found we now have 12,000 residents and THIRTY full-time officers. This is not only a drain on our tax revenue, but it negatively impacts my American taste for being 'left alone'. You can call it 'freedom' or 'liberty' if you wish. I make no secret of my contempt for this head-long dash toward a police state. In addition to the exponential growth and funding of law enforcement, we now have the dubious distinction of having more of our fellow Americans behind bars than any other nation on earth. I believe that is shameful- ESPECIALLY in this nation. Congratulations on your 95% conviction rate. It's interesting to hear you rattle that off like a salesman bragging about his commissions. Any sucker unfortunate enough to be fed into the meat-grinder that is our justice system is virtually ASSURED to be ground up- that is unless they are fortunate enough to be in the upper eschelon of income earners. Say the top five percent. That fits your statistic pretty well. Bragging about your conviction rate is like bragging about how many fish you shot in a barrel. Is there anyone in your department who has a really BAD conviction rate? Say, five or seven percent? Probably not. Finally, PROBABLE CAUSE is often determined after the fact. I have seen MANY people in law enforcement fabricate the story they need to explain a search. I am sure you have, too. But, I suppose I should not expect much more. These aren't good days for New York law enforcement- this being right on the heels of the LATEST unarmed black man to be blasted full of holes. Good thing the cops didn't do anything wrong! * whew! *
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 20:30
". Drugs? The only thing they had that could kill you in the amounts that a heroin OD can was poison..." ____________________________________________ Acceptable therapy included gentle cathartics, a vegetarian diet, watery drinks, and bleeding "only in the most violent cases." In asthenic diseases, excitement needs to be increased, so rich foods, liquor, camphor, and *opium* are used. (Lester King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago University Press, 1958) Brown treated his gout as an asthenic disease, and as Lester King so pungently puts it, "Evidence is not at all clear that he cured himself of gout, but it is well established that he became heavily addicted to alcohol and *opium*. (Benjamin Rush, M.D)
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 20:38
Bgolds.. Once again you are missing the point or deliberately misconstruing it. 1. It doesn't matter what technology the officer has at his disposal if the suspect is able to get the car that has the evidence in it out of the fricken state before the officer can obtain a warrant. The reason the Supreme Court allows warrantless searches of a vehicle if there is probable cause is because the vehicle isn't stationary and can be out of the jurisdiction of the officer before a warrant can be obtained. An officer can have the fastest car around but once the suspect is across the jurisdictional line he's fricken gone. 2. A warrantless search of a vehicle or person when there is probable cause is not an infringement on your liberties.. the officer still needs to show probable cause for the search. He just has to convince the judge after he's done the search instead of before the search is done. " 3. I'm not afraid for my safety... I do realize however that there are dangers inherent in my occupation and am all for things that limit those dangers.. If I was working construction on a highrise I'd be wearing a fricken safety line regardless of whether or not I am afraid of heaights. If I was working on a road crew I'd want the lane I was working in blocked off from traffic... if I was an ER doctor I'd make sure that I was wearing the proper protective gear to avoid catching something from my patients... Yuo going to suggest to a Doctor to not wear a mask and gloves when dealing with a possible TB patient "because those are just the risks of your profession?" Doctors after all sign orders restricting a TB patient's freedom.. basically locking them in the hospital without recourse until the infection goes inactive. Your comparison borders on stupidity.. I should arrest somone and put them in my car without searching them for handcuff keys and weapons? You are fricken nuts. And I ahve good reason for telling you to fuck off; the lives you are being so callous about are people I know and work with. As for the increase in Police Officers in your home town.. there is a good chance that the increase is because of an increase in crime in your home town. WE answer well over a half million calls for service a year here. That is about a thousand per officer on the street. As for bragging about my conviction rate.. I don't recall bragging about anything... I simply stated that, as you accused, I do follow procedure.. and my conviction rate is proof of it. You are right there aren't any officers I know of with a low conviction rate, none lower than 70% or so... why? because you ahve to ahve probable cause to make an arrest. If you ahve lower than a 70% then the department will get rid of you ebcause you are either not arresting people on probable cause or not following procedure and making yourself a target of defense attorneys. You are not doing your job and will be fired. Probable Cause is not determined after the fact. you've been watching way too much TV. Why would an officer set himself up for a lawsuit based on false arrest by falsely searching someone? Illegal search and seizure applies to the search even if something isn't seized.. so if I throw you up against the wall and dig through your pockets I'd better ahve a damn good reason why.. or you'll get a lawyer and sue the department. BTW.. just to answer your point "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" is a black and white statement with no bearing on the real world. Depends on what the guilty are guilty of and what type fo suffering you are referring to. 10 serial rapists or 10 serial murderers would do a whole lot more damage to the general public than the suffering that would happen to the one innocent. 10 shoplifters wouldn't... those are the extremes.. I don't knwo where the line should actually be drawn,but like most things in life it would probably vary from society to society. Actually the law states that you only have to be 50% sure to stop someone.. about 90% sure to arrest them and 99% sure to convict (reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and beyond reasonable shadow of a doubt, respectively)
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 20:57
"it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". (Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaugha Seems that poor Ben knew nothing of the "real world" "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape" (Otto von Bismarck) Also the opinion of Pol Pot:? (Henri Locard. "Pol Pot's Little Red Book: The Sayings of Angkar".)
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 21:23
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" has never been legally defined as a "percentage of certainty". According to Winship 297 US 358\, a survey established it to be between 76% and 94% according to judges in the Eastern District of New York.
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 21:57
Certainly, how can science quantify the aggregate values of 12 'average' men/women with respect to justice? The arbitrary determination of a group of bloody flawed fools. (yeah..I was so edified) And then what...kick out the jury system and begin anew with? Judicial summary..I don't like that either. What number shall we regurgitate as being acceptable? 8.5-9.5 seems likely.....I just don't wanna be .0.5-1.5! I DO favour an English-style jury where majority rules and a unanimous verdict is required for conviction. And Americans ain't that fucking dumb. However, in Capital cases I would like a unanimous verdict before executing some poor fucker. (although in certain cases I heartily approve)
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 22:18
Bismark eh...a great though authoritarian figure; he and Franco would have made fine roommates. (and then.......well!)
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 23:01
Indeed, DD. I was looking up for a bit at how many of Morte's certainties were actually so. As usual they didn't check out. I was tempted to do more debunking, but I became bored. I stayed out of the discussion because I didn't want to encourage bgolds, whom I consider an ultra-liberal ass to whom I don't wish to bring either aid or comfort. In toto, a long argument between self-righteous dolts with delusions of adequacy.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 23:08
Hmm actually I was in ab bit of a rush when I posted my last one.. so let me clarify a little. The 50% 90% 99% is what we shoot for. That is the standards.. the goals if you will.. that is expected of us. At 50% or reasonable suspicion we can Terry Stop you, pat you down for weapons, and get your personal information, run you for warrants and history, etc. If we have gathered enough evidence either from the Stop, from witnesses, from fingerprints, etc.. we can arrest if we have the perosn at the time, or get an arrest warrant, search warrants, etc.. that threshold for us is 90%. After the Arrest the case is put together with the goal of a 99%... we have to convince 12 people while the defense is trying hard to convince them that we are wrong. A well put together case with credible witnesses, good evidence, and all the i's dotted and t's crossed. Good enough to convince 99% of the people we present it to of the guilt of the suspect. Cameron, you do have to get a unanimous verdict to convict( at least in every state I've been in). If it isn't unamimous then it is a hung jury and is a mistrial. After all if not all of the jurors agree that the person is guilty, then there must be a reasonable shadow of a doubt. It is not a unanimous verdict the prosecution can decide whether to push for a retrial or drop the charges. That is different in a civil trial where you only need a preponderance of the evidence. GD, it is not clear and has no real world bearing until you start talking about the crimes involved and what you consider suffering. Any blanket statement like that without mentioning particulars has no real world bearing. It can be construed in as many ways as there are people reading it. Bgolds posted it on a Search and Seizure thread.. so I have to have a 99% or better case before I can even search a person? So they won't have to "suffer" through having their personal effects rumaged through? Not fricken likely. In that scenario I could ahve an armed robbery that just occurred.. have a vehicle description.. a partial plate... see a vehicle that matches all of that information and not stop the person because I wouldn't want him to suffer through the inconvenience of having a gun pointed at him when all that information only gives me a 95% chance of it being the person.  Trust me, if I can pull the 90% threshold I will stop them, put them on the ground, handcuff them, search them, search the car, arrest them (if I find evidence in the car from the robbery or if the victim IDs them), get a warrant to search their house (if they match the description of other similar crimes in the area). By the end of it I will ahve my 99% case or they will be released. Even if I release them I will ahve all of their personal information to pass on to the Detectives so they have a possible starting point in their investigation. To build up that 90% into a 99%.
From: dontspeak
[while DS is talking]
Date: 26-Apr-2008 23:35
I love how people cry about "horrible" cops, yet is there one person on here that has never been positively assisted by a police officer at some point in an emergency situation? And this is coming from someone, if I was more narrow-minded, have adequate reason to be bitter towards them. I just feel, like in every profession, there are some bad seeds.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 00:53
I was talking about "beyond a reasonable doubt" ("shadow" is not and never was a part of it) in a court room setting in order to convict. "Actually the law states that you only have to be 50% sure to stop someone.. about 90% sure to arrest them and 99% sure to convict (reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and beyond reasonable shadow of a doubt, respectively)" Your words, not mine. I said: "Beyond a reasonable doubt" has never been legally defined as a "percentage of certainty". According to Winship 297 US 358\, a survey established it to be between 76% and 94% according to judges in the Eastern District of New York. " I see no problems of interpretation in Franklin's statement. It is not a legal document but a very clearly stated opinion. No more no less. You may disagree with it as with any other opinion, but I do believe that Benny was worldly enough (even by today's wilder standards) not to be merely dismissed as irrelevant to the real world. "Drugs? The only thing they had that could kill you in the amounts that a heroin OD can was poison..." Your words again, and totally inaccurate. "Acceptable therapy included gentle cathartics, a vegetarian diet, watery drinks, and bleeding "only in the most violent cases." In asthenic diseases, excitement needs to be increased, so rich foods, liquor, camphor, and *opium* are used". (Lester King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago University Press, 1958) Opiates and their derivatives were very much in fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries and so was addiction. Alcohol-fueled rages could be just as violent and destructive as any modern designer drug's and its over consumption as deadly as heroin (opium derivative, BTW). My point is that you come up with erroneous and misleading statements in many of your posts. My posts are purely information shared with Rottentots-at-large who are welcome to check them out, accept them or reject them. No skin off my ass. That's all she wrote. I have learned that arguing with you and offering supporting and verifiable facts is a total waste of my time.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 00:55
DS, outside of some idiots speaking out of turn, this thread was not about "bad cops" but about a questionable Supreme Court decision and its legal implications.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 05:50
GD: No actually you are just going over my posts looking for anything you can say to criticize them.. all to help foster that feeling of superiority of yours so you can look down on the "little people".. whether or not it is applicable to the discussion. Your watery drinks made from opium are not something that a felon could reasonably hide on their person to sneak into a jail setting. This is about reasons to search someone, remember? where as just a lil bit of heroin or LSD that was sneaked in could ahve major consequences. It is in a more compact and easily hid form. EASILY HID.. that is the point I was trying to make.. and readily available this day and age. Opium was not something that was readily available int he days of our Founding Fathers, anyway. The Opium invasion came in with the Asians during the 1800s, so the example you used would not have been available when the Constitution was signed. I'm sure there were several exotic concoctions even back then, but those concoctions were rarely readily available.. or cheap.. or easily hid.. As for the other post it was not meant to be misleading.. I was just in a rush because I had to get ready. The Law states that you have to have Reasonable Suspicion to Terry Stop someone. You have to have Probable Cause to Search their person or a vehicle or to arrest someone. YOu have to have enough evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed a crime to convict. As a practicle method we were taught 50%/90%/99% just for us to keep in mind the threshholds.. DO I have enough evidence to show Probable Cause? Simple Does the evidence show within a 90% certainty as far as you can determine? If yes then you have probable cause. That obviously wasn't clear in the first post or you wouldn't have jumped on it to try to pick it apart with a mental howl of glee. It isn't your information that I find distasteful, GD.. It is the overweening egotism that you manage to infuse into every post. It is that smug, nose turned up, better than thou attitude that I have always found irritating.
From: bgolds
Date: 27-Apr-2008 08:39
From: absintheredux [Green Death] ...bgolds, whom I consider an ultra-liberal ass Thank you! What a delightful way to start my day! _______ Although I wish I had time to contribute more, there are just two things I would like to go over: 1. 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 STILL don't see any exception for transportation. The fourth amendment was drafted in an angry reaction to 'writs of general assistance'. Those were orders that the British used to snoop in the homes (and vehicles) of Colonial Americans. The British justification was to preserve the 'safety of the general populace'. Sound familiar? 2. Nobody has responded to my hypothetical situation- that is, would you support HOME searches being conducted on the basis of a citation for poor yard care? In my community, the city can issue a homeowner a citation if they feel the yard is poorly maintained. I can see a DailyRotten forum in the future where we are arguing the logistics of some crack smoker who was busted as the result of a yard-maintaence citation. Is that OK? Because that is the direction in which all of this is heading. I can see a court in the future in which all of these vehicle-exception decisions are used to justify further intrusion into the home- for SAFETY of course. It's for our own good. Again. I only have a desire to be left alone. I am fortunate enough to live in a nation that codifies that wish in its Constitution. If that makes me a ultra-Liberal ass, then so be it. What concerns me is this steady creep away from the Bill of Rights. As 1776 fades into ancient history, the decisions put to paper that year become easier to assault. I feel that technology be damned. That's a shitty reason to erode liberty. The sentiment the founders express is as valid today as it ever was then.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 09:53
"Opium was not something that was readily available int he days of our Founding Fathers, anyway." "Opium was not something that was readily available in the days of our Founding Fathers, anyway. The Opium invasion came in with the Asians during the 1800s, so the example you used would not have been available when the Constitution was signed. I'm sure there were several exotic concoctions even back then, but those concoctions were rarely readily available.. or cheap.. or easily hid.." ____________________________________ Not so. It had been in very common use as "Tincture of Opium" since the beginning of the 17th century (raw opium dissolved in ethanol). It was part of the most medicine cabinet, and, according to the so-called "father of Brit medicine", Thomas Sydenham (1624– 1689),: "[...]something that is present in every household". (M. Simonazzi). Human fatal dose is in the order of 60 ml (a bit less than 2 liquid oz). Didn't take much to go flying. The "Chinese Invasion" is an another story and the manner of use (smoking) totally different.
From: dontspeak
[while DS is talking]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 10:23
From: absintheredux [Green Death] Date: 27-Apr-2008 00:55 DS, outside of some idiots speaking out of turn, this thread was not about "bad cops" but about a questionable Supreme Court decision and its legal implications. ------------ GD, how is it speaking "out of turn", since it IS a related extension of the topic at hand that some have felt was worth discussing? That being said, I realize the limitations of my pea-brain coupled massive fatigue, so I chose to discuss a tangent where I can make a point that didn't sound like complete gibberish.
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 12:00
'Delusions of Adequacy' eh....I reserve the right to pilfer that for my own nefarious ends at some point! (It's also an indie website..as I'm sure you know) http://www.adequacy.net/
From: other [unclassified]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 14:59
we learned long ago not to drive cars of value or those type that would be wanted for public use. They do get taken away, by the 'other carjackers'.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 15:03
GD: hmm let's see.. 2 ounces (assuming only one or two hits).. in what type of container.... glass or metal.. because soft plastic just wasn't available. That would be easily detectable during a pat down, wihtout involving a full search. By comparison Heroin (assuming taken orally) 70 mgs or so... IV or smoked 10-25 mg. You could carry enough to get high for a week (or kill 2 or 3 people) in a paper wrapping in your pocket and have it undectable by a genreal pat down. If you were more ingenious in your methods of carry, nothing short of a strip search will find it. I had a good laugh at a fellow officer a few years ago. He had a suspect that was acting out of it, so he took her to the ER. The ER staff found a medicine type bottle of liquid and a half dozen insulin needles stuff up the woman's snatch. The look on his face when the Nurse gave him the bag full of juice covered items was fricken priceless. LSD is even worse, of course, because of the dosage levels and the fact that it can be soaked into almost any type of paper. Crack is sometimes hidden on a person by the expedient of putting the rocks on a piece of duct tape and taping them between the balls and asshole. Sell a few rocks step out of sight reach into you pants and pull off another layer of duct tape and you are ready for the next dozen customers. We had an officer about 6 years ago because he was squeamish and didn't search a female. He cuffed her in front to "be nice" and put her in the back of his patrol car. while he was filling out the report she pulled a derringer from between her tits and fired into the back of his head. The only reason her is still with us is because the screen deflected the bullet up.. all he wound up suffering were lacerations from the plexiglass fragments. Of course a small gun hidden between breasts would not be detectable through a general patdown. I was one of the first officers on the scene for this one. The list of stuff goes on and on...
From: bgolds
Date: 27-Apr-2008 15:36
Morte266 You could carry enough to get high for a week ... LSD is even worse because it can be soaked into almost any type of paper....Crack is sometimes hidden on a person by the expedient of putting the rocks on a piece of duct tape and taping them... ____________ Morte, With all due respect- Is this the type of thing you are trying to prevent by wheedling away the Fourth Amendment? Is this the type of 'technology' that you think justifies creating search and seizure exceptions? I grant the fact that all of these substances are illegal in the US, but they are omnipresent. By that I mean they are as likely to be found in a person's home as they would be in a vehicle- perhaps more so. Would you then support further intrusions of liberties to stem the tide of illegal drugs in people's homes? Because that's where all of this is heading. In it's current incarnation I think the 'cure' of expanded search power is worse than the 'disease' of drug use.
From: mrsstipic [Mrs. Stipic]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 17:35
Someday many of you will deeply regret bending over for those who work hard to take your rights. Mark my words. And, whoever wrote that driving is not a right is definitely an asshole. >And on a further note; you won't have to worry about this if you: >A. keep your license current. >B. obey the traffic laws. >C. keep you vehicle in proper working condition. >D. don't do CRACK. What a total crock of shit. Fuck you. I imagine you've never driven through a drug interdiction area late at night. The highway between Liberal and Garden City Kansas is one of many examples. I-20 east of Dallas is another. You'll see many people who broke no laws at all getting jacked up like motherfuckers. I've been shaken down many times in America with A) current license (plus perfect driving and criminal records), B) complete adherence to traffic laws, C) vehicle 100% in compliance, and D) nary a fragment of crack to be found. I've sat for hours watching cops go crazy on everyone who drives through an area, no matter if they committed an offense or not. Roadblocks are becoming much more common. Welcome to Amerika. I always tell 'em to suck my fat cock, then have their mama come suck it again. Sure, they don't like that, but it's not like I'm going to be nice to those pieces of shit. If I'm not doing anything wrong, leave me the fuck alone.
From: wulfgarthewhite [Black to White]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 18:51
Why is it that none of you remembers that 'warrant-less' is really King George's code-word for 'UN-WARRANTED"? If there was ANY REASONABLE CAUSE, a judge could issue a proper LEGAL warrant in minutes. If nothing jumps up immediately from one of these unconstitutional searches you can be sure that 'something' will be 'found' when the car/house/neighborhood is cut up in little pieces and 'examined' more thoroughly. All that's needed is to harvest what's planted.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 19:05
Again, Bgolds, you are missing the point... 1. If I have probable cause to believe you ahve an illegal substance in your house I can get a warrant to search it already. The exceptions make no change in the threshold necessary for a search. The government still has to be able to show they had probable cause. They are just in place to keep evidence from being destroyed or disposed of before a warrant can be issued and brought to the scene. Officer still has to show his probable cause for the search. Search Incident to Arrest is different.. but only because the person is already in custody fo the State. This particular incident isn't an erosion of your 4th Amendment rights at all. The Officers had probable cause to place the person in custody. That is all that the 4th Amendment requires. The officers didn't cite and release... but that has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment was satisfied as soon as The officer ran the guy's license and it came back suspended/revoked. Let me repeat myself once more. A citation is an arrest. It is considered a non custodial arrest. YOu have to have probable cause to arrest someone. Virginia state law, which I posted up above clearly states that the person is taken into custody, cited, then released. The law specifically refers to the Officer as the ARRESTING OFFICER. The officer violated state guidelines by not citing and releasing... but the violation happened after the probable cause was formed. It happened after the guy was taken into custody. Therefore all of the requirements for the 4th Amendment were met. It isn't "tainted fruit from the poisoned vine" because that ruling requires the officers to mess up before the requirements for the 4th Amendment are met. Searching someone, or something, without probable cause. Oh as to your Lawn code/search fo the house comment.. I didn't respond to it because, frankly, I considered it too stupid to bother with. but since you repeated it I'll go ahead and answer. I've answered it several times already, actually.. just not directly.. here's the answer.. ready for it?.. YOU HAVE TO HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 4TH AMENDMENT! Is that clear enough. I would ahve to develop probable cause that something illegal was happening in the house before I could search the house. In most cases I'd have to get a warrant to search the house before I entered. There are exigent circumstances that would allow me to enter. Now I'll play Devil's advocate. We don't handle lawn code violations here.. frankly I really don't know who does.. maybe the Sheriff's Department.. assuming we actually have cite-able offenses for that.. dunno.. but, for the sake fo argument, suppose we did. I could see the violation and meet the homeowner in the yard to cite him... While talking to him he seems uneasy, nervous, fidgeting... I hear what sounds like a struggle coming from inside the house... I call for back up, place the gentleman in handcuffs, put him in my car, search the house. I find another man struggling with a young female on the floor of the hallway.. he gets the business end of gun shoved in his ear and gets placed in handcuffs, too. The girl is screaming and crying uncontrollably. While in the house I notice a small grow operation (open bedroom door, plants in plain sight from the hallway). I call DCS and a youth services detective... the home is cordoned off... The wife comes home and explains that her daughter has mental issues (confirmed by a check of her medical records) and sometimes gets violent. Noone in the house is charged with DV or assault or kidnapping... the child is placed in protective custody of the state.. and all three adults are arrested for the grow operation. Does that scenario meet the 4th amendment criteria or will the defense attorney get the evidence thrown out because of "Tainted Fruit from the Poisoned Vine"?
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 19:25
Wulfgar not true.. or even close. An officer has to appear before the magistrate.. and sear and testify to the evidence.. then has to obtain the warrant and take it physically to the scene.. The turn around time is over an hour on average. I can't hold someone for an hour on a terry stop or a traffic infringement. That in itself becomes an unreasonable seizure of the person htemself.. an arrest without probable cause. And yes you can ahve enough probable cause to search a vehicle wihtout having enouhg to arrest the driver. It's a chain.. you have a witness that saw the vehicle leaving the scene of a crime and got the license plate, but did not see the driver. First you search the vehicle to get evidence showing it was at the crime.. then you use that evidence as probable cause to get a warrant to searhc the owner's house and person tog et the evidence to arrest him. The witness gave you the probable cause to search the vehicle... If you have time you get the warrant. If you don't you search under the exigent circumstances ruling You do a vehicle stop for a minor traffic infraction.. your dog hits on the trunk... you search the vehicle based on the hit, because the dog is considered an expert witness... he's specifically trained for the job... you can't arrest the driver on just the hit because you don't know that drugs are in the car.. the might have been in the past... you can't hold him long enough to get a warrant because of the process.... if you let him go he is gone.. cars can just cover too much ground. A girl was snatched from a playground... witnesses saw an old brown panel van .. you stop a van matching the description being driven by a male matching the description of the kidnapper.. you terry stop him but you can't see into the back of van... The girl could eb injured or dying in the back... do you hold him for an hour without searching the vehicle waiting for a warrant? what if she dies in that time period? Or it could be the wrong van and you could be wasting time on it while the real kidnapper is getting away. There is only one way to find out... but if you search the van before you get the warrant will it suppress the evidence of the kidnapping and let the guy go free to do it again? what if it turned out to be a murder... The point is that the vehicle exception was made because there are just too many scenarios that are time critical when you are dealing with vehicle stops. because of the mobility of the vehicle itself.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 19:33
The front lawn might well be considered "curtilage" as opposed to "open field" and thus be bound to the same 4th amendment restrictions on search and seizure as the house itself. It would depend on the landscaping, height of fence, and other implied factors indicating an reasonable expectation of privacy. Even your kids' playhouse.
From: noracejusthuman
[Alien From Earth]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 20:04
Since this ENTIRE area is much more effectively and interestingly "debated" by the "usual" Constitutional Rotten Regular Scholars.. Of which, I norace, am certainly NOT a member. I, like Tss, can only offer something .. Very "simple" at this point in the argument... (I know i'm outa turn here).. But I'm 100 percent sure that I might ,at some point in my life, be only 51 to 84 percent sure about something. I think I have an 74 percent chance I made myself perfectly clear here.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 20:08
I might want to point out something else... The Search Incident to Arrest exception (which is what happened in this article) has been around since 1867 The Vehicle Search exception has been around since the 1925 The imperative circumstances has been around since 1948 and reaffirmed in 1979 and 2002 These are not new rules.. or recent attempts to erode your freedoms.. they ahve been around for generations. and they were put into play in order to handle situations that arose. GD. Yes However... if it was private enough to fall under curtilage then a citation wouldn't be given to the homeowner in the first place... there again you are nitpicking at a side issue instead of the point just to try to prove your intelligence... "ooh ooh look at me.. I smart I'm smart!" Assume for the sake of my hypothetical that it is "open fields" just a normal lawn... just like I'm assuming that I'd write a citation for something so stupid. (I wouldn't).. now Assuming the Officer had a reason to write the citation and was where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to be doing... I'm basing the scenario off of the one that Bgolds came up with.. or I would ahve made sure to use one less ambiguous just for you. *cheerio, Old Egotistical One*
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 20:29
Morte you are such a joker, You are now a mind-reader and know my motivations. Wow! Oprah is a-waitin' for you. Who would I be trying to impress? Bgolds? You? That notion is plain hilarious. Some of us are actually interested in such matters especially when part of our bread and butter is tied to forensic image enhancement and analysis.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 20:37
Actually, GD, I think you are out to impress everyone. I personally think you have a need to prove your mental superiority... it seems to be almost an addiction for you. I have this mental image of you, sitting at your desk, glass of wine in hand, allowing an arrogant sniff of superiority as you read your latest gem of a post. I also have no problem imagining you demeaning everyone you work or live with in order to keep that feeling of superiority you so crave.. with the exceptions of those few who you keep around just so you have someone to chat with while demeaning everyone else. I could be wrong.. I'm definitely not a psychiatrist.. but that is my mental picture of you, based off of your posts.
From: bgolds
Date: 27-Apr-2008 20:59
Morte, Not surprisingly all of the scenarios you described are perfectly reasonable applications of the Fourth amendment. Those are all good examples of how *I* would like to see it applied. However, its interpretation has disintegrated into a cavalcade of ridiculous exceptions that brought us to 'stop and frisk' searches, 'rolling roadblocks' 'sobriety checkpoints' 'loitering ordinences' 'high-crime designations' 'free speech zones' and legions of other excuses for nuisence governmental intrusions. Examples that are far more numerous and considerably less heroic are similar to those offered up by 'mrs stiptic'. For every one child-molester we nab by shit-canning our civil liberties, I would wager that literally millions of innocent persons are harassed and detained by law enforcement. I think there has to be a better, more efficient, more civil way to go about it. As far as being detained in a vehicle for an hour while a warrant is obtained, I wonder if YOU have ever been on the receiving end of a citation. I have been pulled over on the side of the highway for an hour on SEVERAL occasions. Maybe you guys have mobile access to my Rotten opinions now. The same technology you referred to earlier could easily expedite the warrant procedure. Instead of watering down the Fourth, technology could have helped make it stronger. Instead law enforcement has applied new technology to shoehorn more rationale for probable cause; drug dogs, voice stress analysis meters, far-infrared monitoring, ambient BAC monitoring, and dozens of other new excuses to further erode the amendment. The history of the Fourth Amendment reminds me of the parable of the camel's nose under the tent- as soon as we allow it to happen a *little*, the whole tent is ruined. Finally, defending the fourth is an uphill battle. You have the easy job here because everyone craves safety and security. Greater liberty by it's nature means greater uncertainty. We have wound up with record rates of incarceration here not because Americans are inherently more criminal than other nationalities, but because we've gone 'soft' on Liberty while getting 'tough' on crime. I wonder when and if the tide will ever change.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 27-Apr-2008 21:52
Hmmm, Bgolds... I am temtped to say something smartass.. .. but I'll pass.. you'll get the point anyway.. I hope.. 1. Stop and Frisk.. kinda two things... A Terry Stop and a Weapons Pat down.. requires reasonable suspicion that the person has been involved in a crime (Terry Stop) and a reasonable suspicion that the person might be armed and involves only a pat down of the outer clothing looking for weapons. Reasonable suspicion meaning the subject has a history of violent offenses or weapon offenses.. or a witness tells the police that the person is armed.. etc. This is not actually considered a search because the officer does not penetrate the clothing barrier. he pats the outer layer of clothing feeling for weapons. If the officer, if the officer has you, penetrate the barrier of clothing then it becomes a search of your person. It is used only for Officer safety while dealing with a possibly armed person. The officer has to show the reasonable cause if the case goes to court (the arrest history) 2. Rolling roadblock is a technique used to bring a vehicle chase to an end.. you surround the vehicle with patrol cars and come to a stop forcing the suspect vehicle to stop also... only used if the vehicle is fleeing from the police and only used in departments.. most consider it too dangerous for the officers and prefer to use spike strips instead. Thsi has nothign to do with the 4th amendment. 3. Sobriety Checkpoints. Driving is a privledge, not a right. One of the things that you agree to when you sign for your license is the "Implied Consent Agreement".. you are saying that you will take a sobriety test upon request of an officer.. or you will ahve your driving priviledges revoked. That has nothing to do witht he 4th Amendment.. it has everything to do with a contractual agreement with the State signed by you. 3. Loitering Ordinances. Have nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. Has everything to do with Trespass laws. Don't Trespass and you are not loitering. Don't block a sidewalk and you aren't loitering. don't block people from carrying on normal lawful business by your presence and you are not.. loitering. 4. High Crime Designations. Have nothign to do with the 4th Amendment. Mind you there will be increased enforcement in these areas, usually with a 0 tolerance, but the officers still need a reason to stop you and probable cause to arrest/search you. 5.Free Speech zones. Have nothing to do with the 4th Amendment.. First Amendment, now.. there might be an issue. I personally don't see it as a First Amendment issue either.. The Government is merely stipulating where, not what. While there might be "Legions of Other Excuses" you have only shown one that has anything remotely to do witht he 4th Amendment. Stop and Frisk. the rest has nothing to do with the topic at hand.. and most of them have nothing to do with your erosion of freedoms. You seem not to get one small point. The Constitution is not about YOU. It is about US. It was never meant to give you the freedom to do what ever you want without consequences. They were intended to make us a community. Your rights end where mine begin. And vice versa.
From: bgolds
Date: 27-Apr-2008 23:55
You seem not to get one small point. The Constitution is not about YOU. It is about US. It was never meant to give you the freedom to do what ever you want without consequences. They were intended to make us a community. Your rights end where mine begin. And vice versa. I never said anything about "freedom to do what ever you want without consequences". In fact, my feelings are just the opposite. Greater freedom means greater responsibility. The fact that you would feel I am expressing that sentiment after reading my comments tells me a lot about why our freedom is under assault. I think it is reasonable to assume you prefer the comfort of order and control to the perceived chaos of liberty. Your rights end where mine begin? Not exactly. Our rights were INTENDED to begin and end at the same time. Again, I think your sentiment it telling. It's called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges. I even take issue with your belief that the Constitution was intended to make us a community. Just the opposite, in fact. I believe it was created to insulate individuals from the 'community' the Founders fled: An overly-intrusive government. 1925 is hardly ancient history. Our nation had already functioned for about 150 years before we got the itch to start dramatically modifying the Fourth amendment. I think we did pretty well during that time. Nevertheless, the 'automobile exception' was created. It was an ill-conceived decision by an overwhelmingly Conservative court that mushroomed into a mess of rationalizing the destruction of the fourth amendment. It's interesting to note that the Automobile Exception was created to combat the drug war of their day. See, this whole mess developed because the defendants were guilty of having.... Sealed containers of alcohol in their automobile. I wonder if it's any coincidence that as the judicial scope of search widened, the prison populations exploded.   Expanded search power ensnared millions of heretofore unknown new 'criminals' Unfortunately it has not made our nation significantly safer. We are just getting better at searching and punishing each other. Finally, I should not have to explain to you the prevalence of search exceptions. All you need to do is walk into a court house to be reminded of the current scope. It wasn't that long ago that the court would be outraged citizens of this country were x-rayed and searched just to be permitted entry to government offices. I don't think people changed, I think our interpretation of the Bill of Rights has.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 28-Apr-2008 00:44
BG, arguing with an authoritarian is not unlike wrestling with a greased pig, or trying to talk to you about our rights under the 2nd Amendment. Clinton should be jealous of the exercise in Newspeak that permeates this thread. Please remember that you are not talking to "Cops" in general. I have friends on the force who would roll their eyes at some of the above remarks. You're talking to one individual who believes, in spite of protests to the contrary, to be the Great Interpreter of all things legal for the poor slobs who are unable to comprehend its subtleties, renders opinions on the state of mind and personal relations of people he doesn't know, and has to resort to ad hominem nonsense when meeting with disagreement. "Cop" has nothing to do with it, those are personal traits. Bye.
From: morte266
[Old and Tired]
Date: 28-Apr-2008 05:50
Actually, believe it or not, I am not authoritarian (that's gonna get some comments.) If you said one thing in this thread that showed where there was an infringement on the 4th Amendment I'd be against it... For example an exception to the Probable Cause threshold. But as long ar you are using the same meterstick to judge whether the search was valid, proving that on the front end or back end is irrelevent. All that having the Warrant exception does is keep crooks from destroying evidence. Or allowing the police to get to victims more quickly. Hell every traffic stop that I get out on is record | 
