4th Amendment is Gone

[Bri-guy]

While everyone is talking about taking away some part of the 2nd amendment, the US Supreme Court just dropped an A-bomb on the 4th Amendment. Why is no one talking about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/u...y-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html

This is the equivalent of allowing police to say: "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS." If there is no check on police misconduct, there is no rule of law. This is a huuuuuge deal. The opinion is not fact specific and does not limit the ruling to any particular set of facts.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Scary times we live in for sure!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/sotomayor-supreme-court-dissent-utah-strieff/

 

[Rowdie]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that evidence found by police officers after illegal stops may be used in court if the officers conducted their searches after learning that the defendants had outstanding arrest warrants.


Better pay your fines and clean up any warrants. I'm fine with it the way they interpreted the case.

 

[johnr]

Sounds like a challenge, as this law is obviously racist.

 

[Sum1]

As long as this doesn't infringe on my white privilege Im OK with it.

 

[KDM]

As long as this doesn't infringe on my white privilege Im OK with it.

HaHaHa!! That one made me laugh!! I'm going to use that one the next time I see my aunt. She's a staunch democrat and got a lip enlargement to get more of the govt. tit in her mouth.

 

[johnr]

I have been saving up my white privilege, thinking I might need it in the near future for some free stuff.

 

[Ericb]

Holy shit!

And according to the Justice Department, about 16,000 of the 21,000 residents of Ferguson, Mo., are subject to arrest warrants.


I traded my white privilege for some skittles. Maybe now if I do something illegal I won't have to answer for it.

 

[gst]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that evidence found by police officers after illegal stops may be used in court if the officers conducted their searches after learning that the defendants had outstanding arrest warrants.


Better pay your fines and clean up any warrants. I'm fine with it the way they interpreted the case.

So you are "fine": with law enforcement preforming illegal stops and being rewarded for it?

 

[Allen]

What exactly is an "illegal" stop?

 

[Rowdie]

I'm fine with it in the case they heard. (as I stated)

 

[Retired Educator]

I'm not sure whether I agree with this court opinion or not. First I haven't fully understood where the illegal stop occurred. A car leaving a residence of reported narcotic activity doesn't exactly fit my definition or an illegal stop. Some judge might consider it illegal but hard for me to agree with that.

Second, where is it stated in the opinion of the 5 justices that sided with this ruling that the purpose of the ruling is to rule against a minority. The ruling is for all, not just people of the color of the day. I'm pretty sure that if I were stopped for some reason and it was then discovered that I had an outstanding warrant that I am subject to the same ruling. Nowhere in the ruling does it state that white people are exempt from any further searches. From my reading of the article it was Justice Sotomayer that brought up racism.

I for one am extremely tired of the racism excuse.

 

[westwolfone]

Have long hair and drive a pos car for a while. Cops can and do stop people for NO reason all the time.

 

[gst]

I'm fine with it in the case they heard. (as I stated)

The trouble is their ruling likely does not stop with just this case. And regardless of the case the apparent fact is from the language that the cops were engaging in "illegal" stops.

I admit I have no idea what that is, but at what point does a cop engaging in illegal actions differ from you or I engaging in illegal actions?

What if a cop is pulling you over for no reason other than having an NRA sticker on your pickup?

At some point we may have a court that would rule that may be alright.

And I assure you there will be people that will be "fine" with that.

 

[Rowdie]

I'm fine with letting cops search once they know the suspect is wanted on a warrant. it just plain posses me off when evidence that undoubtedly proves a persons guilt is thrown out. Murderers can get off on that bullshit.

As far as illegal stops...I'm not sure what that is either. But I can tell you that if Johnny Law want to pull you over, you'll be seeing cherries in your rear view mirror.

 

[Account Deleted]

This is not good.

 

[Bri-guy]

Let me break it down for you. You have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Prior to Monday, cop could not walk up to you on the street, or stop your car, or enter your home to question you or require you to produce identification. They could not search through your pockets, your backpack, your car, or your home without "probable cause" that you committed a crime or were in possession of evidence of a crime. This is the fundamental foundation of all checks and balances on the executive branch.

If an officer stops your or searches you without probable cause, that search is illegal. That means the cop broke the law. If the cop finds something illegal after illegally searching you, the Courts would throw out that evidence because it was only gained because the cop broke the law. This gave the police incentive to not break the law and violate your right to privacy. Otherwise the evidence was thrown out.

This case says they are no longer going to throw out that evidence. There is now no incentive for cops to follow the law. Cops can now stop and search you whenever they want and will never face any real repercussion for that. We are now living in a police state where police can grab any person and search them for no reason. They can pull you over whenever they want. They can grab your backpack and rummage through it. They can go through your phone and look at your texts and internet history.

We are no longer free from unreasonable searches and seizures. You may be "okay" with the result in this specific case, but the rule of law is not limited to those facts. It applies to any law abiding citizen.

 

[Mocha]

Not good at all! Anyone that agrees to this is obviously un-informed, ignorant or just plain stupid. That is if you still believe in The Constitution of the United States of American.

4 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.

 

[Bfishn]

Have long hair and drive a pos car for a while. Cops can and do stop people for NO reason all the time.

If that's the case maybe you should file a complaint or start videoing these police that pull you over for no reason. I'm assuming they have a reason, but you just think its bullshit.

 

[PrairieGhost]

The trouble is their ruling likely does not stop with just this case. And regardless of the case the apparent fact is from the language that the cops were engaging in "illegal" stops.

I admit I have no idea what that is, but at what point does a cop engaging in illegal actions differ from you or I engaging in illegal actions?

What if a cop is pulling you over for no reason other than having an NRA sticker on your pickup?

At some point we may have a court that would rule that may be alright.

And I assure you there will be people that will be "fine" with that.

They may start pulling them over for wearing g cowboy hats.:::