4th Amendment is Gone

[espringers]

To clarify a bit more... normally a search of your person incident to or while an officer is arresting you on probable cause that you committed a crime or pursuant to a warrant (like in this case) is perfectly fine. The problem with this case is that the officer only discovered the warrant after the illegal stop. The stop was illegal because it was not based on probable cause nor reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed or that he had a warrant. Prior to this case, the remedy for the illegal stop and deterrent for police not to engage in such activity was that courts would suppress, exclude or throw out any evidence discovered as a result of the illegal activity or stop. If the court has gotten rid of the remedy, then there is no longer any deterrent for police not to stop anyone, anywhere, for anything and ask you to show them your "papers" or identification. If you don't see the problem with that, you might have enjoyed living in nazi Germany.

 

[westwolfone]

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.

One did give me a reason, going 58 in a 55. YEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAA. No ticket though. Had my shit strewn all over the ditch before a couple times, Nada, no ticket either time. If I deserve it, no problem. Pay my fine like anyone else.

Nah I let it slide. Not worth it to call them on their shit. They just fabricate a lie after the fact anyways. Got old, cut my hair, drive a Buick now. Can pretty much do whatever I want and they don't even notice me.

Too many cops out there with chips on their shoulders. Probably picked on when they were in grade school. Ruins it for all of them. And I've met good cops too. Most of them are older.

 

[gst]

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

Hey who knows with AG's like this one out there. :;: kinda

Say plainsman, does she look familiar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9yzNTrZkVQ

- - - Updated - - -

To clarify a bit more... normally a search of your person incident to or wile an officer is aresting you on probable cause that you committed a crime or pursuant to a warrant (like in this case) is perfectly fine. The problem with this case is that the officer only discovered the warrant after the illegal stop. The stop was illegal because it was not based on probable cause nor reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed or that he had a warrant. Prior to this case, the remedy for the illegal stop and deterrent for police not to engage in such activity was that courts would suppress, exclude or throw out any evidence discovered as a result of the illegal activity or stop. If the court has gotten rid of the remedy, then there is no longer any deterrent for police not to stop anyone, anywhere, for anything and ask you to show them your "papers" or identification. If you don't see the problem with that, you might have enjoyed living in nazi Germany.

Hey now, comparing govt actions to Nazi Germany can get you branded a tin foil hat wearer on here.

 

[Allen]

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.

The above is different from the earlier court rulings that allow roadblocks for DUI checkpoints in what regard?

For the record, this is why I have always disagreed with the earlier court rulings that have allowed DUI checkpoints. It means a person is stopped without probable cause for a search. Sieg Heil, mein comrade!

I believe in the past the courts have stated the need to remove impaired drivers from the highways as an over-riding public safety concern that allows for the suspension of the 4th amendment. Errr, something to that effect anyway.

 

[Lycanthrope]

The above is different from the earlier court rulings that allow roadblocks for DUI checkpoints in what regard?

For the record, this is why I have always disagreed with the earlier court rulings that have allowed DUI checkpoints. It means a person is stopped without probable cause for a search. Sieg Heil, mein comrade!

I believe in the past the courts have stated the need to remove impaired drivers from the highways as an over-riding public safety concern that allows for the suspension of the 4th amendment. Errr, something to that effect anyway.

ore BS I tell you!
M

 

[Rowdie]

To clarify a bit more... normally a search of your person incident to or while an officer is arresting you on probable cause that you committed a crime or pursuant to a warrant (like in this case) is perfectly fine. The problem with this case is that the officer only discovered the warrant after the illegal stop. The stop was illegal because it was not based on probable cause nor reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed or that he had a warrant. Prior to this case, the remedy for the illegal stop and deterrent for police not to engage in such activity was that courts would suppress, exclude or throw out any evidence discovered as a result of the illegal activity or stop. If the court has gotten rid of the remedy, then there is no longer any deterrent for police not to stop anyone, anywhere, for anything and ask you to show them your "papers" or identification. If you don't see the problem with that, you might have enjoyed living in nazi Germany.

The way it reads is if the stop is illegal, and then you have a warrant, they can then search. If you have no warrant, it would be an illegal search.

 

[Bfishn]

One did give me a reason, going 58 in a 55. YEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAA. No ticket though. Had my shit strewn all over the ditch before a couple times, Nada, no ticket either time. If I deserve it, no problem. Pay my fine like anyone else.

Nah I let it slide. Not worth it to call them on their shit. They just fabricate a lie after the fact anyways. Got old, cut my hair, drive a Buick now. Can pretty much do whatever I want and they don't even notice me.

Too many cops out there with chips on their shoulders. Probably picked on when they were in grade school. Ruins it for all of them. And I've met good cops too. Most of them are older.

You were speeding. Yes that's a legal reason to pull you over. I've been pulled over for doing 1 mph over in a Denali truck and clean cut hair. Sometimes small town cops are morons, doesn't mean they profile you because of your hippie hair.

Having said that if you look like a criminal, There's a good chance your going to be treated like one by most of society.

 

[Old Fashion]

I'm not going to get too involved in this, but if some of you are going to spout your mouth, just know the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I am not going to explain it to you, look it up yourself.

 

[gst]

The way it reads is if the stop is illegal, and then you have a warrant, they can then search. If you have no warrant, it would be an illegal search.

You seem to be willing to over look this portion of the ruling.

What it appears to be is that it is okay for law enforcement to engage in illegal actions as long as the end result justify it.

So once again what is the difference between LE engaging in a illegal action and you or I engaging in an illegal action?

We as a society are rapidly moving to a complacency to disregard Constitutional protections if they suit our wishes.

History shows us where that almost inevitably ends up.

 

[espringers]

If you are referring to me, I know the difference and there is a reason I used both terms in that blurb.

 

[gst]

I'm not going to get too involved in this, but if some of you are going to spout your mouth, just know the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I am not going to explain it to you, look it up yourself.

If you have some professional knowledge, could you explain an "illegal" stop by law enforcement suddenly becoming justifiable from a legal standing?

 

[espringers]

In response to rowdie...What we are trying to deter here is the initial contact with police for no reason what so ever. Police can't just pull you over for no reason. That is an unreasonable seizure. This case removed a deterrent to such actions.

 

[Bri-guy]

If you have some professional knowledge, could you explain an "illegal" stop by law enforcement suddenly becoming justifiable from a legal standing?

They're not saying it's "justifiable;" they're just saying they're no longer going to throw out the evidence if it was obtained by illegal police conduct. And that's the problem -- there is no deterrent from police using illegal tactics to fish for evidence.

 

[gst]

What I meant by becoming justifiable from a legal standing is after a few times of making "illegal" stops and getting someone with a warrant, how long before law enforcement begin "justifying": those illegal stops because they got a bad guy off the streets?

That to me is a very dangerous road to travel down.

 

[jdinny]

One did give me a reason, going 58 in a 55. YEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAA. No ticket though. Had my shit strewn all over the ditch before a couple times, Nada, no ticket either time. If I deserve it, no problem. Pay my fine like anyone else.

Nah I let it slide. Not worth it to call them on their shit. They just fabricate a lie after the fact anyways. Got old, cut my hair, drive a Buick now. Can pretty much do whatever I want and they don't even notice me.

Too many cops out there with chips on their shoulders. Probably picked on when they were in grade school. Ruins it for all of them. And I've met good cops too. Most of them are older.

you were speeding he/she pulled you over you didn't get a ticket......you have any idea, any idea at all how many criminals, drug lords, sex traffic pimps etc are caught due to " basic traffic violations" they run the plates id everyone in the car and boom theres warrants out for the arrest?

I too was bitching about getting pulled over by a burliegh county going 60 in a 55, my brother in law who is a Bismarck PD informed me that hey this is why they do that.

if the inconvenience of getting pulled over bothers you stop speeding
I bet youd be the person bitching when the PD didn't show up fast enough to when you needed them wouldn't you

these guys have a thankless job, damed if they do damed if they don't. the black lives matter community Is hard enough on them do we really need to start too?

 

[raider]

What I meant by becoming justifiable from a legal standing is after a few times of making "illegal" stops and getting someone with a warrant, how long before law enforcement begin "justifying": those illegal stops because they got a bad guy off the streets?

That to me is a very dangerous road to travel down.

wasn't that the whole point of stop and frisk???

 

[espringers]

Even the most minor of traffic infractions can serve as the basis for the stop. In certain places and with certain officers or departments, is rather common

 

[westwolfone]

Yeah, why would anyone want the job?

 

[gst]

If you are driving 56 in a 55 zone and the cop pulls you over and you have a suitcase full of heroin great, good work by the cop.

What people seem willing to overlook in this ruling is what was defined as an "illegal" stop.

I support law enforcement doing their jobs. Yes some are pricks, most are not.

But when we travel down the road of excusing or allowing illegal actions just because the end result is good by those enforcing the law.............where does it stop?

Like I said, what if an AG like the one in the video I shared tells cops hey if a pickup has an NRA sticker go ahead and pull them over, I got your back.


Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.Benjamin Franklin