SCOTUS Repeals Fourth Amendment

[CuteOldGuy]

This is why SCOTUS appointments don't matter. The Court ruled that the discovery of evidence obtained through an illegal search is admissible in court. Who voted in favor of this? Why the libs, of course! Wait a minute. Voting in favor, and AGAINST the 4th Amendment were Justices Thomas (who wrote the majority opinion), Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Breyer, the lone liberal supporting tyranny. The defense of Liberty was contained in the dissent of Justice Sotomayor. Justice Kagan offered a slightly softer defense of freedom.
Don't tell me we need a "conservative" to make appointments. We have been betrayed by the right. God Bless, and Three Cheers for Justices Sotomayor and Kagan!


http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/20/so...tus-for-excusi

[LexusLover]

The exclusionary rule is not a part of the Fourth Amendment, and this ruling is similar to the "inevitable discovery" rule crafted by the Courts to allow the admissibility of evidence that would have ultimately been discovered irrespective of defects in the basis for the initial stop and/or insufficient probable cause for the initial contact.

Your headline is hysteria and wholly inaccurate.

I've downloaded the opinion to read in its entirety to confirm the ...

.."the United States Supreme Court DID NOT "repeal the Fourth Amendment"!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The exclusionary rule is not a part of the Fourth Amendment, and this ruling is similar to the "inevitable discovery" rule crafted by the Courts to allow the admissibility of evidence that would have ultimately been discovered irrespective of defects in the basis for the initial stop and/or insufficient probable cause for the initial contact.

Your headline is hysteria and wholly inaccurate.

I've downloaded the opinion to read in its entirety to confirm the ...

.."the United States Supreme Court DID NOT "repeal the Fourth Amendment"!

I didn't have to read too far .... and neither would have you had you taken the time to do so .... but I realize reading cases requires intellectual ability:

Justice Thomas (First paragraph of the opinion!)
"To enforce the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” this Court has at times required courts to exclude evidence obtained by unconstitutional police conduct. But the Court has also held that, even when there is a Fourth Amendment violation, this exclusionary rule does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits. In some cases, for example, the link between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence is too attenuated to justify suppression. The question in this case is whether this attenuation doctrine applies when an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop; learns during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant; and proceeds to arrest the suspect and seize incriminating evidence during a search incident to that arrest. We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest."

Hardly a "repeal" of the Fourth Amendment.

Your hysteria is noted.

[i'va biggen]

This only apply's to people of color anyway, right LL?

[Jackie S]

Isn't a person who has an outstanding warrant already, under the eyes of the Law, "under arrest"?

If you are going to be engaging in some type of criminal activity, regardless of how minor, you should be sure you have all of your warrants taken care of.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Isn't a person who has an outstanding warrant already, under the eyes of the Law, "under arrest"?

No. If the person driving around know about it, they are stupid.

Stupid is not against the law.

When it reaches the level of Iva-Little-One's though, it's a menace to society.

[Guest123018-4]

What was the original cause for the stop, DWB or DWM.

In my opinion, the stop made by the officer is one of the things the founders did not want to happen to the citizens of this nation.
Sure the guy had an arrest warrant but the officer had no knowledge of that and no probable cause to stop him from doing what he was doing.

A failure of our citizens is to allow the government to decide what is our rights and what is our privileges. The idea that driving a vehicle on public roads is a privilege granted by government is as wrong as stopping somebody just to verify that they have been granted that privilege.

The intent of the founders was to limit government by the people and not to limit people by the government.

While the Fourth Amendment is not destroyed, it sure has a lot more holes in it as a result of this ruling. Your papers please.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

What was the original cause for the stop, DWB or DWM.

In my opinion, the stop made by the officer is one of the things the founders did not want to happen to the citizens of this nation.



While the Fourth Amendment is not destroyed, it sure has a lot more holes in it as a result of this ruling. Your papers please.

Here's the synopsis from the case:

"Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about ....... activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing .......... After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house."

FYI: Texas
"Art. 14.03. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICERS. (a) Any peace officer may arrest, without warrant:

(1) persons found in suspicious places and under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty of some felony, violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code, breach of the peace, or offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the laws;..."

.. might not have been such an intellectual struggle in Texas ...

I suspect the "founders" didn't want criminals running around avoiding arrest warrants either. All I have to say on the subject is if one has "outstanding warrants" one should "take care of them" before moving about the country!

I put that in the category of making sure your vehicle equipment is in working condition, before leaving the driveway, PARTICULARLY if one KNOWS one has outstanding warrants ... and if you just must leave ... .obey ALL TRAFFIC LAWS.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

This only apply's to people of color anyway, right LL?

I guess you should probably ask Clarence Thomas since he wrote the opinion!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I guess you should probably ask Clarence Thomas since he wrote the opinion!

It is harder to profile a white person.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

It is harder to profile a white person.

It depends on the neighborhood..... or in your case, the location of the restroom.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It depends on the neighborhood..... or in your case, the location of the restroom.

: lmfao:

[DSK]

I was appalled when I read that the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures had been revoked. Fortunately, I then read LL's excellent commentary and realized what had actually been clarified by the distinguished Justice Mr. Thomas.

"Fruit of the poisonous tree" has a stopping point when another element is introduced, in this case an outstanding warrant. I think the danger we all are contemplating is the abuse of this concept, and I hope the courts will remain vigilant against that.

My advise to those of you who go to whorehouses or (prohibited topic) houses is to make sure your car is in working order, and you don't have any outstanding warrants.

While I believe our liberty is always in peril of a police state overreaching its authority, this ruling makes sense, and the 4th Amendment still exists.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by DSK

I was appalled when I read that the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures had been revoked. Fortunately, I then read LL's excellent commentary and realized what had actually been clarified by the distinguished Justice Mr. Thomas.

"Fruit of the poisonous tree" has a stopping point when another element is introduced, in this case an outstanding warrant.

My advise to those of you who go to whorehouses or (prohibited topic) houses is to make sure your car is in working order, and you don't have any outstanding warrants.

Mebbe that's why assup and EKIM prefer to ride the public TRANS-portation system. Or trade off hummers for rides to their gloryholes !

[CuteOldGuy]

So it's ok for the police to detain you until they find out you've done something wrong. God help us. That is not America.