4th Amendment Gone

[justbenjamin]

The Supreme Court ruled today that evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure may be used against you in a court of law.

The Court reached this decision unanimously! Add that to the loss Habeas Corpus, and suddenly Americans have lost two of the most fundamental principles of our individual liberty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/.../scotus_search

[MC Twinkie]

Court is in session on sunday?

I'm conficted on this. Should we just let criminals go free? If you read the artical it says he was pulled over for a traffic violation first, which he was guilty of. If someone gets pulled over for speeding and there is a crack pipe siting on the dash, that person is just stupid.

I don't think this artical says, john snitched on you so the cops broke down your door without a warrent to search the place. You have to do something wrong first. So if you are going to break big laws, you better follow all the small ones.

I think I heard that if you put drugs in your glove box and lock it with key cops can't search that on a routine pull over. I would support making that search illegal without warrent. I would support letting them hold you at the stop till they can get a warrent.

[catfish]

hey xian ... we need clarification! *taps foot , looks at watch*

Xian is going to side with the Supreme Court, reiterate that our constitutional liberties are not being eroded no matter what evidence there is to the contrary, move along there's nothing to see here, etc.

[BradH]

Huh? Reading the article it seems like that's how it has always been and how I thought things worked. You get pulled over and they find crack on your person or whatever during a pat down... or see it sitting in your seat... or you give them permission to search your car.... then they find something and you're off to jail.

Sounds like the Virginia state law was giving criminals a little more rights than I thought existed anyway.

You are incorrect. This is the first I've heard of evidence being confiscated during an illegal search and seizure being allowed in court. Many, many criminals have walked scott free on this. It sets a very scary precedent, because cops will now have free reign to bust into anyone's house at any given moment they feel like it, and the evidence can still be used against them even if there was zero reason for the cops to have searched their person or property. Sure, the cop may get a slap on the wrist, but you better believe something like this can and will be abused.

What you're misreading is that this is not evidence obtained during a legal search. This was evidence obtained during an illegal arrest.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by justbenjamin

The Supreme Court ruled today that evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure may be used against you in a court of law.

The Court reached this decision unanimously! Add that to the loss Habeas Corpus, and suddenly Americans have lost two of the most fundamental principles of our individual liberty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/.../scotus_search

So, could you explain the holding and the rule to us rather than just editorialize?

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

Xian is going to side with the Supreme Court, reiterate that our constitutional liberties are not being eroded no matter what evidence there is to the contrary, move along there's nothing to see here, etc.

And Audri will tell us all that 9 Justices with fairly impressive legal careers don't understand the law as well as she does.



Haven't read it. But, if it was a unanymous decision, meaning that that idiot Ginsberg agreed with Scalia and Thomas etc... there's nothing to see here folks. My guess, a reporter with limited legal background didn't know what he was reading... or accepted the interpretation of Audri (who didn't read the case nor its procedural or factual histories but was sufficiently moved by the outcome to comment) before going to print.

[charlie brown]

xian how can you call any of those justices an idiot if you yourself stated that they all hold a fairly impressive legal career, more-so than anything you have ever accomplished in your existance

[PETA]

Originally Posted by MatPec

xian how can you call any of those justices an idiot if you yourself stated that they all hold a fairly impressive legal career, more-so than anything you have ever accomplished in your existance

no, her legal career is more impressive than mine is, or will ever be... to say that is more impressive than anything I've done in my existence is both outside the scope of your familiarity with me, her or either our legal careers.

Because Ginsberg's career is impressive (same with the knuckleheads Breyer and Sounter and Kennedy) - she's on the Supreme Court and I respect the office greatly, though she did not when she broke a very long tradition of the court which I won't bore you with. I also often find her legal reasoning to be based on an invalid theory of law... for example... relying on foreign decisions for support of her holdings. Why? Pretty much any issue can have a wide range of conclusions depending on the state that issued the ruling... all one need to is look around to find a ruling one likes.... to say nothing of the offense it gives to national sovereignty.

Anyway... if I read this case and find "inevitable discovery" mentioned I'm gonna expect justbenjamin and audri to wash my fucking car for wasting my time goddammit!!!!!

After reading the article.... what it looks like is the idiot got popped from as Terry search... if that's the case... this isn't worth reading... again... Scalia and Ginsberg agreed.... that should tell you volumes.

From what I understand, they ruled that even though the arrest and subsequent search and seizure violated Virginia laws, it did not violate constitutional law. They basically kicked it back to the state, and the fact Virginia decided to allow it in this particular instance is what troubles me. Like I said, it's the precedent it sets that makes me uncomfortable. The Judicial branches' function is to interpret the laws as they are, not to create new ones. This case just highlights a serious civil rights issue that needs to be addressed, IMO.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

From what I understand,

stopped reading right there

[rynie]

man fuck that....there have been two instances where i could have EASILY gone to jail IF the cop searched my car. I simply told the police BOTH times "no you cannot search my car because i DO NOT CONSENT to unwarrented searches of my vehicle"...both times the cops were flabbergasted.

..now. Obviously i'm not saying this is going to work everytime. Apparently now they can just search you and if they didn't have your permission or not, what they find can be used against you. that just sucks!!!!!!

[charlie brown]

thanks for the correction xian .. I couldn't win a spelling bee if I was competing alone

in any regard, I've got nothing against your accomplishments; I just don't think it's fair for you to call a supreme justice an idiot

[BradH]

matias is an idiot

[charlie brown]