Reply With Quote
take care of those outstanding warrants, folks
http://www.attn.com/stories/9335/sup...ed-in-searchesIn a 5-3 decision Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence discovered in a search by police during unlawful stops can be used in court, so long as police officers conducted the search only after learning the person had an outstanding warrant.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a police officer's "negligence" in making a stop without reasonable su ion should not preclude the defendant from being charged with a drug offense.
take care of those outstanding warrants, folks
So if a cop pulls me over without reasonable su ion I don't have to worry about him finding the severed heads in my backseat as long as I don't have a warrant. That's good to know.
That cop did not pull you over illegally. You were exceeding the speed limit buster. Not to worry though, The heads won't be used as evidence when you deny you were speeding and decide you want to go to court with your claim.
Just pay the speeding ticket.
With today's technology, the police run your plates. They know if the owner has a warrant or not. If the driver is different than the owner, they do another check through the MDT. This is standard procedure, and I don't see what is any different, except if the search was done before the information that there was already a warrant. We can nit pick and pull straws all day long but since a warrant was already in play, the ruling is understandable.
no detention without reasonable cause.
stopping someone to find cause is bs, but it's not surprising that so-called board conservatives minimize the abrogation of fundamental freedoms, such as freedom from unreasonable detention and searches.
Except the right to bear arms, which apparently not only means the right to possess a firearm of some sort, but absolutely and unequivocally protects the right to own as many of whatever types of firearms a person chooses.
More absolutist cons utional language concerning other fundamental freedoms and rights than that chosen for the Second Amendment is willingly read to create room for governmental intrusion.
Hey, I dislike it too. Police do it all the time with some BS excuse looking for drunk drivers when the bars close. I think the practice should be stopped, but it becomes a he-said-she-said situation.
What is your solution?
judges slapping down cops in court works somewhat.
Yes, but there has to be proof. The police officer, is presumed innocent, until proven otherwise.
So is the citizen, though as justifications for stops become easier to manufacture (and harder to challenge because more become acceptable) that presumption loses its value anywhere other than a courtroom during a trial on the merits - though the costs (economic and otherwise) associated with insisting upon a trial can be catastrophically high.
And your point is?
Liars will be liars. Nobody ever said the cons ution is perfect. Judges aren't psychic to see who is lying. This is an aspect of life we have dealt with since the beginning of civilization. Nothing new here, just the specifics change.
it gets harder (and more expensive) for you and me to vindicate our rights in court, or see them respected outside of it, if abusive policing is not reined in.
what courts will and won't allow matters.
It starts at the level of the DA. No cop ever gets punished and they work hand in hand to encroach on our freedoms.
I've only been inconvenience time-wise from silly stops. Maybe 5 minutes tops. Are your fears real, or irrational?
The point is that the consequences of bad stops -- or eroding the protections for citizens who are ensnared by unjustified stops -- is paid entirely by the citizen without any real recourse for the cops. That's true even if the citizen is never convicted of an actual crime (usually *because* the stop was unjustified).
The more specific point is that the willingness to look the other way on bad stops erodes the presumption of innocence for citizens. A cop who is presumed innocent of a bad stop (and faces no real consequence for making a bad stop) generally retains his job, lives at home with his family, and endures no real financial problems resulting from his bad stop. A citizen who is placed into the criminal justice system as the result of a bad stop may spend time in jail, may lose his job, and faces the dilemma of accepting a plea deal to cut his losses or fighting the charge at the peril of significant costs even if he is ultimately exonerated or acquitted because the only proof of criminal activity is the fruit of the poisonous tree.
A significant part of the presumption of innocence on the street is the limitation on when and to what extent police can conduct searches. The more that limitation erodes and allows warrantless and unjustified stops and searches, the less there can be a presumption of innocence.
A few posts back you said it's a fact of life we've always had to deal with, now you suggest it's an unrealistic, irrational concern.
Please pick a lane.
You're white.
I was responding specifically to stops for silly reason on this lane.
Excuses, excuses. We whites do get stopped for no cause as well. To think it's a race thing is stupid.
You think that because you're white.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
