| Author |
Message |
    
Johnnylunchbox
| | Posted on Friday, April 17, 2009 - 09:56 pm: | 
|
Baybueller, it was probably a lot more people than just LEOs who disliked long hair and motorcycles in the 70s. I don't think the LEOs had the market cornered. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 11:47 pm: |
|
the fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures....
If the SOP of that day is to stop every 3 Blue car and preacher boy happens to be in a blue car on the third rotation, guess what, hes getting searched. It Happens at the TSA too. And why ?? Because the liberal namby pamby idiots that dont like profiling wont allow you to stop someone that is in all likelihood more precluded to break the law based on their citizenship, gender, garments, country of origin, travel habits, demeanor in line... etc.
Wanna catch a bunch of people doing human smuggling down the freeway? you are probably not stopping Mini Coopers, or VW Beetles... now stopping panel vans and hicube trucks makes sense.... but then again thats profiling.
Try rolling through a DUI check point and giving them that line of dialogue verbatim.... good luck with that. |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 08:10 am: |
|
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.
Another Amendment that's been watered down over the years to the point of meaning "jack s***". Do they get a warrant to search one's car?
If you take the original Constitution, as a whole, you realize the framers just wanted to be left the hell alone with minimal government intrusion. We've drifted so far away from that notion that it's not possible to return without global or continental cataclysmic event. Conservatives continue to pontificate on all that's wrong with this country, meanwhile, this country continues down the path to an oligarchy - if not an outright tyrannical government. Keep chattering away - that's surely working !! |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 09:11 am: |
|
It would be better to be silent? That's what the bad guys want.
Do you have a 2 value political awareness? Do you think there are just "conservatives" & "liberals"?
Sure, "conservatives" always bitch about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket. They have since before ancient Greece. ( they always will, that's why they are called "conservatives" duh.)
"Liberals" have always bitched that things could be better, and they blame lack of "progress" on the Conservatives.
Both are right to a degree.
The situation today is one where the political forces of the early 20th century, the authoritarian, state worshiping forces called in this country "leftist" and drawing upon the tactics & mass evil of marxist/fascist/progressive ideology, are on their hideous rise in America. They have had massive influence in the schools, and now the kids have no idea why being in a fascist dictatorship is bad, or what the rule of law, or the Constitution are about.
That makes it easier to screw you.
They are after your freedom to choose your car, thermostat settings, etc. etc.
You think people who want to control cow farts and will not change a "lead kills the kids, so it's evil" law to be rational are going to allow high performance toys like motorcycles?
Especially when they ACTUALLY SAY "I won" and now don't have to debate anything, since the debate is over? ( play Imperial Theme by John Williams from Star Wars here for ominous effect ) |
Jstfrfun
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Most of those checkpoint guys are thugs who can't pass the psych eval to be a real police officer. Nonetheless, if I have a gorilla at my door telling me to get out of my car to be inspected, I'm certainly not going to argue with him, I'm gonna get out! I'm gonna open my trunk! I'm gonna offer him a cookie! what ever it takes to quell his need for power exertion short of grabbing my ankles for a cavity search!
Bitch about it later and avoid the problem in the future. If I know there's a cop waiting under that overpass to harass me then I find another route and avoid the area. And I'm certainly not gonna sit in my car and test a gang of bullies, arguing fourth amendment rights! |
Eaton_corners
| | Posted on Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 11:25 pm: |
|
I am baffled at the officers willingness to verbally argue for 30 minutes. If they really thought he was suspicious, I would expect to see a little less talk and a lot more action. |
Hexangler
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 02:29 pm: |
|
Supreme Court Puts New Limits on Vehicle Searches
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22scotus.html ?_r=1&hp
By DAVID STOUT
Published: April 21, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday put new limits on the circumstances under which police officers who lack a search warrant can search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.
Officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle after an occupant is arrested only if it is reasonable to believe that the personarrested could still gain access to the vehicle, or if the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the arrest, the court said.
In a 5-to-4 ruling that cut across the liberal versus conservative stereotypes of the current lineup of justices, the court affirmed a ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction and three-year prison sentence against Rodney J. Gant of Tucson on a drug charge.
On Aug. 25, 1999, Mr. Gant was arrested for driving while his license was suspended. After he was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, officers searched Mr. Gant’s car and found cocaine in the pocket of a jacket. The trial court denied Mr. Gant’s motion to suppress the drug evidence, but the Arizona high court ruled in the defendant’s favor, reasoning that the search was not necessary for the officers’ safety or to preserve evidence.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority in the United States Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542, agreed, and said that the State of Arizona, which had asked the high court to overrule the Arizona tribunal, “seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake.”
“Although we have recognized that a motorist’s privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home,” Justice Stevens wrote, “the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection.”
Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Stevens’s opinion, as might be expected, but so did Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who often differ with their more liberal colleagues.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, as might be expected, and he was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — but also by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is typically placed in the court’s liberal wing.
Prosecutors relied on a 1981 Supreme Court ruling, in a case from New York State, that the police may search the passenger compartment of a car without a warrant provided they do so soon after the arrest of a recent occupant.
But the incident that gave rise to the 1981 ruling involved “a single officer confronted with four unsecured arrestees,” and thus the safety of the officer, as well as the need to preserve evidence, may have justified an immediate search without a warrant, the majority noted on Tuesday. In contrast, “five officers handcuffed and secured Gant and the two other suspects in separate patrol cars before the search began” in the Arizona case, Justice Stevens wrote.
In dissent, Justice Alito said the majority had needlessly overturned the Supreme Court’s own precedents in search-and-seizure cases, even though “Gant has not asked us to do so.”
“The court’s decision will cause the suppression of evidence gathered in many searches carried out in good-faith reliance on well-settled case law,” Justice Alito lamented. |
|
