America moves even closer to being a full blown police state....

[Psionide]

Supreme Court rules that evidence illegally obtained during unlawful searches can now be used in court rofl. All this talk about the 2nd amendment and nobody is even talking about how the 4th amendment has just gotten even weaker smdh.

[Pokesan]

It allows police to stop anyone for no reason whatsoever, do a warrant check, and then search incident to arrest anyone with a warrant

[AzzarTheGod]

It allows police to stop anyone for no reason whatsoever, do a warrant check, and then search incident to arrest anyone with a warrant

I don't follow.

Does this allow them to search anyone, whenever, and have this evidence be 100% admissible under ALL circumstances?

I am guessing the ruling only applies to specific circumstances where the target has an existing criminal warrant out, correct?

If so, who gives a shit?

[Efwan]

Supreme Court rules that evidence illegally obtained during unlawful searches can now be used in court rofl. All this talk about the 2nd amendment and nobody is even talking about how the 4th amendment has just gotten even weaker smdh.

Nope, you're an idiot, proven by the fact that you use the acronym "smdh" on goblin town simulator forums.

[AzzarTheGod]

so they can search criminals with criminal warrants and have the evidence presented.

wow sound the alarm

protip: don't be a criminal. With weed being decriminalized/legalized for recreational use most of you guys won't have any skin in the bullshit "civil liberties" game soon. good riddance. Oh wait you are still going to bitch for the sake of bitching.

[Bazia]

be nice if they legalized full rec so i could stop putting the shit in my boxers when i go everywhere

[MrSparkle001]

so they can search criminals with criminal warrants and have the evidence presented.

wow sound the alarm

protip: don't be a criminal. With weed being decriminalized/legalized for recreational use most of you guys won't have any skin in the bullshit "civil liberties" game soon. good riddance. Oh wait you are still going to bitch for the sake of bitching.

It's not about searching criminals though. The case in question was about a stop and search later deemed illegal that nonetheless produced a warrant. The guy shouldn't have been stopped and questioned in the first place - it was deemed illegal to do so - but so what because a warrant was found.

Cops can therefore stop and search anyone for any reason and if a warrant is found they score. What are the penalties for an illegal stop and search anyway right? I haven't even heard of penalties for it.

[maskedmelon]

I don't see the issue here. The law is not meant to protect criminals. It is there to protect privacy and private property. It there so you don't have to deal with the private humility of being fondled by and officer looking for a weapon, or the public humility of having your earwax collection uncovered and revealed by a curious officer or having your vehicle commandeered for a 'training mission'. It is not there for criminals to hide behind.

[AzzarTheGod]

It's not about searching criminals though.

Except it is.

[Tecmos Deception]

The law is not meant to protect criminals.

The law is meant to protect EVERYONE.


"[The] valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest."

Somebody didn't read the dictionary definition of attenuate when they said this. How does the fact that there was an entirely unrelated warrant out for a dude reduce the connection between the illegal stop and the seizure of evidence? The evidence would not have been seized then and there if not for the illegal stop!

[Paleman]

yeah great law, only for criminals. I mean laws are never relatively interpreted to be used in an unintended manner! lol

[AzzarTheGod]

He had an active arrest warrant.

Criminals get searched. Deal with it.

[Pokesan]

lol at thinking illegal stop means anything

what planet do you live on?

[AzzarTheGod]

When I got to the illegal stop part I stopped reading and guffawed a bit out loud.

People get stopped for reasonable suspicion. Deal with it.

[maskedmelon]

The law is meant to protect EVERYONE.



And it does in the manner that I described above. I should have said the law is not meant to protect criminality.

Unreasonable search and seizure remains prohibited. Why though should evidence obtained via an unreasonable search or seizure be excluded from other criminal proceedings. Have a brain, consider the intent of the ones who wrote the law. It was so soldiers couldn't come in and take your sack of grain on behalf of the government, not so they couldn't hang you if they found a severed head under your bed while illegally looking for grain.

[AzzarTheGod]

^

Pretty much the only bending of the constitution that I agree with off the top of my head. You said it best.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Problem is the law will be abused in some cases. Overall I am against more and more laws. Less freedom gets taken one step at a time

[Psionide]

Hey police can stop anyone for anything at anytime just because they feel like it YAY for freedom, cuz police need even more impunity right? Because police haven't been known to abuse their power ever and have always been known to operate accordingly right? I'm sure whites will be stopped just as much as minorities right? Because we all know how fair the law is compared to whites and minorities right? Yay for more freedom erosion!!

Funny how these people republicans are always like CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION LESS GOVERNMENT....except when its against what they want. ARGHH 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS BLAH BLAH but fuck the 4th amendment. LESS GOVERNMENT except when it comes to stopping people from smoking weed. Democrats are just as bad but at least they are consistent with their hypocrisy.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Hey police can stop anyone for anything at anytime just because they feel like it YAY for freedom, cuz police need even more impunity right? Because police haven't been known to abuse their power ever and have always been known to operate accordingly right? I'm sure whites will be stopped just as much as minorities right? Because we all know how fair the law is compared to whites and minorities right? Yay for more freedom erosion!!

Funny how these people republicans are always like CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION LESS GOVERNMENT....except when its against what they want. ARGHH 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS BLAH BLAH but fuck the 4th amendment. LESS GOVERNMENT except when it comes to stopping people from smoking weed. Democrats are just as bad but at least they are consistent with their hypocrisy.

Exactly. Conservatism at it's best. Small government -and less intrusion , unless it's something we disagree with. AKA Gay Marriage , etc.

The agenda and hypocrisy with the ideology is gross. I can relate to the general philosophy of conservatism, as I lean toward it more , but overall I refuse to ever be called one , it's gross.

[Psionide]

Yep. Also funny how they talk about the slippery slope with gun control. Any gun control is a slippery slope to CONFISCATING ALL OUR GUNS but eroding the 4th amendment doesn't have the same arguments. What's next they can come into our houses whenever they want for whatever they want?

[Tenlaar]

What's next they can come into our houses whenever they want for whatever they want?

As if they can't already?

[maskedmelon]

Still not following the line of retardation leading to the rage. This ruling does not abrogate the fourth amendment or any portion thereof. It simply affirms that something not addressed by the fourth ammendment is... Not addressed by it.

[Psionide]

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.

[NegaStoat]

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.

Unless, of course, you live within 100 miles of a land border or coastal port of entry zone in the USA. Remember, Obama reaffirmed this one during his presidency largely to tweak the noses of the conservaties.

https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

Fun fact - I live in a location in Shasta County, California and I'm barely within the 100 mile reach of the coast. From the point of view of federal authorities (but thankfully not State, city, or county reps) I'm fair game for this shit.

[MrSparkle001]

When I got to the illegal stop part I stopped reading and guffawed a bit out loud.

People get stopped for reasonable suspicion. Deal with it.

Except the guy in question was not stopped for reasonable suspicion. It was ruled an illegal stop with no justification, but it revealed he had a warrant and that was ruled allowable.

Basically means police can stop you any time for any reason and check if you have a warrant, something the 4th amendment is supposed to protect against. Kinda like if a cop asks someone if he/she can search their car and they say no, it means there's reasonable suspicion and they can search the car. It's not supposed to work that way but they're making it easier and easier for it to work exactly that way.

[Daywolf]

Martial Law coming, a possibility.
Rrrrrmember how the alarmism from the left 8yrs ago was "Oh! Bush will suspend elections!" (I remember that crap well), it's just projection. This is quite possibly what is in the elite lefts e-mails like every possibility they war strategised from their filthy little minds that they themselves would dream up to do.

Remember how Leftists railed on Conservs saying "you will make girls eligible for the draft"? It's exactly what they did once in power. Watch your butts!

[Chaboo_Cleric]

More freedoms taken away. Personally the Police have to much power as is.

[Daywolf]

Personally the Police have to much power as is.Well yeah, they've been militarized. And even then, the left considers military fully Okay-dokay to police US citizens even if they need to crap on the constitution and drag it thru the street to show their contempt for it (er and from some of the ""conservatives"" (deeply disliking neocons)). All I can say, rally on the local Sheriff, just get out of the city, elect a good Sheriff.

[JurisDictum]

Once conservatives realize these laws can be used to search a car and house to find every gun that doesn't have the right kind of paperwork -- it will hit them why this is a bad idea. It encourages illegal searches when you can use evidense obtained from illegal searches.

"Illegal search" has no meaning if you can just use the evidence anyway. It's not like the cops are going to get punished for it.

[maskedmelon]

It's not like the cops are going to get punished for it.

That is a problem. I would imagine the law proscribes some form of punishment and if not they should be amended. Of course if we want to prohibit the use of evidence obtained through unreasonable search, then we ought to press our elected representatives to pass legislation prohibiting it. SCOTUS didn't declare protections for the activity, it simply affirmed that it is not prohibited. There is a difference.

[Nihilist_santa]

Its really hard to prove you were stopped for no reason. The courts will almost always side with the officer unless some substantial proof is brought forward. In the long run this wont stop cops from planting drugs on people they dont like it just means that if in the process they find your murder weapon in the trunk your lawyer cant get you off on a technicality.