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

[Tenlaar]

Originally Posted by Psionide [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Psionide [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Chaboo_Cleric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.