This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)
U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”
“By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, the Supreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end—given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the police state.”
In April 2009, a Surry County (N.C.) law enforcement officer stopped a car traveling on Interstate 77, allegedly because of a brake light which at first failed to illuminate and then flickered on. The officer mistakenly believed that state law prohibited driving a car with one broken brake light. In fact, the state traffic law requires only one working brake light. Nevertheless, operating under a mistaken understanding of the law, during the course of the stop, the officer asked for permission to search the car. Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search. Upon the officer finding cocaine in the vehicle, he arrested and charged Heien with trafficking. Prior to his trial, Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized in light of the fact that the officer’s pretext for the stop was erroneous and therefore unlawful. Although the trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence, the state court of appeals determined that since the police officer had based his initial stop of the car on a mistaken understanding of the law, there was no valid reason for the stop in the first place. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer was wrong in concluding that the inoperable brake light was an offense, because the officer’s mistake was a “reasonable” one, the stop of the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the evidence resulting from the stop did not need to be suppressed. In weighing in on the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys warn against allowing government agents to “benefit” from their mistakes of law, deliberate or otherwise, lest it become an incentive for abuse.
Affiliate attorney Christopher F. Moriarty assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in the amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court.
»
- 51918 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Stupidity and corruption reign...
And this decision from an entity that WAS NOT a party to the US Constitution...
but a creation there of.
DaddyO
The pieces of SHIT on the Supreme Court are nothing but stooges for the CRIMINALS over at the "Fed."
What a bunch of horseshit. I never thought I'd agree with Sotomayor on anything, but I do here.
So, can I plead ignorance if I shoot someone who is violating my 4th amendment rights? It sounds like a reasonable mistake to me.
Those judges are traitors.
If there's a group of people who deserve to have others turn their backs on them, it's definitely the Supreme Farce.
They are not alone though, our whole country is run by traitors.
What are citizens to do? I think we should all carry copies of the US Constitution with us at all times. If stopped by a cop for any reason read him the entire document and ask him if he understands. Do this before you get your miranda warning.
LOL, like that piece of paper is going to do anything.
Might makes right.
Geroge W. Bush......
"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper"
The American populace is easy to manipulate and subdue. Besides that, they are unable to think for themselves (trained not to think critically). Let's see if those less-than-lower-animals can grasp the actual opinion issued by the US Supreme Court on HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf
People as uninformed and as gullible as Americans have no future. Americans are a dead people that history is about to run over. - Paul Craig Roberts
The hardest part for me is knowing everything my ancestors fought and worked to build was for nothing.
I come from a long line of Dudley Do-Rights who had no idea their blood and sweat was going to recreate what they left behind.
The post title is misleading and the Rutherford Institute's amicus curiae didn't have any legal weight on the matter
amicus curiae [Latin "friend of the court"] (17c) A person who is not a party to a lawsuit but who petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter. - Often shortened to amicus. - Also termed friend of the court. PI. amici curiae.
Black's Law Dictionary® - Ninth Edition
Bingo.
It's a bullshit post. A technicality on a traffic stop actually has to go to the supreme court?? LOL!!!
So what, the cop is crossed up on the law and stops a guy for a flickering tail light. He prpbably walked up to the driver who was probably tweaking his ass off, jones'n like a motherfucker, nervous as a free whore in a football stadium, and when asked for permission to search the vehicle, manages to muster up the brain cell in charge of the word yes, and says it...
Rule #1: If you don't create a situation, there won't be one.
Rule #2: Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is fate, caused by a lack of awareness.
Maybe RI should pay for all this bullshit since they're such a "friend" of the court and all...
never talk to the cops. they are strangers and are not working in your best interests. "what law are you trying to enforce"? and "are you arresting me or am i free to go"? are the two questions allowed. i doubt any court would have issued a search warrant based on the stop, regardless of the tail light issue. it comes down to whether the fruit or the gene pool is poisoned.
So a person can work a job where they have a total misunderstanding of how to do their JOB. Just wait till that way of thinking permeates to the guys who run our nuclear power plants.
remember, cops have quotas to fulfill. without them there would be no criminal justice industry.
If the guy hadn't given his consent to the search then this would have turned out very differently. Never give a cop consent for anything. Make them get a fucking warrant.
Americans are losing their freedoms because they don't understand what they have and how to protect it.
I am Chumbawamba.
Cops are all traitors, power trippers, insane, deranged, mentally unstable psychopaths that will do literally ANYTHING for a dollar.
What makes you think that it has not, little girl?
THREE MILE ISLAND
CHERNOBYL
FUKUSHIMA
You demonstrate your youth through your IGNORANCE.
I think you need to read "The Peter Principle"
Here is a summation of the book...the Cliff Notes...
From Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
Now the generalized Peter Principle is as follows...
It does help to be LITERATE when posting here.
Literacy is not restricted just to Reading Comprhension ability. It means that you have read volumes upon volumes of books.
The method for success is...TURN OFF THE DAMNED TV SET. With AGE and YOUR TIME INVESTED IN READING you will accomplish that task.
The only thing which I learned at the University was HOW TO READ A BOOK.
Curiously...Just how many Books do you have in you house?
I have over One Thousand Volumes in my Home Library.
Just a measly one thousand books? You're running low, man!
Too bad you didn't learn to write at "the University".
His post is well written.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf
I love the opening of the opinion's syllabus: " a suspicious vehicle."
I love how they add the phrase that the occupants, passing by, seemed "stiff and nervous"
This reminds me of the classic phrase in criminal procedure land: "furtive movements"
They always do this in written opinions when the evidence is weak
I also have to give credit, as is usually due, to a very poorly written statute.
It is definitely a pandora's box
But this shoud not surprise us in a country where coroporations are citizens, money is speech and everything is the war on terror excpetion
Yes, clearly all that is needed are more lawyers & judges of the caliber of Andrey Vyshinsky and Roland Freisler.
Oh, wait ;-)
it's pompous, falsely humorous phrases like this that make me puke:
"This Court’s holding does not discourage officers from learning the law"
lol...the officers would be wise to learn what the law is and what it is not. What the law is today may not be what the law is tomorrow and there are real life consequences to violating the law of tomorrow ;-)
Can't the people buy one of those little towns that we occasionally read about being for sale somewhere and make EVERYONE a deputy? Pay them $1 yr. that way we could all claim ignorance, huh?
Just a WAGI(wild ass good idea
Stoploss, your down votes here are a testimony to the ignorance of the American people (no insult intended, I am ignorant of many things but law is not among them).
The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671;
This ignorant man consented to a search. You can consent to being shot in the gut, if you refuse to file charges. Complaining about it later will not remove the hole in your gut either.
It's very naive of you to think he actually gave consent. Most likely the pig just took it regardless of what the guy said. Most likely the cop said, "let me search your vehicle or I'll arrest you, impound your vehicle and search it anyway."
It makes no difference, did you not read my above post. The correct answer is 'no, I in no way give any consent to be searched without a warrant'. You say he may have been threatened to be arrested? Well what exactly happened? He got arrested and got how many years? False imprisonment is no reason to consent to a search, when you know what they will find. This man was a fool. He placed no affidavit contesting the consent to be search, because he did consent. He could have complied under duress and threat of violence. A whole lot better than consenting. If a cop searches without warrant and under duress, let him. Or just consent and get what this guy got. BTW, drug laws are base on contraband. Everyone should know what that means, but I am guessing you do not.
I speak from first hand experience, do you? Lovely theory you have there though.
Ah, busted for contraband. Shouldn't have had any contraband.
The friend I was with actually, but yeah, so I know the "he gave consent" is bullshit.
No duh. All Amicus briefs are to persuade the Court. Where is it stated otherwise?
The post's title is accurate.
I would suggest you look at the fly leaf of that book, The 9th edition which in my library is a paperback book. Fortunately I asked to see the old hardbook version and briefly compared them. In short, much of what is in the old hardbound edition is DELETED in the "new abridged book.
In short, our lawbooks are being redone to more closly alien with our courts "new reality. Our history is now going to be the new abdriged truth or our crumbling nation. Time to start drawing some line in the sand beyond which this sick society will not go.
We are well past the turning of an eye. The time is near brother. Milestones
I would suggest you look at the fly leaf of that book, The 9th edition which in my library is a paperback book. Fortunately I asked to see the old hardbook version and briefly compared them. In short, much of what is in the old hardbound edition is DELETED in the "new abridged book.
In short, our lawbooks are being redone to more closly alien with our courts "new reality. Our history is now going to be the new abdriged truth or our crumbling nation. Time to start drawing some line in the sand beyond which this sick society will not go.
We are well past the turning of an eye. The time is near brother. Milestones
And would you fight for liberty, even knowing that it would not last? I have come to the conclusion that any system, (yes, even anarcho-capitalism) is prone to being taken over by control freaks, sociopaths, narcissists, etc... given enough time. I think that Thomas Jefferson understood this very well, as probably did most of the founders. Hence the 2nd amendment, which was not worded strongly enough. It should read more along the lines of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of individual persons to keep and bear arms for hunting, self defense, the overthrow of a tyrannical domestic government or any other lawful purpose shall not be infringed."
There will be an awakening in this country, and it will not be pleasant or pretty for anybody, but we may have a chance to set things straight. There is an undercurrent of anger here. Most who feel it do not really understand it and certainly cannot articulate it, but they know something is wrong. The American people are going to be like the battered wife who kept on saying "but he LOVES me," before snapping one day and shooting her husband in the dick, chest and head.
Taken in the context of the times, the meaning of the Second Amendment is startlingly clear. You should spend some time reading contemporary documents, discussions and debates. The purpose of the Constitution was to restrain government, and the meaning of the Second Amendment is quite obviously to recognize the average person's pre-existing right to defense of self, family, and liberty.
It was left to government to defend these rights, and for the people to remain aware and engaged enough to be ever watchful and in control of their government, a government that was never intended to be their masters.
"When the people fear government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." What could be clearer than that? Government soon began its encroachment, and the traitor Lincoln accelerated and finished the work, setting a precedent of using the military to change a government he didn't like.
The meaning of the 2nd amendment is exceedingly clear to those who understand tyranny. Those who wish to be tyrants will lie and twist the words to suit their own purposes. Give them nothing, for they will take more than you give. As for everybody else, convince them that they can be safe and protected, and they'll agree to all manners of bullshit, even while they are not protected in reality. Perception of the masses.
This case is an absolute nothingburger. How did everyone miss the most important part of the story?
"Nevertheless, operating under a mistaken understanding of the law, during the course of the stop, the officer asked for permission to search the car. Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search."
This is all a giant smokescreen. Who gives a fuck why the guy was stopped? It's not material. An officer can only search if he has probable cause; barring that, he must have consent. Once the guy gave consent, this case suddenly had nothing to do with whether the policeman knew the law about taillights, or not.
NEVER EVER EVER give consent to any police officer to search your person, vehicle, or property. This idiot broke the first rule of involuntary search and seizure; he volunteered to the search!!
Your tipoff that this case is a bunch of bullshit should have been that Sotomayer was the only dissenting vote. Since when is she one of the "good guys"?
I totally agree with you about the fact that the guy shouldn't have consented to a search, but my concern is that the Supreme Court, with this ruling, effectively created a "protected class", where .GOV can be excused for minor violations of the law, whereas the rest of the populace isn't.
Every new loophole like this creates yet another way for the government to manipulate their way into a specific outcome.
The court decided that voluntarily giving up your rights trumps a policeman's ignorance of the law.
I honestly can't disagree with that logic.
If the cop had NOT asked for permission, and acted on probable cause to search the vehicle, then that would be a different story. My guess is, the court would have ruled against the cop in that scenario.
I'd hope so, being that this was a narrow set of circumstances. It just really bothers me because when you give the .GOV an inch, they'll take a mile. Always.
When a cop asks permission then that is prima facie evidence that he has NO PROBABLE CAUSE.
If he has probable cause then he needs to get a warrant. But...but...he does not have any...
THAT IS WHY HE ASKS.
The only correct response is, "No sir. You may not search. Am I free to go?"
It effectively does away with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, and I happen to agree with that doctrine. Pull somebody over for something that you know is BS, lie and claim that you thought that the law read in such a way that the stop was justified and then act like officer psycho to get the person to let you search their car and BAM! You really think that people who have cocaine in the car want to let an officer search that car? Fuck no! Ignorance + induced fear by cops gets around the constitution all the time. SCOTUS decisions are often based on the erroneous assumption that the government actors will be good and virtuous, that they would never lie. It's bullshit. Yes, you should remember "I do not consent to any searches," and yes, especially if you can do clandestinely, you should record the interaction, and no, you should not give into the intimidation, but cops have been put onto a pedestal. They don't get indicted when they should. They don't get convicted when they should. Hell, one cop here racked a guy so hard that he had to have a testicle removed and the fucking police chief thinks that a 240 day suspension of his certification is punishment enough. The guy was guilty of not complying with what is quite possibly not a lawful order and he lost a nut, and the so called non-compliance was over a period of a few seconds at a traffic stop. If I did that to somebody, I'd be on the hook for felony aggravated battery. If you want to push the "I don't consent to any searches" bit and the "Am I being detained bit," you need to understand that most of the time, they'll try to find another way to fuck you, but every once in a while, you might encounter officer roid rage who will put you in a position where it is you or him. I understand that, so I will do it, but your average sheep? They're fucked.
Probable cause? Lol.
"The defendant was swerving in his lane."
"I detected the smell of marijuana."
"The defendant seemed excessively nervous."
Etc. etc....
There's your probable cause and he's searching your vehicle.
If he asks permission to search, This is a prima facie admission that he has no probable cause because if he will claim any of the above, he doesn't need permission to search and will do so.
Most judges will accept the cops testimony without question and rule the search legal.
This guy was a moron to voluntarily let the cop search his car.
That is why you take video of the encounter if possible. Cops lie all the time in their reports. Without the video evidence, the jury will believe the cop over you. With video evidence, you can fuck the cop. The technology is ubiquitous, so for most people, there is no excuse.
That's all well and good, but considering that a murder by cop was just caught on tape and the prosecutor was able to manipulate the grand jury to such an extent so as not to even return an indictment, it doesnt look that great for the citizen. They set this up to fuck you, so they are going to try to fuck you, whether you have the fucking on tape or not it really winds up being immaterial if there is enough interest from high enough.
"The court decided that voluntarily giving up your rights trumps a policeman's ignorance of the law."
Except from everything I've read it didn't decide that. Nothing I can find in the court's opinion references whether consent to a search mattered in the least to their decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf. Pages 8-14 (of the pdf, 5-11 of the court's opinion) are the most pertinent.
If it were the case that the court decided there was consent to the search and that was all that mattered, all they would have needed to say was this:
"As the text indicates and we have repeatedly affirmed, “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness.’ ” Riley v. California , 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 5) (some internal quotation marks omitted). To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them “fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.” Brinegar v. United States , 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949). We have recognized that searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact can be reasonable. The warrantless search of a home, for instance, is reasonable if undertaken with the consent of a resident, and remains lawful when officers obtain the consent of someone who reasonably appears to be but is not in fact a resident. See Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U. S. 177, 183–186 (1990). By the same token, if officers with probable cause to arrest a suspect mistakenly arrest an individual matching the suspect’s description, neither the seizure nor an accompanying search of the arrestee would be unlawful. See Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797, 802–805 (1971). The limit is that “the mistakes must be those of reasonable men.” Brinegar , supra, at 176"
But they don't. They continue with opinions stating that state mistakes of facts and mistaken understandings of law provide probable cause, thus that if a warrant had been issued for the search they likely would have still considered the search reasonable.
"But reasonable men make mistakes of law, too, and such mistakes are no less compatible with the concept of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground. Whether the facts turn out to be not what was thought, or the law turns out to be not what was thought, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the law. There is no reason, under the text of the Fourth Amendment or our precedents, why this same result should be acceptable when reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when reached by way of a similarly reasonable mistake of law."
"This holding—that reasonable mistakes of law, like those of fact, would justify certificates of probable cause—was reiterated in a number of 19th-century decisions"
"But that literally marginal discussion does not displace our express holding that the arrest was constitutionally valid because the officers had probable cause."
"A traffic stop for a suspected violation of law is a “seizure” of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. Brendlin v. California, 551 U. S. 249, 255–259 (2007). All parties agree that to justify this type of seizure, officers need only “reasonable suspicion”—that is, “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped” of breaking the law"
This would have been far more interesting without consent to the search, but I'm pretty sure from reading the decision that they'd have said the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZadGMrG4bY
You guys are being very naive. Cops search cars all the time regardless if consent was given, then lie about it afterwards. They lie and threaten to arrest you and impound your vehicle and search it anyway if you don't allow a search and if you still say no, they do it anyway and say you did. EL V is correct.
From the link:
This Court’s holding does not discourage officers from learning the law.Because the Fourth Amendment tolerates only objectively reasonable mistakes, cf. Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813, an officer can gain no advantage through poor study. Finally, while the maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” correctly implies that the State cannot impose punishment based on a mistake of law, it does notmean a reasonable mistake of law cannot justify an investigatory stop. Pp. 4–12.
Does anyone find this confusing? Does the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" apply to the government imposing punishment? I thought it applied to denying as a defense that it is "impossible to know the law" when they are passing 40,000 new ones each year.
Common sense is against the law folks!
And you correctly define the problem. The vast complexity of the law is what destroys our freedoms.
People's ignorance of the law is what ensures their lack of freedom under it. Increasingly it is becoming impossible for citizens to know;
A, What the laws are
B, How those laws are currently being interpreted
C, Which laws are and which laws are not currently being enforced (immigration?)
D, How much it will cost to hire a legal interpreter.
In the land jurisdiction the only laws are those that stand under common law. Everything else is colorable law under admiralty jurisdiction.
Therein you have the make-up of a perfect police state... when there are so many laws, everyone can, on any given day, be arrested for something. It's been this way at least since the Patriot Act.
Finally, while the maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” correctly implies that the State cannot impose punishment based on a mistake of law,
I don't just find that confusing, I find it positively Orwellian. The State imposes punishment all the time based on that maxim, most notably using the letters IRS.
The new ruling renders that interpetation moot.
Scotus is saying the State CAN impose punishment based on a mistake in law.
So basically this law says:
Cop tosses you in jail, finds your borrowed ripped disc of Gladiator and the Feds throw you in the slammer for 5 years.
Your tail light was out.
Nice.
Gotta love it, stupid passing as an excuse for not do your job is AOK
Seems to work for everyone in government. The greater their failure, the faster their powers grow. No one in public service seeks their own accountability, they seek to defer it or bury it in bureaucracy. SCOTUS is but more bureaucracy. Another layer, another step, another delay and separation from accountability and clarity. It was understood that a speedy trial was an important component of justice, especially where these judgements reflect the functionality and transparency of our system. Our current legal system creates so many hurdles, so much delay between action and ultimate result that most true meaning is lost and it becomes but another "function" that serves only itself. As is all government now. It seeks to feed itself, not others. It has become "self aware". And we were worried about "SkyNet"
Hey, your job is to uphold the law.
By the way you don't have to understand the law to do your job.
WTF?
Jumbotron, I don't agree with W on much, but I must say he say he hit the nail on the head with his reference to the constitution. To anyone naive enough to believe that it has any legal impact, I refer you to The Constitution of no Authority....Lysander Spooner circa 1870
If that doesn't convince you, consider that the US Corp has been operating in a state of Bankruptcy since 1933, in fact, probably since 1789, which is likely why Clinton proclaimed himself the last US President in 1999 (70 x 30 = 210)
Milton F,
(70 x 30 = 210) ???
I don't get it.
Maybe 2100, but what is it ?
...still waiting for coffee
Bush is such a dork.
Everybody knows it was written on parchment.
Geroge W. Bush......
"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper"
----------------------------------------------------
Barack H. Obama......
"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of toilet paper"
He's wiped his arse with it too many times for that statement not to be valid.
that's funny, the world feels the same way about the dollar
Umm. Just a little Fact Check on that quote. http://tinyurl.com/lmdbluz Capital Hill Blue? I'm not defending Bush, but quoting CHB begs a Fact Check every time.
Gun beats paper. In fact gun beats rock and scissors too.
yes indeed
And before you get handcuffed behind your back.
Maybe you should memorize it, to foil the cops after they cuff you.
Pitchforks.
Drones, AIs, lots of self replicating Robots.
If they are traitors, you'd best add them to a List for now. Document everything, lest they claim to have been "Following orders".
I fear we have now officially entered a time where stating our thoughts, no matter how appropriate or justified, could be detrimental to our health. So while I do sympathize with your comment, I will henceforth hold such thoughts of my own close to my own breast...along with my Glock 19.
You know.....you are absolutely right. Therefore....I am stating right here and now I'm out. I've made my last three comments on ZeroHedge ever. I'm going dark.
Thanks Tylers and Mara.....where ever you are. Who ever you are. Thank you to all the people I've had the pleasure of conversing with. Even the assholes. Iron sharpens iron.....even pig iron.
I am going to see how to officially delete my account. If I can't .....doesn't matter.
The American Iron Curtain has fallen. And I'm taking my first steps at going underground. Baby steps to be sure. But you gotta start somewhere. And I'm starting here.
Goodnight......and may God help us all.
So you let them win by giving into your fear?
I will fight to my last dying gasp.
The rights are not granted by the Government. They are God Granted. The Constitution was a law, somewhat noble, as it attempted to codify RESTRICTIONS upon the Government and what they could do.
I will NEVER HIDE. I will not cower in fear but I will boldly proclaim them when someone else attempts to use force to dissuade me.
Those INALIENABLE RIGHTS are something which is worth FIGHTING FOR...even DYING FOR...if that sacrifice is necessary.
The fighting is for REAL MEN, bold men, NOT COWARDS.
Six other cowards are with you.
You claim that you do not belong here. Then you do not belong here.
This is FIGHT Club and is meant for FIGHTERS and NOT COWARDS.
You might duck under these waves while living in the USSA, if you are willing to live in careful conformity with the gormless masses and remain silent to the tyranny. There are also places in the world you might go and live relatively peacefully. Just make sure that place has no perceived geopolitical significance, and remain pretty silent to the tyranny. Opposing the tyranny is the bravest action plan, but you may well sacrifice everything, including your loved ones.
We all know we've long passed the point of no return where the NSA is concerned. All statements (and probably emails and phone calls) have been recorded for as long as 10 years.
Even up votes on "radical ideas" have no doubt been recorded, whether you said anything or not. I'm thinking those little clicks endorsing the statements of others will all be held equivalent to having made the statements themselves. They'll be worth their weight in sick gold.
Yeah, it's way too late. Join the line up for the cattle cars, brother, 'cuz you're definitely already marked as an "enemy of [this criminal] state" whenever they feel like dropping a dime on you.
You say Goodbye, but I say Hello:
Fuck you NSA.
Jumbo, for the love of God, WAIT! They still let us download porn and watch Youtube/Facebook...all is not lost! /s.
thats an interesting line of thought right there. "A reasonable person would have concluded that this officer was violating my 4th amendment right, and since he had no right to search my vehicle in the first place, his placing me in custody amounted to a kidnapping at gunpoint, therefore I defended myself"
Ive read whitehead's "govt of wolves" book, there are a whole lot of examples of this in there, upheld by the supreme court. Even for someone who thinks they know all about the egregious violations of our rights by law enforcement, the book is still very much worth your time. The main take away is this: you have no rights anymore, you have 'privilages' which can be revoked arbitrarily by any half wit with a badge
Exactly what I was thinking!
hey ACP, Make sure when you shoot them you don't leave them breathing......dead men tell no talls.........
Seig Heil!
She was coming back from the movie the interview ......she wanted to see it to express her freedom ...LOL
Do not attribute to stupidity that which can adeqquately be explained by greed & corruption.
Only when these fail, should we consider stupidity as a likely culprit.
So this was an 'intelligent' decision?
DaddyO
Yes, to enslave you.
I said a few days ago after these New York cops were killed to mark.that day. For that day would be when the " American Iron Curtain " fell.
It was in part my feeling that the cops would really start to close ranks and go para military even more than before. Now with this ruling it is even more assured. The American Iron Curtain has fallen.
In addition to keeping up with the Fascist State of America from a political and economic viewpoint here on ZeroHedge, you can keep up with the corrupt Fascist State of America's Para Military Force here at......
www.informationliberation.com
No one would allow a search of a car knowing there is cocaine inside. Obviously, the search was also illegal.
This is the part of the story I could not understand so I assume the sequence of events is highly suspect. Anyone knows, especially someone who has cocaine in their car, to NEVER consent to a car search. I had one idiot friend who did this had her car torn apart and she had to fix it.
I hate the word " reasonable". Too subjective. There were people with whom I served on a jury that would have accepted an argument space aliens could have been involved in the case as reasonable. Others would not consider a significant amount of circumstantial evidence as remotely reasonable. Because of this, and depending on the the skill of lawyers, the pendulum will swing more to law enforcement advantage now.
Miffed
remember when the supreme court at least pretended to care about the constitution?
now they've been either bought by aipac and the like or else blackmailed by the international nazis running the nsa. putin wasn't kidding around when he described the gang of thugs russian is up against as today's nazis.
Don't the courts and cops always say ignorance of the law is not an excuse? Yet cops, who are supposed to know the laws are allowed to use ignorance as an excuse.
The Supreme Court has also ruled in recent years that's it's ok for cops to lie to you to extract information, but you cannot lie to cops.
...and let us not forget that there are "special" punishments for assaults against a "public servant". From the movie Braveheart: "An assault against a servant of the king is an assault against the king himself."
You are all correct when you say this will not end well. Witness the absurd bloated show of soildarity ;-) at the funeral for those two officers. I wonder how many of those officers made the trip on the public's dime???
They will be known by the fact that they do evil and call it good.
I'm loading a real time video to cloud streaming app on my smartphone post haste!!!
Either the Constipation was designed to allow this, or has incapable of preventing it. Either way, it's time to move on to better ideas.
The Constitution is not the problem. It is the endless twisted interpration.
Thanks for making my point. You are arguing that terms such as "necessary and proper" have some sort of strict interpretation. Such subjective terms have no place in a document that grants the authority to a small group of people to order everybody else around.
A twisted interpretation is fitting, since it is the most twisted of individuals who seek power over others (READ: run for Pewblik Orifice.)
Yeah....reality bites, doesn't it bytchez.
Strengthens my mom's supreme court case..(and she has another coming)
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/minneci-v-pollard/
Mom is Margaret Minneci ... first Nurse Practitioner in the Nation
The federalists always hated the Bill of Rights They only agreed to it because Americans would not have supported the ratification of the Constitution without it. John Marshal was a federalist. The trend begun with Marbury v. Madison is now complete. The federalists have won their centuries long battle to expunge the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. The social contract between the federalists and the anti-federalists is now completely broken. The monarchists sitting on the court see themselves as constrained by nothing.
Take heart. In the coming decades, the body politic will come to realize a broken contract is no longer binding. Rodger B. Taney thought he had preserved slavery with his Dred Scott opinion only to have the country rip itself apart and have slavery utterly destroyed. Hubris has its consequences.
Luckily such papers only record our freedoms in writing, our freedoms were born as part of us.
And the cops are wondering why they are being assassinated....
If you make peaceful revolution impossible..
This shit has truly gotten real now, hasn't it? Fuck.
FUCK.
They made it impossible since the Civil War.
Since the Whiskey Rebellion. That should make y'all sleep better.
How the hell am I not surprised?
Recently I asked "Does everybody carry rope in their car, or is it just me"?
I think it's time to put it to good use...
I drive a pick up and yes it has rope. Be prepared.
I am prepared. I have a backhoe for digging very large holes. Hanging would be a waste of time. Lets get full dark ages barbaric and bury these pig fuckers alive.
I have 120 feet of rope. And thirty feet of piano wire...I'm told it's C piano wire.
Jeep... rope, chains, and recovery straps.
There are @ 250 cops for every 100,000 people. Even fewer bankers and politicians.
They should change their name to:
U.S. Supreme Kangaroo Court.
"the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search"
Well, there's the problem right there.
This ruling would be a lot more interesting if the owner hadn't consented. My guess is the case wouldn't have made it to the court. Big fucking surprise that they say it didn't violate the 4th when the driver waived his rights to the 4th!
Remember kids, just say no! (When the ask if it's OK to search.)
Yep, fixing stupid has never worked.
yep. he might have pulled you over for a bullshit reason, but you still NEVER consent to a search under any circumstances. I still think this case is bullshit, since if under the 'law' the cop had no right to pull him over anyway, he shouldnt have even been asking for permission to search in the first place(also, possession of some substance isn't even a crime, IMO). That said, you are pretty much asking for it once you give permission. Of course, if he had refused, they just would have gotten a K-9 out there, and drugs or not, the dogs always respond to their handlers and 'hit' on any vehicle the uniformed revenue extractors want to search anyway
Interesting tidbit on the K--9 thing. There's a big case heading to the Surpremes on just that.
The Feds, as usual, are arguing that they can stop someone indefinitely until Officer Probable Paws makes it to the scene. However it looks like lower courts are thinking 10 minutes may be too long.
The next step I think will be to re-evaluate K9 evidence, since they seem to "hit" every fucking time. At the point Officer Fluffy says drugs are in a car and comes up empty even 10% of the time, I think it's time to go play on the ranch.
ya, i remember a little che(ka) point when i was in college, on the backroads between atlanta and GA southern, you drive around a bend and find yourself at a checkpoint. you stop, and while one cop is examining your paperwork, there is a guy with a dog walking around the car. I was always sent on my way, but it always bothered me that they could even do that. How does walking a dog(not even including that the handlers can coerce the dog into hitting on any car they want to search) around my car when i was stopped for no reason no constitute an unreasonable search and seaizure? the whole purpose of the 4th was to prevent 'general warrants' as practiced during the american revolution
SEEK: Your point about "granting consent" is well-taken. BUT.... to have been a fly on the wall at the moment that "consent" was "granted" and to know really what transpired. Just a conjecture that the "granting of consent" might, just might, have not been as clean and slick as portrayed.
"It's tough being a cynic these days because it is so much work to keep up."
––Lily Tomlin
The option is to be complacent and accomedating
Up until the point that you shoot every treasonous mother fucker in sight.
I, for one, don't want to do that...but will after the first question after "Drivers license and registration".
And get a recording of your having said 'No'
It's worth a few minutes to check the link to the "Amicus Brief" in the article too.
Thank for that Seek. For a second I thought the whole fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine went out the window. With more and more folx getting robbed of their cash as recently done in Tennessee and several other states..could see cops turning routine stops into lotto picks. Of course a creative application of plain view might circumvent consent as well. Hmm I smell the distinct odor of 100 dollar bills Citizen, step aside.
Consent?=
"Let me search your car or I'll arrest you, impound the car, and search it anyway."
NO!
*pig searches anyway and lies saying you said it was alright*
-what really happened
What if he mistaken believes he has the right to shoot you dead if you 'look funny' at him?
8-1. What do the 8 have to say? Maybe the search being consented to was more important than the rest? He could have said no.
Your right, but just because the citizen is stupid the 'Justices' didn't have to do a follow up. Now it's fer sure open season.
What if nothing had been found during this particular search of the car. Do you suppose this would have still gone to the U.S. Supreme Court for their review?
Or is the real argument here based on the suspicion that the police planted the cocaine?
Seems to me that only those engaged in illegal activity stand to lose anything from this SCOTUS decision. Unless we think it will give the police a freer hand to plant evidence, so they can make their quota of arrests for the week.
You are a fool and an enabler. This decision grants immunity to State Enforcers to violate The US Bill of Rights first, then have it determined by The State if such violations were "reasonable". It doesn't matter if consent was given. It doesn't matter if someone was found with contraband. This ruling is carte blanche to violate your pre-existing right to be unmolested, then have the offending party determine if the criminal violation of your rights was acceptable.
Illegal is just a conjecture. Illegal does not equate crime. Anything can be made illegal.
I just read the actual ruling, and the question was specifically about the traffic stop itself and nothing else.
So basically it came down to although the officer was incorrect in his understanding that one brake light out was enough to pull the car over, was it a reasonable mistake and would that be a legitmate reason (if he wasn't mistaken) to pull the car over? They said yes, then cited all the other times they'd allowed reasonable mistakes slide.
This was a hail mary play by the guy's lawyer.
It's a little flakey that the light was "flickering," since that suggests in fact both lights were working fine (and this being the case, I'd start to think this was a DHS Fusion center setup from NSA wiretaps), but with the consent, all of this was moot. A cop can just randomly ask someone doing nothing wrong (ie zero probable cause) to search, have them consent, and bust them with the results and that's going to hold up in court.
I understand your point, however, but for the LEO's error, there would have been no stop and therefore no consent given.
Consent should have been fruit of the poisoned tree.
odatruf, and an example of that case law was used in the state case...
Once consent was given, there was no tree left to be poisoned. That basically separated what happened into two distinct legal events.
Had he not consented, I'd bet money on a lower court tossing the search out (if it was even conducted) and with that the whole case would collapse.
I'd like to think that Seek, but with these No-Knock Warrants, I really don't think it would matter if one consented or not.
They would do the search regardless, the ability to use what they found would be severely hampered in the courts. The reality today is that we really are in a police state in the sense the police have completely unrestricted powers. However, those end (for now) in court.
Pray you have enough money for lawyers, but assuming you do, not consenting has a high probability of fucking their case.
Not if they have a warrant....
If they have a Warrant, and they have to have had demonstrated to a judge that there is PROBABLE CAUSE, then they do not need your consent. That is REASONABLE.
A "No Knock" Warrant is a Search Warrant served without knocking on the door. It is an massive invasion by overwhelming force.
All evidence gathered is admissable when they have a warrant.
However if they gather NO EVIDENCE then the Police have committed PERJURY. They need to be CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED at that point.
If a Cop ever arrests me wrongfully, I will arrest them for Perjury and arrest the Prosecutor for subornation of a Perjurios Witness. Both are FELONIES in the state of California and I can affect a Citizen's Arrest when a Felony is committed in my presence.
Understand that LEAs?
Fuck suiing for Civil Damages and stiffing the Taxpayer with the bill. I want PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
YOU CAN FIGHT THESE BASTARDS WITH THEIR OWN LAWS.
Mom's supreme court case says basically your fucked either way,
Thanks, Mom.
Seek, so if they smash in your door at home tonight, with a mis-addressed warrant, is it ok to bust you for anything they might find?
My vehicle is an extension of my home.
Not exactly the same, but you can probably see my point...
Not even remotely the same.
The actual parallel would be if they smashed into my house with a mis-addressed warrant, and then asked me to consent to a search, and I said yes, then yeah, they're going to be able to bust me.
If I do not consent, then no, they shouldn't be able to do so. I think the case law is mixed in that instance, mostly due to bullshit like roommates consenting to a search, but the intent of the 4th was pretty clearly to disallow such things.
I dislike the state overreach as much as the next guy, but seriously, once you consent (and this case was presented as having no dispute that there was consent), yeah, they can use anything.
IMO if were were to ever re-write the 4th, I'd slip something in there that simply disallowed consenting to a search being permissible, but we have the laws we have, and they're consistent.
Do. Not. Ever. Consent.
I hope so...
My motto; Never confess, never consent, never submit.
Never admit to being a "person". If they ask you where you liver, reply, in my body. You are not your strawman.....
EXACTLY, seek.
Do.Not.Ever.Consent.
Never, ever consent and repeatedly request a watch commander, watch sargent ect. to come to the scene, and repeatedly ask if you're under arrest and if you can leave.
Declare that you are under arrest and demand to see a judge...especially when you are innocent.
Afterwards exercise your Sixth Amendment at the arraighment and demand trial by jury. They CANNOT DISMISS without YOUR CONSENT.
Want to see them shit bricks?
When in jail tell the other inmates about the Natural Disaster Preparations which they have made for them and just tell them that the Government is going to Poison Gas them through the air conditioning vents. After all that is what they've planned for those in jail.
Over ruled, Supreme Court, Mom.
We're fucked.
Even if the driver had said no, it was likely a K9 would be brought in (illegal detention in addition to illegal stop) only to give the police justification to search the vehicle anyway.
Consent had nothing to do with it.
So does that mean if I break a law becasue I am 'Ignorant Of The Law' - then i will not be charged with violating that law?
Hmmm sound right to me.
Too many laws.
Even if you're not ignorant of the law, there's always " The Lerner Maneuver"
"All my hard drives misteriously crashed and self erased ... your Honor.... I think they're 'beyond rekovery'"
So it's ok to discriminate against hiring higher IQ guys, yet their ignorance is no excuse.
Where do we get these ignorant goat fuckers called "Supreme Court Justices", anyway?