This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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.
»
- 51944 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Supreme Court my ass. They are a bunch of traitors, and are truly domestic enemies of the constitution.
Here's the thing: rights are not given or taken or granted or earned. My fourth amendment rights exist whether or not some fascist police state pig ackowledges them or not. Now it's down to how exactly are we going to defend that right? Well the kop isn't going to do it, is he? It's got to be me, defending myself against the kop.
Is this shit getting any clearer?
Think about it: 9 old fuckers that have been conditioned to believe they are really intelligent and are chosen to protect the sacred law of the land. They are physically feeble, cerebral nerds who could NEVER attract and recruit folks who would support a cause in the field. These characteristics make them easily manipulable. Easy targets for any half-baked conspirator. These are NOT the type of people needed to uphold the law. It is no surprise the judicial branch has been deeply corrupted.
How to plan for the future? The train this country is on has a scheduled stop at the death camps. Who gets dropped there, and how many are killed there, is still up to us. The only way this stop gets avoided is if the train doesn't make it to its destination. Either way, there is no place to hide. We're all on the train, and it's moving. . .
Will someone better informed about national policy than me - especially the military folks - please explain why USA soldiers and CIA are actively engaged all over Earth trying to overthrow oppressive dictatorial Stasi-like regimes when there is plenty of that kind of work that needs to be done in WADC ???
I'm no rocket scientist, but lately, these decisions made by the Supreme Court seemingly are made with political pressure. This one seems very suspicious.
8-1 on an otherwise divided court?
Thank you so much for giving every single law enforcement an excuse to willfully ignore or feign STUPIDITY in regards to the law that they are SWORN to UPHOLD!
How about they update thier name to just "Enforcement Layman". The Supreme court has just opened pandora's box.
Do you think this SCOTUS decision will result in fewer/the same/more dead pigs?
Ultimately...more.
When the rule of law and the constitution are off the table as protection for the citizenry, the citizenry (some of it, anyhow) will come to the conclusion that it must protect itself. It will soon realize that in order to effectively protect itself, it must do so at the point of initial contact (the point at which the state initiates unjust force against them).
Force met with force.
Seems logical to me. When you know they are taking no prisoners, why not strike first, fast, and hard?
i suppose the cop should have given the defendant her cocaine back and sent her on her way?
Yes, exactly that.
Yes, in a way. If we didn't have the collossal "war on everything" mentality we could empty out the prisons of all these non-violent offenders of damn near everything.
the police state now the Norm. And Justice bows to this new truth of "reason of state".
Richelieu reigns supreme as statist sock-puppet of an absolutist "divine rights" Oligarchy run world.
Terminate with prejudice.
EXTREME prejudice.
Here is the point stuff the rights issue right out of here.
Said police officer did not know the law that one tail light out is not an offence?
Got nothing to do with the tail light the issue here is THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT FULLY KNOW THE LAW HE IS EXPECTED TO ENFORCE.
He should have been sacked for not being able to do the job he was employed to do because he did not have the experience or knowledge to carry out his job fully.
Most citizens rights globally have been vanishing these last 5 years to keep the corrupt system in place so I do expect more rights to be lost over the next 12 months anyway.
This is a very bad decision, and it makes no sense to me that Thomas and Scalia would be in the majority. This is a major departure from prior case law, it seems [I'll cop to not having read the case - always a limitation] as well as the plaint text and meaning of the 4th.
Again, one has to wonder if the NSA Skynet is being used to blackmail/threaten politicians and judges or critics of Israel's government/military/clandestine services (or any other country which the NSA gives the "raw data" to - which could include the 5 Eyes as well, but I don't believe so - not the raw feed)
In any event, not only is this saying that civil liberties don't apply if it is "reasonable" - a legalistic fudge word the more philosophically minded amongst you will recognize for its special atrociousness - for police to not know it should.
I believe you already have something like that standard in 42 usc 1983 police misconduct civil suit cases [correct me...] and in part, along with qualified immunity, it means it is virtually impossible for cops to be found 'guilty' of violating civil rights {and note that when they are, the taxpayer of Policetown is on the hook - generally not the cop - who given the standard ought to risk his pension if not his primary residence}.
They're just chipping away at everything. And the American people sit, froglike, in their boiling pan.
Good grief. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me like the government, congress and judiciary, is doing little but acting as an insurance provider for banks and large corporations, while growing the power of the state. We're already at the point where state and local agencies should completely cease cooperating with the federal government because of cases like this.
Why don't they just get it over with and rule that elected officials and other positions of public power are above the laws...
Why pretend the Bill of Rights matters at all? Why continue the sham? I'll never understand these tyrants, why they always try to create the fiction they're not tyrants, the fiction they're not abusers, the fiction they're not evil people. It's as though they KNOW they're evil, and the more evil they are, the harder they try to create an image of just the opposite.
Personally, I'm sick o this shit.
IC but citizens can't use ignorance of the law as an excuse.. So therefore, your rulers have spoken!
AND THE PEOPLE ARE WONDERING WHY THE COPS ARE BEING ASSASSINATED...
AND THE PEOPLE ARE WONDERING WHY THE COPS ARE BEING ASSASSINATED...
"Water the damn tree folks" - T. Jefferson
The pigs are watering that tree, fo sho!
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in a society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
Frederic Bastiat
What we are seeing from the courts is to be expected. We have allowed the plunder to continue unabated by a runaway government who refuses to deal with Wall Street, the Intelligence agencies, the Industrial-Military Complex, and the justice system. Many readers here, of course, are aware of what is happening. Being aware will not save us from what will follow if these current trends of the court and government are not stopped.
Each one of these commenters who oppose such rulings as these need to reach out to some one- friend, family member, or stranger and impress upon them the imperative need to stand up now to our elected officials and judicial system.
Will they listen? Not all. Will some think you are crazy? Yes. Commenting on these sites is like preaching to the choir. I have talked to friends and family. My New Year's resolution is to talk to people outside Walmart. I will let you know how it goes.
Being horrified at the pace we are being led into a police state is not going to help. If you have any feedback or would like to communicate on ways we can claw our way out of this trajectory I believe you can establish contacts on your account page of this site. The internet is available for organizing now- will it be tomorrow?
Well, this helps explain the recent court ruling
AGAINST having intelligent cops.
According to the logic of the Supine Court, the dumber and more ignorant of the
law and Constitution the cops are,
the LESS the government can be held accountable for their violations.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
Oh look how dirty that car windows are. They must not be able to see properly. Better pull them over and perform a strip search. Duh
In my AO, the most commonly used statement by officers for probable cause: "I smelled marijuana."
Even had one last winter where the cop claimed this even though the car's windows were up.
Here, once the cops know you and your car, they will pull you over for no reason whatsoever. They don't need a reason other than 'they felt like it'. Then what I see in most cases is the defendant says "Yes I consent" even when they know they're carrying contraband. Dumb asses all.
Keep your car clean on the inside, legal on the outside (no broken signal lights etc), don't speed, make sure your documents are current, only open the window a crack when the thug approaches the car, and NEVER EVER admit to anything -- "Do you know why I pulled you over?". Answer is always NO.
If you say "my speedometer said I was going 55" and you were going 65, officer friendly will also cite you for a bad speedometer that you have to then get either fixed or officially certified = more hassle and more $$$.
If there's no crap in the passenger compartment but you and all bags/backpacks/consoles/ etc are closed or zipped up, then there is no probable cause to search (provided you don't go all Spiccoli and fill the car with smoke).
Polite, no conversation, no admission of anything, and always "no you may not search my vehicle". And making sure that your car and paperwork are in compliance with whatever your local regulations require.
Then you just hope they select a victim other than yourself. Usually other drivers will do stupid shit and attract said thug's attention and in this instance, you don't have to outrun the bear, only outrun your 'slower' companions.
It sucks and to be honest I fear the cars with lights on top more than I fear any thug/criminal. Because in one instance I can legally respond wiht deadly force to threats on my life and liberty, and in the other I cannot legally defend my life, liberty, or property.
That right there is the reality that most people cannot or will not grasp.
But it's still there all the same.
+2 - thanks for the opportunity with the duplicate post.
Oh look how dirty that car windows are. They must not be able to see properly. Better pull them over and perform a strip search. Duh
The COPs are going to be doing Smash and Grabs on the Gold Bugs heads in do time…. As prophesied.
And we know… “cold dead hands…” that’s the point!
Homework for ZH regulars: Go to your local Costco, stop and simply LOOK. Look at the people, your fellow citizens. What do you see? Approximately 65% of them are morbidly obese to grotesquely obese, waddling around looking for 'deals' on 'food' or even worse, rolling around on scooters, soporific grins on their fat faces 'cause they've 'got it all figured out'. Is this the face of a populace ready to fight for freedom or are they clutching a one-way ticket to the slaughter house?
No one is going to overthrow this government. The system will just weaken and slowly collapse. Various groups will divide the spoils. We'll never again have a constitutional republic.
I've often sat in the parking lots of big boxes and pondered the same thing.
Oops! Oh well, I'm not the first ZHer that lost a bullet between their weelchair cushions.
Unless things changed, a good amount of cops look like that too.
A recent obesity study found that police are one of the most obese professions.
Oh, excuse me. My bad! Make that law enforcement is the nation's most obese profession.
That is so cute that people think the laws mean anything anymore. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Is so outdated in our progressive era. President Clinton used ignorance as an excuse over and over, as has Obama. The Supreme court is just saying... "Ignorance of the law is no excuse... unless you make the law." Then ignorance is a perfectly acceptable excuse, but not for you and I.
Apparently a double standard is progress according to the new class.
Orwell and Huxley, wherever they may be, are laughing their asses off.
From the NYT article, below. Sotomayor dissented for all the right reasons and foreshadows some more cop killings I think.
I wonder how Roberts would define "objectively reasonable mistakes".
NYT: Chief Justice Roberts noted that searches and seizures based on a police officer’s reasonable misunderstanding of the facts had long been permissible. He said that reasoning applied to mistaken interpretations of the law.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the court’s decision “does not discourage officers from learning the law,” because only objectively reasonable mistakes were permitted.
“An officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage,” the chief justice wrote, “through a sloppy study of the laws he is duty-bound to enforce.”
Justice Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion but added a concurrence, which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She emphasized that the state law in question “poses a quite difficult question of interpretation, and Sergeant Darisse’s judgment, although overturned, had much to recommend it.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented. She said 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.”
The majority’s approach will also, she said, contribute to distrust between citizens and the police. If police officers are given leeway to interpret the law, she wrote, “one wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening and humiliating encounters could do so.”
sotomayer gets the real street application of the this ruling. cops have a clear mandate to manipulate a situation to their advantage. this gives them another tool to make it easier for them to break the law without facing the consequences of breaking the law.
Never consent to a search, the guy was an idiot.
And if he says he did not consent,
but the officer (and maybe another) say he did ?
Just opening your front door to talk to police can and is used by police as consent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc1TPJMwNnk&list=LLGHEcoFw7GCEIMV9YD3w4M...
Never answer the door if you know it's the popo.
"He looked guilty of something , so I found something."
Here we go again. Pure unfucking believeable ignorance displayed by all. FIRST CONSENT WAS GIVEN. Fucking idiot. NEVER CONSENT. But more important we are addressing a watered down 14nth amendmendment baloney view of STATE POLICE POWERS. The question each of you should be asking is why???? WHY has the public reduced to this view of the fourth??? Why is the fourth involved at all when the greater protection are always found under State Constitutions??? But none of you even understand WHY you should be asking the question.
LOOK at where the individual was. On a public highway driving a "motor vehicle". A mere licenced privilege identifying the victim as engaged in an activity that can be PROHIBITED altogether as a POLITICAL QUESTION imposed on the courts. THE REAL ISSUE here is how ouir servants have REDUCED the STANDING of the PUBLIC to MERE TRESPASSER on their INAILENABLE RIGHT OF WAYS. The MEANS to the END achieved.
The absurdity. The public has no PROPERTY in the Common use of its own property. The way our trustees accomplished this was simple within the context of legal framework. I will use Minnesota ststutes as an example. First and foremost. Take a summary and controlling interest in a private automobile through mandatory titling. By the language of the statute, the "vehicle" is transformed into a "motor vehicle". A "motor vehicle" is a legal defenition of judicial significance as it is the MEANS by which the government and thus administrative agencies identify PROPERTY being USED or EMPLOYED on the publics ways for PRIVATE GAIN. Is that you and me and equal members of the public using our property in common for ordinary travel? NO. But irrelevent in the eyes of the courts.
Subject matter:“Regulation of use of highway by private motor vehicles for hire.”[ 81 ALR PAGE 1402.]CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY et al., Appt.,v HARRY H. WOODRING, Governor of the State of Kansas, et al. United States Supreme Court - May 23, 1932. (286 U.S. 352, 76 L. ed. 1155, 52 S. Ct. 595.) “The distinction between property employed in conducting a business which requires constant and unusual use of the highways, and property not so employed is plain enough.” See also Bekins Van Lines v. Riley, 280 US 80, 82, 74 L ed 178, 180, 50 S Ct 64; Carley & Hamilton v. Snook, 281 US 66, 73, 74 L ed 704, 709, 68 ALR 194, 50 S Ct 204.
NEXT: The licensing statute. NO PERSON shall operate a MOTOR VEHICLE without a LICENCE. Do you own a car? NO You own a motor vehicle. Hence by law, you must have a licence.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v WILLIAM J. CRONIN, Appt. Pennsylvania Supreme Court - November 27, 1939.( - Pa. -, 9 A2d 408.) Automobile, etc., § 6 _ - operator’s license - suspension or revocation 2. A license to operate an automobile upon the public highways is a privilege and not a property right, and the power of a public officer to suspend or revoke such operating privilege is an administrative and not a judicial function.
You are now as a member of the public RESTRICTED from USING what use to be your PRIVATE PROPERTY on the PUBLICS ways because YOU NO LONGER OWN YOUR PROPERTY as property is defined and understood in a constitutional republic. It can only be used as determined and set forth by the TRUSTEE who in both form and substance exercises a controlling and SUMMARY property interest subject ONLY to mere judicial review. AS said by the courts:
By the Auto Stage and Truck Transportation Act the state says in effect to the citizen, “I will grant you the special privilege of using my highways for your private business upon condition that you in turn submit yourself and your property to such regulations as I impose. I will not compel you to submit to these regulations, but if you are not willing to do so, I shall not grant you this special privilege. HOLMES V. RAILROAD COM. (1925) 197 C 627, 242 Pac 486.
So which class do you fit?? The public exercising a common right on its own property? Or the privileged class using the publics ways for private/gain advantage. You didnt know there was a legal difference??
quoting the court:)
[page 236.] . . . “As was said by the supreme court of West Virginia (Dickey v. Davis, 76 W. Va.576 [L.R.A. 1915F, 840, 85 S.E. 781]:
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all; while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislature power is that of regulation; but as to the latter its power is broader; the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” (Ex parte Lee, 28 Cal. App. 719 [153 Pac. 922]; Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 657 [Ann. Cas. 1918C, 942, L.R.A. 1918B, 909, 168 Pac. 516]; Le Blanc v. City of New Orleans, 138 La. 243 [70 South 212]; Greene v. City of San Antonio (Tex. Civ App.), 178 S.W. 6; Gizzarelli v. Presbrey, 44 R.I. 333 [117 Atl. 359]; Morin v. Nunan, 91 N.J.L. 506 [103 Atl. 378]; Lutz v. City of New Orleans, 235 Fed. 978; Cummins v. Jones, 79 Or. 276 [155 Pac. 171]; Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 [68 L. Ed. 596, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 264]; Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Rapid Transit Co., 133 Tenn. 99 [Ann Cas. 1917C, 1045, L.R.A. 1916B, 1143, 179 S.W. 635]; Cutrona v. Mayor, etc. (Del.), 124 Atl. 658; Taylor v. Smith, 140 Va. 217 [124 S.E. 259]; Schoenfeld v. Seattle, 265 Fed. 726; Ex parte Tindall, 102 Okl. 192 [229 Pac. 125]; Public Service Com. v. Fox, 96 Misc. Rep. 283 [160 N.Y. Supp. 59]; Ex parte Sullivan, 77 Tex. Cr. 72 [178 S.W. 537]; Child v. Bemus, 17 R.I. 230 [12 L.R.A. 57, 21 Atl. 539]; Ex parte Bogle, 78 Tex. Cr. 1 [179 S.W. 1193]; Fifth Ave. Coach Co. v. New York, 194 N.Y. 19 [16 Ann. Cas. 695, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 744, 86 N.E. 824]).
So now with this case, in the eyes of the courts, a mere licensed treaspasser under presumption of WAIVER was pulled over for defective equipment and voluntarily submitted to a search. ANOTHER FUCKING WAIVER. And you guys blame the courts? WTF. WRONG!!!!!
And in leaving this discussion, I welcome your comments. But before, read the following that ws submitted by me to the Dakota county court in MN this summer as a result of a no seat belt use violation and driving on expired DL. The $440/ hour attorney that review my brief placed it in the top 90% of briefs he has read in the past 35 years. THIS is but a small part at the end of that brief/MOTION TO DISMISS. Its going to the State Supreme Court as part of a complaint against the retarded District Court judge that took jurisdiction of the case and refused to address the merits.
We the people have a remedy here. I have devoted the last 30 years of my life trying to stop this kind of abuse. If we are to prevail, WE MUST GET ON POINT!!
CONCLUSION
We the public are the sovereigns of this nation in which all political power is inherent. Our representatives have been granted the exercise of our sovereignty in the form of eminent domain for the purpose of securing property for ourselves so as not to risk trespass on another man’s property when exercising our fundamental right of locomotion. WE are the grantors and beneficiaries of our right of ways as held in trust for those purposes and our rights in the liberty of locomotion and the property secured therein for those purposes have been properly classified by the courts as INAILENABLE. We the public, through our representatives license those who would seek permission to use our right of ways in an extraordinary capacity as set forth by the Courts. It is an absolute impossibility of law that the licensor and the licensee stand as one in the same.
The States entire regulatory structure as applied to the Trust (property) rights of the traveling public in common and inalienable use is built on a rotten, corrupt, and unconstitutional foundation. 171.02 constitutes a Breach of the Public Trust via gross criminal negligence by the Trustee against the beneficiaries that has now been exposed by the accused as an absolute defense to the charges.
The premise is simple. The Trustee simply evaded the fiduciary and constitutional duty to properly provide for regulation of the beneficiaries. The Trustee, then changed a few words within its licensing Statute to declare “no person”. Conceal in plain sight, confuse, obfuscate, redefine, engage in legalese and deny. Under the guise of the police powers, extend class specific judicially immune plenary powers into an area of regulation outside of proper context, and then allow the Executive branch to run amuck with interpretation of legislative intent using the immense resources of the public treasury to enforce. Causality continues unabated throughout our entire national federal republic while the legal profession as an institution positions itself to profit from the massive expansion of the law.
Inclusion of the public within the licensing Statute and the inseverable waivers required within, instantly reduced the standing of the public and their private property before the courts as beneficiaries, to that of being similarly situated as those who’s (extraordinary) use of the public’s property falls outside of the terms of the trust and therefore, can be prohibited altogether as a trespass or conditioned upon waivers. Those judicially defined (extraordinary) uses falling outside of the scope of property.
Minn. Statutes 171.02 is at the antipodes of Public interest. THE STANDING OF THE BENEFICIARIES DESTROYED FOR DUE PROCESS PURPOSES: WE THE PUBLIC ARE NOW IDENTIFIED, TAXED, AND REGULATED AS MERE TRESPASSERS ON OUR INAILENABLE RIGHT OF WAYS AND OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONVERTED THROUGH THE UNLAWFUL REQUIREMENT OF WAIVERS. The courts therein, fall in line under the licensing statute. The dominoes continue to fall in favor of the Trustees with full knowledge that the Courts, pursuant to separation of powers doctrine, can not and will not interfere with plenary political nature of the (police/taxing) powers exercised under the licensing laws. The courts, now bound by the forms of their judicially created doctrines simply adhere to the forms they have created and through a legal paradox of their own creation, functionally allowed themselves to be removed from the substance of the power balancing struggle with the political branches before it started. As proven by the accused, STANDING to reach PROPERTY and constitutional/judicial scrutiny thereof has been unconstitutionally removed from the jurisdiction of the courts.
The removal of the (due process) keys from our protectors has created a nearly incomprehensible crisis of national scope as the public itself continues to be irreparably harmed through excise extortion, conversion of private property, and subjection to an increasingly belligerent and militarized police force now monetarily supported from unlawful conversion of private property via summary forfeiture laws predicated on extorted waivers. The courts all but removed from the constitution, now reliant on revenue crumbs from the Trustees who continue to successfully hide their criminal treason behind an illusion created by separation of powers.
Why can't you all understand it ZH. The Law and the Constitution were suspended by the installation, without a public oath of office of the British born subject, Hussein Obama (he was never sworn in publically after either "election"), who was never a natural born Citizen due to birth as a British subject, with full knowledge of the NWO abiding Congress and SCOTUS. The main purpose of the installation of an illegal "executor of the laws" was to invalidate the law, since when the executor is an illegal entity then there is no law, and the law is only what evil men say it is.
The invalidation of the law was done by each branch--- the Executive, with many illegal EOs and "memorandums", and by just sitting in the Oval Office, Congress, by passing NDAA and Obamacare. and the Judiciary, by not publically swearing in the Usurper and legalizing Obamacare and the destruction of the 4th Amendment
There is NO LAW and NO CONSTITUTION. Get a clue and plan accordingly. No "court" can right this ship now, as the treason is so widespread that only invalidation of the current government by force can restore the Republic. If there is no watering of the tree of liberty, then there will be no Republic.
I'm so ashamed to be a colony of this absurd country, the USSA.
What do you expect? They are paid by the government (with our tax money by the way) and of course work for the government. It is a systemtic problem and will not be resolved without a change of the system.
The most startling aspect of this article is, "Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter..." Blows my mind.
It was her turn in this orchestrated drama to play the part of people's hero. Her next 8 votes will be pro-tyranny.
Heaven forbid that these treasonous assholes should rule that police departments are OBLIGATED to educate all there members on the structures and meaning of the fourth amendment and their various states individual rights. Especially as this case came out of North Carolina where the very first article of the state constitution is the enumeration of individual rights. Never mind that I'm sure they never asked why such matters aren't a part of the curriculum of every police academy in the country. Seems pretty basic stuff to me, but what do I know I'm just a common slob who knows how to read. The Supreme Court just ruled that "To serve and protect" really means to patrol and control.
How many times have we been told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Once again the court has ruled that there is one set of laws for the rich and powerful and their agents and another set for the rest of us.
And then the wonder why there is all this talk about another American Revolution. Who would have thought that an Obama appointee would be the only one of the nine with even a modicum of common sense?
the question is not that cops are shot to death by upset citizens, the question is why aren't more being shot? how much are you millenials going to take? are you going to leave it all to the grey panthers to save your asses?
Please donate, even if it's only $10, today, right now if possible. You can't even buy two quarter pounder combos for 10 bucks. Rutherford does not have a huge donor base. Mostly only leftist non profits promoting the perversion of the law have great donor bases, i.e. Sierra Club and ACLU...imo the ACLU is rarely fighting to protect orignal intent Constitutionality. They promote that "living document" perversion.
"More than two centuries ago, this Court held that reasonable mistakes of law, like those of fact, could justify a certificate of probable cause. United States v. Riddle, 5 Cranch 311, 313. That holding was reiterated in numerous 19th-century decisions. Although Riddle was not a Fourth Amendment case, it explained the concept of probable cause, which this Court has said carried the same “fixed and well known meaning” in the Fourth Amendment, Brinegar, supra, at 175, and n. 14, and no subsequent decision of this Court has undermined that understanding. The contrary conclusion would be hard to reconcile with the more recent precedent of Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U. S. 31, where the Court, addressing the validity of an arrest made under a criminal law later declared unconstitutional, held that the officers’ reasonable assumption that the law was valid gave them “abundant probable cause” to make the arrest, id., at 37. Heien attempts to recast DeFillippo as a case solely about the exclusionary rule, not the Fourth Amendment itself, but DeFillippo’s express holding is that the arrest was constitutionally valid because the officers had probable cause. "
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf
In order to overcome the bad precedent that a reasonable mistake of law can lead to probable cause, the court would have to, and should have, limited its application in some way.
I guess even if the Court had limited probable cause based on a reasonable mistake of law, cops could just fall back on lying about facts like they often do.
Just another example of Deep Capture and the facist lengths they will go to protect and enhance their power
Reasonable ignorance? Now I understand why cops are so hated.
So, basically what we have now is a final nail that seals the duplicity of the system.
The controllers and their enforcers (the pigs) can now be ignorant of the law and get away with anything
WHEREAS
The public.... Ignorance of the law is no defense.
I cannot understand how so many are still supporting the pigs when they are nothing but revenue generating liars (seen many instances first hand) ready to legally steal from you to fund themselves and the state...
Nothing short of extortion.
When the Global Sh#t Hits The Fan, You'd Better Have a Plan
http://newamerica-now.blogspot.com/2014/02/beyond-collapse.html
more proof the police are not your friend, even in civilian clothes, treat them accordingly.
Not surprised that the regime's robed legitimizers made this grotesque decision, but still very disappointing and demoralizing.
Just wanted to inform the many children commenting here who frequently praise other regimes just because the usa regime sucks and is getting much worse astonishingly quickly:
In most other regimes, eg Russia, most of South America, Africa, SE Asia, all of the Middle East & SW Asia, the police are much more advanced, brutal and uncontrolled than in the usa - the cops, including many different kinds of very heavily armed militias, will stop you for any reason they want, search whatever they want, take whatever they want, beat you as much as they want, and even kill you and toss your body in a ditch if they feel like it, and if you dare to challenge them they will, and enjoy doing it. And although it is extremely difficult and extremely expensive personally to get justice against the usa Stasi, it is absolutely impossible, and even fatal to try, in most other more advanced regimes.
The State found out how few American citizens know about their 4th Amendment rights after they successfully staged the Boston Marathon Bombing and subsequently barged into people's homes uncontested.
This is how to survive a Boston Marathon Bombing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou-9aiRFsVM
Gene Rosen
I guess police enrollment will be increasing for classes in
what you must not know about the law.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.....
Nothing new here. The "Lochner era" ... after the case deleineating the good-faith exception to exclusionary rule is Stare Decisis in most states ... but not mine!
How many of you know if you live in a state which has rejected Lochner? If something has been law since before I was born it hardly merits being called news.
The Pigs.
'Nuff said.