Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: 4th Ammendment? See ya!

  1. #1

    Default 4th Ammendment? See ya!

    Police state here we are!
    SCOTUS: Cops Can Now Stop and Search You WITHOUT a Warrant Based on “Anonymous Tips”
    “A Freedom Destroying Cocktail” – Justice Antonin Scalia - April 23, 2014

    While it is not getting much coverage in the mainstream media, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip. The 5-4 decision split the court’s two most conservative justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority and Justice Antonin Scalia penning the dissent.
    Good bye what was left of the 4th Amendment.
    Relying only on a comment from a 911 caller is reasonable because “a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracking callers.” In most cases the justices are split along ideological lines but Tuesday’s decision was enough to split the two most conservative-minded justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion and Justice Antonin Scalia leading the dissent. The case considered a 2008 California incident in which an anonymous 911 caller told the police that a pickup truck had forced her off the road, providing the location, as well as details such as the truck’s make, model, and license plate number. Police soon stopped a vehicle matching the description and reported smelling the odor of marijuana as they approached driver Jose Prado Navarette. He was arrested because officers found 30 lbs. of marijuana in his vehicle, although he argued that the initial stop was unconstitutional because police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his truck. His legal team asserted that the police could not have determined with any accuracy the identity of the caller or challenged her credibility. The Supreme Court has long maintained that police may act on anonymous tips, although those tips are required to include enough detail so that officers can formulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, according to NPR. Justice Thomas used this rationale in his opinion, claiming that police may have felt, based on the 911 call, that the truck driver was intoxicated behind the wheel.
    Justice Scalia, who usually agrees with Thomas, wrote a stinging rebuke of the majority decision in his own dissent. “The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness. All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police. If the driver turns out not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the caller need fear no consequences even if 911 knows his identity.”
    Have a vendetta against an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend? Call 9-1-1 and tell the cops about their marijuana pipe in their glove box. As long as people continue to believe in a system that allows for a few elite people to legislate how others must live their lives, things will only get worse. Everything Adolf Hitler did was completely legal too.

  2. #2

    Default Re: 4th Ammendment? See ya!

    The erosion of law comes with apathy.

    The written codes of law establish a linch pin for further legal comparisons.
    The De Jurae edicts will gradually evolve the jurisprudence results.

    The main law is 'Treat ones neighbor as Oneself'.

    In the desert Moses had to make some hard choices.

    The results of those plans still echo around the world.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts