A Victory For Liberty

[XD45 7,124]

Supreme Court Rules Police Need a Separate Warrant to Search Cell Phones.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-limit-cellphone-searches-arrests-145357478--finance.html

[Big John! 2,062]

Damn shame that it's overshadowed (IMO) by Thad Cochran using black democrats to secure a primary that he would have most certainly lost.  We are circling the drain Saigus

[XD45 7,124]

That only proves that the establishment repubs are just as slimy as the dims.  But that's a topic for another thread.

 

This thread is about a win.  We get so few lately...

[james lambert 3,059]

So now when we arrest a heroin dealer, or a meth dealer.

I have a little more paperwork before I can look at his or her phone.

 

How does that make any difference to any law abiding person.?

[XD45 7,124]

Oh the old "if you have nothing to hide" argument. 

 

We really should do away with those damned inconvenient 4th and 5th Amendments.  Those stupid founding fathers and all their pointless "rights".

 

Didn't they understand how much paperwork all those rights would make?

 

/sarcasm

[james lambert 3,059]

Oh the old "if you have nothing to hide" argument. 

 

We really should do away with those damned inconvenient 4th and 5th Amendments.  Those stupid founding fathers and all their pointless "rights".

 

Didn't they understand how much paperwork all those rights would make?

 

/sarcasm

No arguement at all, I generally agree with you, And I am the first in line to support the constitution.

 

I just dont see that this ruling has much of an impact on us.

Be it good or be it bad, a judge will sign  if there is cause.

Hopefully ONLY if there is cause.

[Spacehog 2,218]

Does this mean the NSA and Federal Government can go screw themselves? I think not.

[Big John! 2,062]

That only proves that the establishment repubs are just as slimy as the dims.  But that's a topic for another thread.

 

This thread is about a win.  We get so few lately...

You are correct sir.  Sorry...

[Big John! 2,062]

 

Oh the old "if you have nothing to hide" argument. 

 

We really should do away with those damned inconvenient 4th and 5th Amendments.  Those stupid founding fathers and all their pointless "rights".

 

Didn't they understand how much paperwork all those rights would make?

 

/sarcasm

No arguement at all, I generally agree with you, And I am the first in line to support the constitution.

 

I just dont see that this ruling has much of an impact on us.

Be it good or be it bad, a judge will sign  if there is cause.

Hopefully ONLY if there is cause.

 

You said it yourself.  It keeps the cops that are not as upstanding as yourself from looking just because they have a badge.  You and I both know, it happens.

 

If it is that simple for you guys to get a warrant, with cause.  Then this should mean little to nothing to LEO.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Big John!

[Sim_Player 1,939]

Imagine that...Obama does'nt think authorities should need warrant. Tyrant.

 

Be safe out there Jim.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Sim_Player

[macbeau 902]

Cops need a warrant...!  YeeHaw!

The rest of the Federal Agencies only need the Patriot Act, an executive order or lack of oversight...

But...? Yeah! 

Liberty at last!!! 

No?  Wait?  Huh?

[XD45 7,124]

Oh ferfucksake.  This ONE decision when the right way.  If it went the other way I'd be pissed so yeah I'm gratified for this small victory.

 

I'll take every victory, no matter how small.

[james lambert 3,059]

If it stops one bad cop from being a jackass, its ok with me.

 

I do hate paper work...but when we get a warrant to search a house or car, we write it to cover contents including phones IF we have cause to think they are being used in a crime.

Our DA is very strict and we bounce warrants off of him before going to the judge..

 

What you find is worth nothing if the warrent was not appropriate.

Our Sheriff will not tolerate excuses or ANY bad behavior!

[Long Shot 1,287]

While it is good to see the SCOTUS has some concept of the intent of the fourth-A.

 

I'm having trouble with the idea that this was even a question that needed to go to the highest court just because our papers and affects have become electronic.

 

The fact the lower courts couldn't decide that 2+2= the fourth is disturbing in and of itself.

[Big John! 2,062]

Oh ferfucksake.  This ONE decision when the right way.  If it went the other way I'd be pissed so yeah I'm gratified for this small victory.

 

I'll take every victory, no matter how small.

Good on ya Saigus!

 

Sad that this is even a victory.  Also sad that said victory is overshadowed by negativity (including my own) brought on by political mayhem.

[gunman1 1,753]

I'll take it as a victory too, especially since the fed assfuked the good people of Colorado AGAIN (15 rounds).

[Matthew Hopkins 1,065]

I'll take it as a victory too, especially since the fed assfuked the good people of Colorado AGAIN (15 rounds).

 

 

lets put the blame where it rightfully belongs, shall we. the ass fucking was done by the elected officials of that state

[Sim_Player 1,939]

 

I'll take it as a victory too, especially since the fed assfuked the good people of Colorado AGAIN (15 rounds).

 

 

lets put the blame where it rightfully belongs, shall we. the ass fucking was done by the elected officials of that state

Colorado voters sent a pretty strong message to every anti-2A politician in their state. Another small victory worth celebrating.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Sim_Player

[Matthew Hopkins 1,065]

 

 

I'll take it as a victory too, especially since the fed assfuked the good people of Colorado AGAIN (15 rounds).

 

lets put the blame where it rightfully belongs, shall we. the ass fucking was done by the elected officials of that state

Colorado voters sent a pretty strong message to every anti-2A politician in their state. Another small victory worth celebrating.

 

 

 

yeah, I guess you can look it at it that way. but that's about as "victorious" as closing the barn door a day after the horse all ran away, never to be heard of again

Edited June 28, 2014 by Matthew Hopkins

[Big John! 2,062]

I'll take it as a victory too, especially since the fed assfuked the good people of Colorado AGAIN (15 rounds).

Did anyone really think that a precedent would be set otherwise?  I'mma go to my LGS and buy some 30 round mags just because I can.  What fuckin feel good fuckin idiots they are.

 

A big thanks to the CO Sheriff's for standing behind us.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Not seeing the reason for celebration.

 

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_us_supreme_court_is_marching_in_lockstep_with_the_police_state

 

" ... A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you—even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security. InWood v. Moss (2014), the Court granted “qualified immunity” to Secret Service officials who relocated anti-Bush protesters, despite concerns raised that the protesters’ First Amendment right to freely speak, assemble, and petition their government leaders had been violated. These decisions, part of a recent trend toward granting government officials “qualified immunity”—they are not accountable for their actions—in lawsuits over alleged constitutional violations, merely incentivize government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion.

Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it. The Supreme Court ruled in Salinas v. Texas (2013) that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. What this ruling says, essentially, is that citizens had better know what their rights are and understand when those rights are being violated, because the government is no longer going to be held responsible for informing you of those rights before violating them.

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside. In Florida v. Harris (2013), a unanimous Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received proper training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state.

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King (2013), a divided Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious offenses.” While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike. The Supreme Court declared inArizona v. United States (2012) that Arizona police officers have broad authority to stop, search and question individuals—citizen and non-citizen alike. While the law prohibits officers from considering race, color, or national origin, it amounts to little more than a perfunctory nod to discrimination laws on the books, while paving the way for outright racial profiling and destroying the Fourth Amendment.

Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington (2012), the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a virtual strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

Immunity protections for Secret Service agents trump the free speech rights of Americans. The court issued a unanimous decision in Reichle v. Howards (2012), siding with two Secret Service agents who arrested a Colorado man simply for daring to voice critical remarks to Vice President Cheney. However, contrast the Court’s affirmation of the “free speech” rights of corporations and wealthy donors in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which does away with established limits on the number of candidates an entity can support with campaign contributions, and Citizens United v. FEC  (2010) with its tendency to deny those same rights to average Americans when government interests abound, and you’ll find a noticeable disparity.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King(2011), the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

Police can interrogate minors without their parents present. In a devastating ruling that could very well do away with what little Fourth Amendment protections remain to public school students and their families—the Court threw out a lower court ruling in Camreta v. Greene (2011), which required government authorities to secure a warrant, a court order or parental consent before interrogating students at school. The ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students as wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement against the rights of the people.

It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2004), a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. No longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases, turned away in recent years alone, have delivered devastating blows to the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police. Justices refused to hear Quinn v. Texas(2014) the case of a Texas man who was shot by police through his closed bedroom door and whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household.

The military can arrest and detain American citizens. In refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama (2014), a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the Supreme Court affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. In so doing, the high court also passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

Students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school. The Court refused to hear Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools (2013), a case involving students at a Missouri public school who were subjected to random lockdowns, mass searches and drug-sniffing dogs by police. In so doing, the Court let stand an appeals court ruling that the searches and lockdowns were reasonable in order to maintain the safety and security of students at the school.

Police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law. The Supreme Court let stand a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Brooks v. City of Seattle (2012) in which police officers who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution. The Ninth Circuit actually rationalized its ruling by claiming that the officers couldn’t have known beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions—tasering a pregnant woman who was not a threat in any way until she was unconscious—violated the Fourth Amendment...."

[james lambert 3,059]

Case law is NOT the law of the land.

 

You can find MILLIONS of cases that were wrongfully adjudicated, and had the wrong outcome.

Judges are people and screw up!!!!

 

That does NOT make those actions legal or lawful

 

 

You should add the disclaimer that ALL your facts?

 

come from a left wing ploice hating institution/site

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Those are USSC rulings so actually they are the law of the land, as far as the State is concerned, with no means of appeal.

 

So are you saying they did not make those rulings?

 

Claiming bias is all well and good if the ruling did not occur, would you ignore the man who informed you that your house was on fire based on his political bent?

[james lambert 3,059]

Take the title of all those examples and run them past any police dept. or district attorney

 

If you cant see how those examples are described, and then explained, and the language used...well?

 

I am the first to admitt bad shit is out there, but I dont blow things out of proportion.

 

Show me a statute that reads like any one of your examples.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

You very well know the gap between statute and enforcement/prosecution practice of same.

 

Passing a law against spitting on the sidewalk is one thing, shooting offenders of that law is quite another.

 

Since the rulings and refusals to rule are true and generally interpreted much the same across the board look to your own bias.

[james lambert 3,059]

You very well know the gap between statute and enforcement/prosecution practice of same.

 

Passing a law against spitting on the sidewalk is one thing, shooting offenders of that law is quite another.

 

Since the rulings and refusals to rule are true and generally interpreted much the same across the board look to your own bias.

I will take that as a CANT

 

 

I wont argue the point, you have an opinion, I disagree, thats all there is to it

[G O B 3,516]

It is NOT the ruling that makes this a victory. What does make this a victory is UNANIMOUS decision. Courts can play mamby pamby with 5/4 splits, but a 9/0 from SCOTUS says to lower court Judges 'do not fuck with this or we will whack your pee pee."

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

The reason some of these cases exist IS the wording in the legislation.

 

NDAA comes to mind right off the bat or are you saying it does not authorize indefinite detention with NO DUE PROCESS.

 

Others deal with enforcement practices such as the gun ownership providing reason for a no-knock. 

 

The only "can't" here is your task to provide some specific FACT these ruling are not exactly as presented. 

 

I suspect you know this all too well.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

It is NOT the ruling that makes this a victory. What does make this a victory is UNANIMOUS decision. Courts can play mamby pamby with 5/4 splits, but a 9/0 from SCOTUS says to lower court Judges 'do not fuck with this or we will whack your pee pee."

 

Well it damn well should be clear a warrant is required.

Of course I guess they could get a dog to tag the phone on command and search it for drugs... 

 

But given the simple stupid nature of most of these rulings that cannot be taken for granted.

 

Just dont see anything to celebrate in comparison.

 

Heh when was the last time you saw a judge incur REAL consequences for some horrid decision?

Edited July 3, 2014 by Rhodes1968

[james lambert 3,059]

Show me a state or federal Statute that says legal ownership of a firearm is cause for a no knock warrant.

 

A warrant can only be granted with evidence or PROBABLE cause crimes are or have been commited.

 

 

That is TOTAL BULLSHIT

 

 

And bad cops go to jail all the time!!