Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment
Zero Hedge ^ | 1/27/14 | Tyler Durden

Posted on 01/27/2015 1:17:30 PM PST by Yellowstone Joe

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.”

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Heien v. North Carolina is available at www.rutherford.org.

“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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; scotus; search; seizure
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last
This is scary, very scary. One step closer to a complete police state.
1 posted on 01/27/2015 1:17:31 PM PST by Yellowstone Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe

Can’t have the people thinking that they are in control of the government.


2 posted on 01/27/2015 1:21:31 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Good Muslims, like good Nazis or good liberals, are terrible human beings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe

It’s scary to agree with the wise Latina.


3 posted on 01/27/2015 1:22:09 PM PST by Azeem (There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe

One League Step.


4 posted on 01/27/2015 1:22:35 PM PST by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else need s said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe

From here on forward, ignorance of the law is only an excuse the police can use. What will stop them from always saying they thought a crime was committed.


5 posted on 01/27/2015 1:23:06 PM PST by Yellowstone Joe (God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

Good point I didn’t even consider that.

8-1 is scary enough, but for her to be the one.

Wow.


6 posted on 01/27/2015 1:24:11 PM PST by Yellowstone Joe (God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe

Lock and load!


7 posted on 01/27/2015 1:24:25 PM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe

This article is a misrepresentation of the facts of the case and ruling.

Key to the particulars is the fact that the driver CONSENTED to a search of his vehicle. Never consent to a search, even if you think you have nothing to hide.


8 posted on 01/27/2015 1:24:29 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

Indeed it is.


9 posted on 01/27/2015 1:24:37 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe
BOOKMARK
10 posted on 01/27/2015 1:25:04 PM PST by ExSoldier (Stand up and be counted... OR LINE UP AND BE NUMBERED...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe

>>From here on forward, ignorance of the law is only an excuse the police can use.<<

Keep a printed copy of the 4th Amendment and applicable local law and shove it in the cop’s face (record the whole thing). He can’t use “ignorance of the law” if he is given it.


11 posted on 01/27/2015 1:27:02 PM PST by freedumb2003 (AGW: Settled Science? If so, there would only be one model and it would agree with measurements)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

Yes, I find it scary that I agree with Sotomayor, who was the lone dissenter in this case!


12 posted on 01/27/2015 1:29:37 PM PST by Fred Hayek (The Democratic Party is now the operational arm of the CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

She probably drew the short straw.


13 posted on 01/27/2015 1:29:42 PM PST by a fool in paradise (Shickl-Gruber's Big Lie gave us Hussein's Un-Affordable Care act (HUAC).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
This article is a misrepresentation of the facts of the case and ruling.

I figured as much Zero Hedge is dodgy and the wise latina is always wrong. There must be more to the story that they are leaving out.

14 posted on 01/27/2015 1:31:09 PM PST by usurper (Liberals GET OFF MY LAWN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe

The guy consented a vehicle search and probably signed a consent form. There’s no magic in that!


15 posted on 01/27/2015 1:31:35 PM PST by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Supreme Court ruling threads on FR are a hoot. No one bothers to read the opinion before forming theirs. And to rely on some fake writer from ZeroHedge? LOL


16 posted on 01/27/2015 1:32:43 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe

We have to stop looking to the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of our rights. The problems mount because considered opinions, right or wrong, are never discarded. And sophistry is lauded, not eschewed. Justices think that it’s cute when they can devise strange theorems about the law which only appear to have the imprimatur of legitimacy, but in truth completely dismantle a well-ordered society.


17 posted on 01/27/2015 1:32:54 PM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old school

So it’s okay if the cop is ignorant but not the suspect?


18 posted on 01/27/2015 1:33:10 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
This article is a misrepresentation of the facts of the case and ruling.

Stories from Zero Hedge must be taken with a grain of salt. ZH presents everything as either a crisis, a conspiracy, or a mixture of both.

19 posted on 01/27/2015 1:33:46 PM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yellowstone Joe
Written by Tyler Durden?

The links are google searches.

The original article written by the Rutherford Institute is here: (U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law)

20 posted on 01/27/2015 1:34:01 PM PST by GregoTX (Remember the Alamo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson