Posted on 06/22/2016 11:37:57 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra
The Supreme Court ruling in Utah v Strieff awarded the police total freedom to stop any citizen, at any time, to do whatever they desire. The Supreme Court determined that the “poisonous fruit” of a police officer’s stop of a citizen can be used against them at trial. This has wiped out, in reality, any constitutional protection you thought you had. This is a sad day for the United States, for the Supreme Court has officially created a full-blown police state and clearly has no intention of honoring why this nation began the entire American Revolution — to prevent illegal searches that allowed the king to look for anything he could use to prosecute citizens.
The Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer had initially violated a person’s rights (in other words, the Constitution) the officer’s conduct was “at most negligent” and the result of “good-faith mistakes.” This language is a wink and nod to the police who only have to claim they made a mistake that was not intentional and they walk free. We have witnessed police outrageously murder citizens, but the police officers involved are usually not charged. Now, with this decision, the United States has become exactly as Ukraine stood before the people revolted.
(Excerpt) Read more at armstrongeconomics.com ...
Kagan n company sez, Um, its complicated -
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf
Now if you were only that interested in truth under other circumstances, instead of offering the cynical knee jerk.
Yep. Love my WA.
That’s just short of what it would take.
This is a false alarm. Thomas for SCOTUS made a sound decision here using constitutional reasoning as the basis. Would that more decisions were made with such constitutional basis.
The Fourth Amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Thomas is saying that regardless of the unreasonable stop, the police had a duty to arrest the guy based on an outstanding warrant which adds up to a reasonable search incident to the arrest.
IOW, the search as a result of the unconstitutional stop would have been disallowed.
But once it was discovered there was an outstanding warrant for this guy’s arrest, the search that followed the legal arrest was a “search incident to arrest”, perfectly OK.
That seems like a reasonable conclusion.
Sometimes it helps who is for and who is against. Thomas usually hits the nail on the head and the Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent gives the decision more credibility IMO.
Cops can now kick in your door and search your house then say “Whoopsie! Not a total violation of your rights!”
Kagan, Ginsberg and Sotomayer had their knickers in knots dissenting. That can’t be a bad thing.
Details? We don’t need no stink’n details! Grab a pitchfork and a torch! Facts be damned!
Armstrong-——spreading rumors and falsehoods by not including ALL of the information.
.
Abuse reported.
No worries
Anything which may negatively impact our US Constitutional rights bears repeating.
There IS So Much happening right now in the Senate, ie: expanded FBI warrantless browser surveillance, etc.
Freedom hangs by an ever deteriorating thread.
RE: “I see you did. Looks like the two sites used different titles.
I was surprised when my search came up with nothing.”
“We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the searchincident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.”
In other words, if the evidence found is more important than the original violation then that’s OK.
If the cops bust in your door without cause or warrant but find an “illegal” gun, then that’s OK.
If the cops detain you for no reason but search or interrogate until they make up one, then that’s OK.
If the cops want to stop everyone and check them for warrants, then that’s OK. Those that don’t have a warrant can sue. No criminal charges can be filed against the cops and anything the cops find can be used against you, including “resisting arrest”.
Y E A H......................
Are you willing to bet your papers, possessions, and/or life on that statement?
This sounds like nut-job conspiracy to me!
How is this, at its core, not the legal equivalent of the ends justify the means
?
It’s a hard thing to find myself in agreement with Sotomayor.
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.