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 ...
The stop was based on a anonymous tip at a house. Utah conceded it was a illegal stop. The person was detained merely from exiting a house that was rumored to have drugs at. Would we have put up with this coming from our British overlords; no.
So, in essence the ends justify the means.
We should demand those justices allowing this should resign or be removed from the court. They no longer represent us or have competence to sit on the court.
Having the warrant issued constitutes probable cause for executing the warrant, doesn’t it?
That always was an idiotic doctrine. It requires those tasked with law enforcement to ignore evidence of a crime. The proper response is to charge police officers with a crime when they seize evidence illegally rather than letting a criminal go.
Letting both the criminal go and the criminally behaved police go, is the worst possible solution.
Probable cause must have been determined to exist, which met at least some of the criteria required for issuing the warrant.
why would he get a free pass on an outstanding warrant? If everything relating to the stop is excluded he would have to still be arrested. Inventory searches are routine for various common sense reasons (theft accusations, weapons etc)
Sotomayor
simply cannot stand her
Again, 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.
Again, 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.
i have to disagree with thomas on this one.
the ends never justifies the means.
Total nonsense. If you don’t have a warrant for your arrest outstanding then this ruling wouldn’t effect you at all.
the officer only found out about the warrant after he stopped and searched him for his identification.
a minor traffic warrant... then led to the drugs... just because the end justified the means, does not mean the officer was correct in his behavior.
Cops can now kick in your door and search your house then say “Whoopsie! Not a total violation of your rights!”
because it was found that the addition to your kitchen never went through the permitting process.
If Hilary wins, it will be time to make one’s footprint as small as possible. Forget going online for anything. Deal in cash. Don’t use anything but an iPhone until Apple is forced to comply with government demands to jettison encryption. Then do without. There are many ways to lead an underground life as fugitives have proven over decades.
ping
But if there's no cause for stopping the person in the first point, how can that be legitimate?
Or would you say that setting up "warrant checkpoints" where they stop you like a DUI-checkpoint, search you like a TSA-checkpoint, and fish for warrants like the FBI (see Wako and the congressional investigation
) is completely ok? — and would you be absolutely certain that they couldn't have a judge on speed-dial to authorize a warrant based on the evidence of the just-executed search?
But, IIUC, the search was pursuant to the unconstitutional stop and then it was found he had an outstanding warrant.
Again, it seems far too close to the ends justify the means
-type thinking that the War on Drugs has used to shred the Bill of Rights.
I’ve always had mixed feelings about that one. Too many REAL criminals get off because a cop with a “hunch” based on years of experience stops him, discovers the crime, but makes a mistake that allows the scum to wiggle free.
But better ten guilty go free than one innocent be convicted, I guess.
They have a term for life, and they'd laugh at you or I telling them they ought to stand down.
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.