Posted on 05/21/2005 7:35:19 AM PDT by mel
Can you explain exactly how this constitutes illegal search and seizure? The cop made a routine traffic stop, noticed something that made him suspicious, and found 33 pounds of cocaine. The cocaine confirms his suspicions were correct, thereby invalidating the illegal part of the search and seizure. Ya'll must have a lot of training in mental gymnastics to twist the Constitution into enough of a pretzel to imagine the founders intended people to walk free when they had committed a crime.
Good for her.
If it was a LEGAL search, you would be able to state, clearly and simply, what that SOMETHING is.
Since you can't, the search was plainly ILLEGAL and the criminal in the picture is the cop.
Would you support executing government officials for violating citizens' rights? If not, why not?
Like violating the "rights" of the cokehead supplier who is the subject of this article? The cops should be given a pat on the back. Unless, however, you are talking about executing the judge.
No, I mean that if it turns out the cop illegally searched a citizen. What if your house was illegally searched, and your family held at gunpoint? Would you think that is a capital offense?
If you do, then how, under law, are you going to discriminate between an upstanding person like yourself and people you think are scum?
Interesting twist of logic here. You might want to try that one again.
Interesting twist of logic here. You might want to try that one again.
Oooops.
In a nation where even _first degree_ murderers rarely get executed, you think cops should be executed for illegal search? I think the next step to that thoughtset is demanding that US soldiers be tried as war criminals for making POW's upset.
As for your question, the unlikely situation you described is one of the few legitimate cases for litigation. Unlike drug dealers, cops are bound by law and regulations.
How about just obeying the law, even if we don't like it? Dealing coke is illegal today. If the law is unjust, work to change it.
Home invasion is illegal too. Carries a life term some places.
A routine traffic stop does NOT constitute 'probable cause' for a search.
Granted, the post itself is rather sketchy, (I'm not registering to read the entire article), but many questions remain-
Was the officer given permission to search without a warrant?
Were the drugs in view of the officer as he approached the vehicle?
Law(yer) enforcement officers have to follow the laws, too, 'ya know.
Also, please direct me to the part of the Constitution that:
1. gives government the authority (jurisdiction) to tell the people what they can posses
2. gives government the authority (jurisdiction) to tell the people what they can ingest
3. gives government the authority (jurisdiction) to define *crime*
If I had been there, or the story told all I would be able to say what that something is. If you were intellectually honest, you would know that and would not have made this statement.
Really. Do you think that if the cop could articulate that SOMETHING the ruling would have one against him?
"Something" was, in fact, nothing. Maybe racism. Maybe not liking to have to approach a car with tinted windows. Maybe a hair across his ass.
Cops like that are a danger to everyone. Give him a green light bar and a compact Chevy in the mall lot.
Me. me. Pick me!!! I know... Those things are NOT in the Constitution... and were never MEANT to be there. Our Founders were pretty smart in that regard. They meant to put SEVERE limits on what the government could do. I still mean to see that vision restored, in my lifetime, no matter the cost to the statist thugs.
It was the responsibility of the people to understand their relationship to the United States and to the laws that were being passed by the legislature. This distinction between the United States and the states was taught in the homes and the schools and churches.
The early admiralty courts did not interpret legislation as broadly at that time because the people knew when the courts were overstepping their jurisdiction. The people were in control because they knew who they were and where they were standing in relation to the United States.
dcwusmc
The Patriot Act was passed because the people are willing to waive their rights for a false sense of security. Granting false powers to the LEOs is also a for this false sense of security.
LOL!
If you already know, why should I pick you?
(jk)
What scares the living daylights out of me is the amount of FReepers who DON'T believe the Constitution limits the government at ALL!
Even had one try to tell me the other day that it restricted the STATES!
:)
Dear Mel,
After reading the letters you posted regarding JUDGE SKAHAN. It is apparent that you don't understand that Criminal Court Judges are not police officers, crime fighters, or baby sitters. They are sworn to uphold and enforce the laws created by our legislature. You previous suggested JUDGE SKAHAN should be replaced because you don't like an isolated ruling our of "HER" Court. Well Mel, you must have been a sleep that day in 7th grade social studies when the teacher first explained the separation of powers of our three branches of government. From the FACT reported in the Commercial Appeal (May 24-25, 2005) it appears that unfortunatley the POLICE OFFICER "VIOLATED THE RIGHTS " OF THE DRIVER. Its not JUDGE SKAHAN fault the officer screwed up the arrest. If you have never heard of any police officer doing something wrong and then pointing the finger else where; well, I assume you have been living in a CAVE. JUDGE SKAHAN did exactually what I expect our Judges to do and that is UPHOLD the LAW. I say KEEP JUDGE SKAHAN and VOTE JUDGE SKAHAN!!! We need someone with 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE !!
So, what's her cut?
Mel,
You are not a very smart person. (I'm sure everyone can tell by now)
You placed so much EVIL on Judge Paula Skahan because of Dismission 33 lbs of Cocaine, which was an unlawly gained by the police officers.
Well MR MEL (and everyone else who followed MEL)... incase your slow mind has not caught it.
STATE CRIMINAL COURT of APPEAL UPHELD JUDGE PAULA SKAHAN'S DECISION TO DISMISSE 33 LBS OF COCAINE. YES 3 State Criminal Court Judges AGREED with JUDGE SKAHAN !!!
So MEL BEING THE BIG PERSON YOU ARE !! I'm sure you are writting a letter stating how WRONG you were and HOW SORRY you truely ARE!!! Or did you write a letter saying how wrong the State Criminal Court Of APPEAL JUDGES are?
You are NOT a person ANYONE should follow behind or believe anything that is said.
SHAME ON YOU !!!
Dr. Willard
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.