To: mel
Good for this judge. I see nothing at all liberal in upholding the 4th Amendment (for a change).
6 posted on
05/21/2005 7:43:38 AM PDT by
flada
(Y2K? What are you selling, chicken or sex jelly?)
To: flada
From the article:
"The law and the Fourth Amendment (against unreasonable searches and seizures) are not meant to be get-out-of-jail-free passes," said Smith, who is appealing Skahan's ruling. "Laws are there to protect the citizens of Tennessee from persons possessing 33 pounds of cocaine."
I beg to differ. 33 pounds of cocaine is bad. Tyranny at the hands of the State is worse.
10 posted on
05/21/2005 7:49:41 AM PDT by
Wormwood
(Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
To: flada
Good for this judge. I see nothing at all liberal in upholding the 4th Amendment (for a change).
You are correct. The Supremos, including Rendquist, Thomas and Scalia affirmed that stopping a person for speeding and using that as probable cause to suspect another crime is unconstitutional (the ruling within the last three years). Stupid Cop.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson