Posted on 01/21/2014 9:05:21 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Navarette v California, a case in which a wrong decision will effectively repeal the 4th Amendment rights of the American people.
The text of the 4th Amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that “…law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest.” This reasonable suspicion standard...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
I’m covered as well as I can be without retaining a lawyer. We (my wife [her sister] and I) saved a lunatic voicemail she left about 6 months ago with various threats and bizarre statements.
I do have a couple of additional family members that would testify as to her veracity, mental stability etc.
Under the circumstances, a restraining order is essentially impossible.
Fortunately, she is supposed to be leaving the state in the next eight weeks and putting her house on the market. She owes her ex money she doesn’t have which is due in a couple of months. She needs to sell her house to pay him, and then she will have to go live with her other sister...far far away from us.
It also is good that my wife trusts me 100% and is behind me.
For four members of the court the 14th Amendment makes the 4th obsolete.
According to my police friends the first call to the police is frequently the perp.
It certainly sounds as if the likelihood of needing clear evidence is much reduced. The value of such evidence, should the unlikely happen, would possibly be very great.
I would be keeping some kind of diary of anything that might be relevant. It's somewhat intimidating that our emails are available to the government or others with a simple warrant if even that. The upside is that anything you email to yourself would be date-stamped and archived.
Good luck.
Even in the world of DWI enforcement the officer who makes a stop generally swears to the nature of unsafe driving or a moving infraction. I would be fine if the tipster could be made to testify to the nature of the unsafe driving. But anonymous for me is too much like having a baggie of drugs or a gun to drop near a suspect as evidence. The potential for abuse is absolutely enormous.
This could go both ways. People could start calling in anonymous charges against cops they have a beef with. I wouldn’t want to see that start and I’m certain it would. There’s a lot of ex-cons who would love for it to go through.
Heck they can't even read and UNDERSTAND the 2nd, what would make Us think they can do the same with the others?
Oh, wait...
the slippery slope of the justifications of the police state in the name of “public safety”
we are constantly being told something is “justified” when the only basis of that claim of “justified” is that it makes “police work” easier
however the nature of our rights in the Constitution is not only irrelevant to making police work easier, they are in some ways antithetical to a justification of police powers on the basis of “making the police work easier”
between abuse of our Constitutional rights and the crime of carrying the seized material of “illegal” substances, the latter seeems the lesser of the two
/johnny
Where do you see “effectively?”
As of 1:49pm on Jan 21, 2014 the thread headline reads:
“Supreme Court positioned to repeal the 4th Amendment.”
California is the communists capital of America. We here have little rights left from local to the highest bunch of idiots in California.
First sentence:
“Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Navarette v California, a case in which a wrong decision will effectively repeal the 4th Amendment rights of the American people.”
The title abbreviated the thought but it is still for all intents and purposes a repeal or perhaps more precisely a judicial nullification.
I wish the far left's Big Government enablers understood the danger they are creating for themselves. If they can read portions of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th to mean nothing at all, then they can do the same for those phrases that liberals care about (what if the 14th goes out of fashion with those interpreting our Living Constitution???). A Constitution that means anything you want ends up meaning nothing at all.
Oh but the Constitution was written so long ago. Surely the Founders didn’t mean for it to stay the same forever and ever and ever.
As noted upthread, we should be careful with hyperbole in headlines. We object when alarmist headlines appear in NYT/LAT,etc. We should hold the same standard for conservative news sources, even if it’s only a blog.
Doesn’t matter. this administration will do whatever it danm well pleases.
Have you been fondled at the airport?
A Right, Law or Statute may be on the books, but if government routinely ignores them, they do not exist.
The Bill of Rights was included so that the government would be restrained. If the government is not constrained by its fear of God, then it must be constrained by fear of the people, hence the 2nd Amendment.
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.