Supreme Court positioned to repeal the 4th Amendment

Coach is Right ^ | 1/21/14 | Doug Book

[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...

[ChildOfThe60s]

I pretty well covered. But the thing that rubs me (all of us) is that even with all the evidence on my side, knowing that I would, in the end, be exonerated, that doesn’t mean she couldn’t cause a lot of aggravation.

On the bright side, the old hag/bitch is moving out of town and the state for good in the next month. Then she can find someone else to fixate on.

[zeugma]

Zeugma, the most common anonymous tip is the one where a cop calls it in.

Yup. This danger of allowing anonymous tips was mentioned in oral argument, but noone wanted to come out and say that police can't be trusted enough to allow it. I would have come right out and said it, because it is obviously and patently true in enough cases that it should be disallowed in all cases to prevent its abuse.