Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/21/2014 9:05:21 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Oldpuppymax
Logical outcome of the war on some drugs.

/johnny

2 posted on 01/21/2014 9:08:18 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax
didn't it start long ago..1968?

3 posted on 01/21/2014 9:08:25 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

Ah yes, it’s now the seriousness of the charge. Where have we heard that before?


4 posted on 01/21/2014 9:13:40 AM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

We need a moratorium on hyperbole in topic titles. Unless it’s struck down via judicial review or Congress votes to repeal it, it isn’t repealed at all.


5 posted on 01/21/2014 9:15:46 AM PST by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, STANDING WITH RAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

Is there going to be a requirement that the alleged tip be authenticated? Or can the cops say they got a tip and perform a search?
“We got a tip that you were a clone of Hitler, and you were about to commit genocide. So we did the search and 2 bags of weed. You’re under arrest.”


6 posted on 01/21/2014 9:22:40 AM PST by christx30 (Freedom above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

I hope the Supremes rule broadly and correctly on this. “Probable cause” is unambiguous, and they should read the words exactly as written. The police lacked probable cause, so the evidence was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. Case closed. I would prefer to use such evidence in court and allow civil suits over the violation of rights, but that’s not the standard we follow.


10 posted on 01/21/2014 9:26:28 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax
How often will former girlfriends or wives lodge anonymous charges against former boyfriends or husbands?

I've been putting up with that crap from a wacko SIL who says I'm stalking her and threatening her. She says she's going to go to the police, hasn't yet, but I've already been expected by one family member to somehow *prove* I wasn't doing it. I shudder to think what problems she could be causing me if she wasn't such a drunken moron. I actually considered anonymously ordering a couple of cases of vodka to be delivered to her house in the hope that she'd drink herself into a coma.

Point is, she goes to the cops, she doesn't have to provide any real evidence, just make the claim in order to cause me problems.

13 posted on 01/21/2014 9:30:27 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s ((If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

I don’t see the court getting rid of this requirement.. I have been in law enforcement for 23 years and always we have been told to have our own reasonable suspicion before stopping a vehicle, even if someone calls in a complaint. Only time I can recall a stop without was a brandishing call on an occupant of the vehicle. But we had the callers information and he was willing to give a statement...


14 posted on 01/21/2014 9:39:05 AM PST by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax
It seems to me the crux of the issue is that obtaining a warrant has not kept up with technology: the judicial system doesn't move with the speed of crime.

Instead of fixing that, the powers that be choose to easier path to erode our constitutionally protected rights.

15 posted on 01/21/2014 9:42:35 AM PST by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

This is a warrant to search: Your house

For: Illegal stuff

Probable cause: Anonymous tip

Somehow this seems a little short of the original intent.


16 posted on 01/21/2014 9:44:57 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

They have been chipping away at the 4th Amendment for 25 years now. Sadly, too many people took the “if you haven’t done anything wrong you don’t need to worry” approach and, well . . . here we are. The “law and order” vote is the terribly mistaken belief that only the “criminals” need worry. The criminals are the ones who need worry the least. But, hey ... most of America cheered the passage of the Patriot Act so I don’t hold out much hope for what is left of our Republic. You see, people always think it’s “the other guy”. No, as far as the State (fed or local) is concerned, it’s you.


18 posted on 01/21/2014 9:49:54 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

For four members of the court the 14th Amendment makes the 4th obsolete.


22 posted on 01/21/2014 10:09:44 AM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax
Ridiculous. This has about as much chance of passing the Supreme Court as the federal government dictating that you have to buy health care insurance.

Oh, wait...

29 posted on 01/21/2014 10:44:56 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

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


30 posted on 01/21/2014 10:45:45 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

California is the communists capital of America. We here have little rights left from local to the highest bunch of idiots in California.


33 posted on 01/21/2014 11:01:40 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

Doesn’t matter. this administration will do whatever it danm well pleases.


39 posted on 01/21/2014 12:02:16 PM PST by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible traitors. Complicit in the destruction of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

the supreme court cannot overturn natural rights... only the people giving them up will those rights be denied.

t


41 posted on 01/21/2014 12:30:05 PM PST by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

The author clearly doesn’t understand the Constitution, SCOTUS rulings, legal precedent, or the question before the Court in this case.


43 posted on 01/21/2014 12:58:24 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

Strange, I don’t see oral arguments posted for this yet.


45 posted on 01/21/2014 4:01:51 PM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax; JRandomFreeper; skinkinthegrass; andyk; arderkrag; christx30; MisterArtery; ...
Pinging everyone on the thread. They didn't get around to posting the oral arguments for this until today. You'll find a PDF of it here.

The normal caveats apply, as you can't always tell what the justices are really thinking by their questioning, but my reading puts this as a big loss of 4th amendment rights. Alito was making rediculous comments about someone having nukes in the trunk of the car to try to justify allowing pulling people over because of an anonymous tip. They all seem to be on board with the police disrupting your life because some anonymous jackass phones in a tip claiming you ran "almost ran them off the road".

So, after they publish this, be sure to keep it in mind if there is anyone that you want to have the police hassle. Just get a tracfone, so it can't be traced back to you, and you're golden. Because, you never know, someone might just have a backpack nuke in their trunk. It's all for our safety don't you know. Remember this if you ever happen to notice "Justice" Alito driving down the road beside you. I'm sure he won't mind being pulled over.

56 posted on 01/22/2014 9:23:11 PM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson