Another day, another privacy lost.
1 posted on
01/24/2005 9:20:07 AM PST by
Lazamataz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
To: All
I guess we all know which way the court will be deciding when probes and sensors are devised that can peer into your house.
2 posted on
01/24/2005 9:21:31 AM PST by
Lazamataz
To: Lazamataz
What a sad day for freedom.
3 posted on
01/24/2005 9:22:59 AM PST by
yellowdoghunter
(Liberals should be seen and not heard.)
To: Lazamataz
I hate it when the dog sniffs your crotch.
4 posted on
01/24/2005 9:24:34 AM PST by
Wheee The People
(Oo ee oo ah ah, ting tang, walla-walla bing bang. Oo ee oo ah ah, ting tang, walla-walla bing bang!)
To: Lazamataz
Can't say I like this ruling.......
6 posted on
01/24/2005 9:28:04 AM PST by
Pondman88
To: Lazamataz
What happens when the dog sniffs out the drugs that is said to be found on our money?
Will they take the couple hundred bucks I carry and confiscate my car, seize my home?
BigMack
To: Lazamataz
Pretty Sad, when the only justices on the CONSERVATIVE side, are Ginsburg, and Souter.
8 posted on
01/24/2005 9:28:51 AM PST by
hobbes1
(Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
To: Lazamataz
Sheeesh....they basically just vacated the right to decline when they "ask" if they can search your car. The cops can say you "acted nervous" (who doesn't, when getting pulled over??) and bring in the dog. Dishonest ones can toss a roach in the car...
-Eric
9 posted on
01/24/2005 9:29:32 AM PST by
E Rocc
(Leftists look at liberty the way Christians look at sin.)
To: Lazamataz
This court, along with too many of our otherwise upstanding citizens, will tolerate any police state measure if is invoked in the "War On Drugs."
10 posted on
01/24/2005 9:29:42 AM PST by
FreePaul
To: Lazamataz
I hate when I agree with Ginsburg
12 posted on
01/24/2005 9:30:25 AM PST by
NEPA
To: Lazamataz
Judges need to get out in the real world a little more.
Surrounded by a Praetorian Guard of police officers who all treat them so nice, no wonder they allow law enforcement more and more leeway - aren't all cops like the nice, respectful, good men that drive them around from place to place in their SUVs?
14 posted on
01/24/2005 9:30:53 AM PST by
ikka
To: Lazamataz
16 posted on
01/24/2005 9:31:27 AM PST by
verity
(The Liberal Media is America's Enemy)
To: Lazamataz
Okay, so in this case the dog was used while the defendant was "lawfully seized in a traffic violation." How long before dogs are used at the drunk-driving roadblocks, where everyone is seized with no probable cause? How long until cops have the dogs stroll around shopping center parking lots? Still slip-sliding down that slippery slope...and the defenders of this crap will only scream bloody murder when it's THEY who are inconvenienced.
18 posted on
01/24/2005 9:32:45 AM PST by
ellery
(Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty. - Ronald Reagan)
To: Lazamataz
...ruling that drug-sniffing dogs can be used to check out motorists even if officers have no reason to suspect they may be carrying narcotics.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." - T. Jefferson
To: Lazamataz
You are free to submit... Is this what Bush means by ''freedom''?... hardly worth fighting for.
20 posted on
01/24/2005 9:33:57 AM PST by
Lexington Green
(Follow the money - Saddam to Rich to Clinton)
To: Lazamataz
There goes that Amendment. Strike "unreasonable search" from the record.
23 posted on
01/24/2005 9:36:55 AM PST by
thoughtomator
(Meet the new Abbas, same as the old Abbas)
To: Lazamataz
I'm glad to see virtually nobody on this thread defending the decision... though I'm sure they'll show up soon enough. :(
24 posted on
01/24/2005 9:37:35 AM PST by
Sloth
(Al Franken is a racist.)
To: Lazamataz
Unbelievable. These people are no Conservatives.
25 posted on
01/24/2005 9:37:45 AM PST by
Finalapproach29er
(I can no longer discern reality from satire on this site. America is losing her common sense.)
To: Lazamataz
Another day, another privacy lost.Your Papers, please...
33 posted on
01/24/2005 9:40:24 AM PST by
pageonetoo
(I could name them, but you'll spot their posts soon enough.)
To: Lazamataz
Be careful to insure that the officer does not touch your car during the sniff, according to Boston T. Party's "You and the Police."
34 posted on
01/24/2005 9:40:45 AM PST by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: Lazamataz
"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."
Maybe the SCOTUS needs a refresher on the Fourth Amendment.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson