Posted on 04/23/2008 10:25:33 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Can the Police also ask Immigration status??
We are quickly becoming a fascist state. The tree of liberty is beginning to thirst
Nothing really all that new here. How did this make it to the Supremes?
This is good news for those police who raided the FLDS group looking for a man who wasn't there by a complaint phoned in by an adult posing as a teen half her age...
Unanimous decision?..............I’M shocked........or TASERED.......
Interesting comment.
Can you give us the names of some of the people you are thinking of killing?
Yep. Not sure if I like the decision, but it is what it is and I have great respect for Scalia. Pretty much shuts the door on any 4th amendment arguments from me on the FLDS raids.
I don’t like this at all. If a LEO wants to search a person who has done nothing, just arrest them first. It doesn’t matter what you arrest them for or if you even should have arrested them. Once they’re arrested, search them in hopes of finding something to really charge them with. Not good....
Yep. Why did the Virginia court overturn?
One of my favorite Jefferson quotes. Here is the full context...wonderful writing.
What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
If the police served a search warrant, signed by a judge, in which they were to enter a house that allegedly contained stolen goods and they found no stolen goods at all, but a large pool of blood in the kitchen, what should they do?
Say: "Thanks for letting us look around, we didn't find the stolen DVD players we were looking for, so you have a nice day, sir!"
Because the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the search was illegal, and SCOTUS wanted to slap them down.
The heck that the Virginia Supreme Court exhonerated the man because his rights were being violated, (getting arrested for a non-arrestable offense). Who needs States' rights anymore, now we have Bush, the Bushbots, the McCane liberals and the Communist liberals like Obama to tell us how it's gonna be. If paper could barf, the Constitution would be throwing up right now.
“Can the Police also ask Immigration status??”
Well, now you’re just being silly......
A good question, but there strikes me of some bad lawyering here, or at least a missed opportunity by the Virginia Supreme Court. Why didn't the suspect argue that the Virginia constitution prevents the search? Given the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling, that might have well prevented US Supreme Court review.
Without going into the oxymoronic nature of the phrase "states' rights", what violation of "states' rights" is in evidence here?
Basically, it’s being caught during the commission of a crime.
. "Nothing really all that new here. How did this make it to the Supremes?".
I'll tell you how. The Virginia police violated their own State law that mandates the 'perp's' traffic violation to be a non-arrestable offense. According to the law, the police were supposed to only issue the man a ticket and let him go. But they decided to arrest him for a non-arrestable offense, then seize and search his vehicle. Yet again, States' rights get trampled and we continue to lose our freedoms.
Bush Administration supported the appeal to the Supremes. But I wonder if Bush would have been on the prosecutor's side of the deal if his driving under the influence arrest was supposed to be only a ticket by State law, but they decided to arrest him anyway and search his car.
Anyone who thinks this is a good thing just doesn't have the capacity to look deeper into its ramifications now that a clear precedent has been set by the Supremes. Now, a back-door way to seize and search a person's car is to simply make a false arrest, and it will be completely legal. There is also the States' rights ramification, where the Virginia Supreme Court was overturned by the feds.
The headline suggests that, doesn’t it? I am very concerned about that but I believe the key phrase is “when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime.” I would hope the Court, when presented with a case where the probable cause was lacking or obviously deficient, would make the opposite decision. Otherwise, we’ve just flushed the Forth down the crapper.
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.