Posted on 05/21/2009 10:28:11 AM PDT by abb
Well, no, it’s apparent. It’s a “holding” of what counsel believes to be true. An important distinction.
Actually, that is the wording of the decision.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_8120
Brendlin v. California
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice David Souter, the Court held that when a vehicle is stopped at a traffic stop, the passenger as well as the driver is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The justices said, “We resolve this question by asking whether a reasonable person in Brendlin’s position when the car stopped would have believed himself free to ‘terminate the encounter’ between the police and himself.” The Court held that Brendlin would have reasonably believed himself to be intentionally detained and subject to the authority of the police. Thus, he was justified in asserting his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure. The Court noted that its ruling would not extend to more incidental restrictions on freedom of movement, such as when motorists are forced to slow down or stop because other vehicles are being detained. To accept the state’s arguments, however, would be to “invite police officers to stop cars with passengers regardless of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything illegal.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=DlURqtC7vPQC
The Free State of Jones: Mississippi’s Longest Civil War
By Victoria E. Bynum
Edition: illustrated
Published by UNC Press, 2003
ISBN 0807854670, 9780807854679
336 pages
A related thread just posted.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2256179/posts
ACTUAL FOOTAGE Pastor Beaten & Tased by Border Patrol & DPS
I was on that street last month.
I really did do a double take when I saw the name!
Google it or see post 23
Your link doesn’t work for me, but I am to understand that this is *your* evidence and not the lawyers for these men? If so, then, please, don’t waste my time....
Oh! I'm sorry! I must have forced you to click on this thread and comment. Next time I do that, just ignore me.
Until the time it doesn't work. You have been lucky. More lucky than you deserve.
The people that pull these sort of shenanigans with he cops are kind of like people who go into a restaurant with the purpose of finding fault so they can get a free meal.
The job of police officer is apparently too difficult for most police officers. I guess that is why they act like douche bags so often. Then again, it could be that the profession of police officer tends to attract people with douche bag personalities?
Exactly! Just like that bastard James Madison.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
Wrong! Your post # 36 was to me (see above) and it's your first post on this thread. You're not a traffic cop, are you?
That's only because you posted the article. It doesn't mean I was addressing you personally, especially since I quoted directly from the article itself.
Obviously you're too dense to understand that.
You're not a traffic cop, are you?
No, I'm not.
You missed your calling - you would fit right in with the rest of them.
I missed my calling as a State Trooper, because that's what I wanted to do when I got out of the service. Just wasn't in the cards for me.
You and I see this differently. If you mouth-off to the cops, or belligerently refuse to follow reasonable orders, then you're asking for trouble and you get no quarter of sympathy from me. You and others are free to disagree with me, but as someone up-thread already pointed out, I'll bet the responses on this thread would be much different if these men were Muslim, or even illegal aliens. My position however, wouldn't change, so you tell me who has the more conservative, and reasoned, opinion here...
And isn’t what this debate is all about, then? What is “reasonable.”
I side with the original intent of the Fourth Amendment which is that citizens by divine right should be able to go about their everyday business unencumbered by interference from government at all levels. To me, the terms are non-negotiable under any circumstances. It was part of why our ancestors fought the Revolutionary War.
I understand all about the drug smuggling issue, illegal aliens at the border, etc, etc. But history has shown us time and again that government never ceases trying to seize rights and property from its citizens. There are times that a stand must be taken and in this case these three men have decided to do it.
I applaud them.
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.