Posted on 03/26/2013 9:39:18 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies
Good break down, except:
Pro-criminal - Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Kagan
You’re spot on:
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.
There isn’t anything in there about “unless you’re walking in the commons or on a public road”. They’ve simply broadened the meaning of unreasonable via the War on Drugs.
You’re spot on:
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.
There isn’t anything in there about “unless you’re walking in the commons or on a public road”. They’ve simply narrowed the meaning of unreasonable via the War on Drugs.
One of the scariest things defense attorneys talk about is the “presumption of guilt” that persists among the public and jurors. If you’re black, you don’t have a chance.
“There is no such thing as an innocent man. There are simply men who have not been properly questioned”
Felix Dezerhinsky (founder of the NKVD)
Yep and his personality has been with us throughout time. As a republic we shouldn’t be fooled into thinking we’ve mastered evilness.
this is in keeping with other USSC cases.
Police can not use “tech enhancements” to bypass warrants. (infra red, sonar, dog training, robots)
They are called “targets”..as in target practice
At low altitude an ‘assault weapon’ (high-powered rifle) might have a shot at a drone.. Perhaps that is why the gubmint wants to ban them.
An individual has the right to enter another person's porch if he reasonably believes that the other person would consider him welcome, but has no such right if he has no plausible basis for belief. Although a criminal charge of trespass would require that the accused have been notified that his presence was unwelcome, it would seem pretty clear that a cop who enters a porch in the hope of finding something he could use to justify his non-consensual entry into a dwelling should not expect be considered welcome by the occupant thereof.
The cop was trespassing not because he had a dog, but because his purpose for being on the porch is one which he knew or should have known the occupant would likely consider objectionable [and would almost certainly consider objectionable if there was anything for the dog to find].
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.