Exercising one’s right to free speech does not meant that one cannot incriminate himself by so doing. In a similar vein, refusal of a search incident to a lawful stop is an element a judge may take into account when issuing the warrant. Refusal of a search at the airport is a Constitutional right, but what happens? You don’t get on the plane! The exercise of a right does not immunize one from the consequences. By the way, how can you you deem Constitutional rights so sacrosant when Abortion on Demand has been given such status?
“By the way, how can you you deem Constitutional rights so sacrosant when Abortion on Demand has been given such status?”
That is the problem. Constitutional rights are being constantly eroded. It doesn’t change the fact that the right exists; instead new laws are written to circumvent those rights and are then subject to constitutional interpretation by a left wing activist judiciary.
Standing up for rights as they are written in the Constitution is the duty of every citizen in this country. Acquiesce to the threat and this will cease to be a Constitutional Republic, probably in our lifetime.
One more thing. I’m not saying the Police don’t have a right to search my car. They have an obligation to go through the correct and necessary procedure to do so.
Asking me for my permission is an attempt to circumvent their responsibility for proper search.
>>In a similar vein, refusal of a search incident to a lawful stop is an element a judge may take into account when issuing the warrant.<<
That doesn’t make sense! Of COURSE the suspect refused the search without a warrant - that’s WHY the officer is asking the judge to issue him one! In other words, no police officer would be standing before a judge requesting the issuance of a search warrant if the suspect had voluntarily submitted to a search.
Catch-22!
In a similar vein, refusal of a search incident to a lawful stop is an element a judge may take into account when issuing the warrant.
If it's "instantaneous probably cause" what else would the judge need to consider?
You're telling people that something the judge "may take into account when issuing a warrant" is "instantaneous probable cause" in and of itself. Why would you do that?
Ahem. I think he was talking about REAL Consitutional rights. Are you aware of the difference?
SCOTUS justices aren't omniscient, nor do they have the power of actually inserting in COTUS something which is not there, even though people are obliged to act as if they could. The Constitution says what it says.
I can’t believe you actually think that if SCOTUS can manage to legalize something on imaginary Constitutional grounds, the rest of us should immediately forget Amendments 1-10. You must be having a bad day.