Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Supreme Court Just Created a Full-Blown Police State
armstrongeconomics.com ^ | Jun 21, 2016 | Martin Armstrong

Posted on 06/22/2016 11:37:57 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra

The Supreme Court ruling in Utah v Strieff awarded the police total freedom to stop any citizen, at any time, to do whatever they desire. The Supreme Court determined that the “poisonous fruit” of a police officer’s stop of a citizen can be used against them at trial. This has wiped out, in reality, any constitutional protection you thought you had. This is a sad day for the United States, for the Supreme Court has officially created a full-blown police state and clearly has no intention of honoring why this nation began the entire American Revolution — to prevent illegal searches that allowed the king to look for anything he could use to prosecute citizens.

The Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer had initially violated a person’s rights (in other words, the Constitution) the officer’s conduct was “at most negligent” and the result of “good-faith mistakes.” This language is a wink and nod to the police who only have to claim they made a mistake that was not intentional and they walk free. We have witnessed police outrageously murder citizens, but the police officers involved are usually not charged. Now, with this decision, the United States has become exactly as Ukraine stood before the people revolted.

(Excerpt) Read more at armstrongeconomics.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; policestate; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: TangoLimaSierra

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf?platform=hootsuite


21 posted on 06/22/2016 11:49:08 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarchonDC09122009; All

Kagan n company sez, Um, its complicated -

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf


22 posted on 06/22/2016 11:49:17 AM PDT by MarchonDC09122009 (When is our next march on DC? When have we had enough?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Now if you were only that interested in truth under other circumstances, instead of offering the cynical knee jerk.


23 posted on 06/22/2016 11:50:05 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MarchonDC09122009
I see you did. Looks like the two sites used different titles.
I was surprised when my search came up with nothing.
24 posted on 06/22/2016 11:50:38 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Yep. Love my WA.


25 posted on 06/22/2016 11:50:53 AM PDT by SkyDancer ("They Say That Nobody's Perfect But Yet Here I Am")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WENDLE

That’s just short of what it would take.


26 posted on 06/22/2016 11:52:40 AM PDT by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TangoLimaSierra

This is a false alarm. Thomas for SCOTUS made a sound decision here using constitutional reasoning as the basis. Would that more decisions were made with such constitutional basis.

The Fourth Amendment protects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Thomas is saying that regardless of the unreasonable stop, the police had a duty to arrest the guy based on an outstanding warrant which adds up to a reasonable search incident to the arrest.

IOW, the search as a result of the unconstitutional stop would have been disallowed.

But once it was discovered there was an outstanding warrant for this guy’s arrest, the search that followed the legal arrest was a “search incident to arrest”, perfectly OK.
That seems like a reasonable conclusion.

Sometimes it helps who is for and who is against. Thomas usually hits the nail on the head and the Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent gives the decision more credibility IMO.


27 posted on 06/22/2016 11:53:00 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Cops can now kick in your door and search your house then say “Whoopsie! Not a total violation of your rights!”


28 posted on 06/22/2016 11:53:14 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Kagan, Ginsberg and Sotomayer had their knickers in knots dissenting. That can’t be a bad thing.


29 posted on 06/22/2016 11:53:18 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Details? We don’t need no stink’n details! Grab a pitchfork and a torch! Facts be damned!


30 posted on 06/22/2016 11:53:30 AM PDT by Snowybear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TangoLimaSierra

U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-3 in Utah drug search case



31 posted on 06/22/2016 11:56:19 AM PDT by onyx (DONATE MONTHLY because YOU POST HERE! VOTE TRUMP, at least once!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangoLimaSierra

Armstrong-——spreading rumors and falsehoods by not including ALL of the information.

.


32 posted on 06/22/2016 11:57:17 AM PDT by Mears (Afrocentrism is "the invention of tradition"-----Hobsbawm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Abuse reported.


33 posted on 06/22/2016 11:58:31 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TangoLimaSierra

No worries
Anything which may negatively impact our US Constitutional rights bears repeating.

There IS So Much happening right now in the Senate, ie: expanded FBI warrantless browser surveillance, etc.
Freedom hangs by an ever deteriorating thread.

RE: “I see you did. Looks like the two sites used different titles.
I was surprised when my search came up with nothing.”


34 posted on 06/22/2016 11:59:26 AM PDT by MarchonDC09122009 (When is our next march on DC? When have we had enough?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TangoLimaSierra

“We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the searchincident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.”

In other words, if the evidence found is more important than the original violation then that’s OK.

If the cops bust in your door without cause or warrant but find an “illegal” gun, then that’s OK.

If the cops detain you for no reason but search or interrogate until they make up one, then that’s OK.

If the cops want to stop everyone and check them for warrants, then that’s OK. Those that don’t have a warrant can sue. No criminal charges can be filed against the cops and anything the cops find can be used against you, including “resisting arrest”.


35 posted on 06/22/2016 12:00:45 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Y E A H......................


36 posted on 06/22/2016 12:01:11 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (My Batting Average( 1,000) since Nov 2014 (GOPe is that easy to read))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
If the cops pinch a person who is not on probation or otherwise personally in view of the law, the usual (weak) fourth amendment applies.

Are you willing to bet your papers, possessions, and/or life on that statement?

37 posted on 06/22/2016 12:03:26 PM PDT by Edward.Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: null and void; CodeToad
Cops can now kick in your door and search your house then say “Whoopsie! Not a total violation of your rights!”

This sounds like nut-job conspiracy to me!

38 posted on 06/22/2016 12:04:42 PM PDT by Edward.Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Nobody’s bothering to even understand this.

How is this, at its core, not the legal equivalent of the ends justify the means?

39 posted on 06/22/2016 12:06:40 PM PDT by Edward.Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TangoLimaSierra

It’s a hard thing to find myself in agreement with Sotomayor.


40 posted on 06/22/2016 12:06:52 PM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson