Two states to so far avoid: Utah and Oklahoma.
Miranda is dead..........................
The State has not been your servant for decades. You are their tax slave, at best.
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. If the government thinks the search was unreasonable (which amounts to absence of any reason to have suspicion), then it won't use the evidence against you.
PING!
I tell you people and I keep telling you people, it’s in the water...you drink it and you become totally insane instantly...
I’m sitting here shaking my head...Welcome to Utah, the United Police State of America...
The SCOTUS doesn’t “rule” it “opines”
This is a good thing. We now can send armies of law enforcement into Chicago and stop the wanton slaughter of black people by the thousands including a 3 year old child last week end. Let’s mount up!!
This is a duplicate thread on this topic I posted yesterday.
Although this SCOTUS ruling is yet additional erosion of our 4th and 5th Ammendments, there is more to it than Armstrong’s blogging indicates.
See related legal analysis
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3442064/posts
At any rate, we know where is is all leading to...
RE: “Anybody been following this? Does not sound good.”
Total nonsense. If you don’t have a warrant for your arrest outstanding then this ruling wouldn’t effect you at all.
‘cept if your Mexican............Sheriff Joe Arpio
The thread on the Court's decision is here. FWIW, the majority opinion was by Thomas and the dissent by Sotomayor.
The Supreme Court Just Created a Full-Blown Police State
...
Too much drama.
The ruling was consistent with others. If you don’t have an arrest warrant this ruling won’t affect you. And even if you do the probability is this ruling won’t affect you either.
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.
Armstrong-——spreading rumors and falsehoods by not including ALL of the information.
.
“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”.
It’s a hard thing to find myself in agreement with Sotomayor.
