Supreme court gone south.

[tsg68]

I am inclined to agree with Bernhard, Constitutional rights are not outright challenged by rulings like this but rather nibbled away at in a "benevolent" manner where the incursion is written off as providing us with increased security, the only problem is the nibbles get bigger and bigger till our rights are eroded away and we look back and say "what happened to our civil liberties?!" Each new law that offers authority the ability to peer into your private life and the way you live it as a law abiding individual is un-constitutional and should be fought, if it has the possibility of abuse it should be assumed it will be. Don't let them continue to nibble. I myself would rather live in danger with my freedoms intact than suffer under what they deign to call "security".

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[BC0311]

4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

<font color="blue"> "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 issure, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." </font>

9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

<font color="blue"> " The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." </font>

Statements like the following are made when people don't grasp why Congress voted for the "Bill of Rights" on September 25, 1789 and 3/4ths of the States ratified them in 1790-91:

[ QUOTE ]
"...I don't remember the article in the Bill of Rights or Constitution that guaranteed my right to "not feel uncomfortable at anytime in my life."


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is an example of the types of argument that are precisely what The 9th Amendment was written, adopted, and ratified to deal with.

According to the 9th Amendment, simply because "certain rights" have been enumerated in the Constitution, does not mean there are not "others retained by the people".

It is a violation of the constitution to construe the enumeration of certain rights in order to "to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people".

The Law Enforcement community as a whole in my lifetime has not provided leadership in maintaining the sanctity of The Bill of Rights. Afterall, The Bill of Rights places limits upon them.

People who believe that the police will protect them from the police state, reject the lessons of history in just the last century.

Thomas Jefferson's comment is still true today, if not more so:

"Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearsome taskmaster."

Finally, this statement was particularly surprising to me:

[ QUOTE ]
Remember these "new" cultural customs are based on <font color="red"> the fact that criminals cannot control themselves from attacking other people</font> ..."

[/ QUOTE ]

How many here accept this as fact? I don't. I think this is some sort of philosophical belief that apparently many espouse, and God bless 'em, that's protected.

But, is this a philosophical belief that common law and The U.S. Constitution are based upon and should jurisprudence be based on?

BC

PS: Don't confuse "sanctity" with "sacredness". The founders couldn't help what sex or color they were, I wouldn't use that against them.

They wrote in provisions for the amending of the Constitution and many of them knew that suffrage should be extended as soon as enough of the people believed in it and would vote to extend equal protection under the law.

It was these rights which were "retained by the people" that were recognized in subsequent amendments.
BC

 

[BlindedByTheLite]

i'm already used to being stopped and questioned by LEO's for no apparent reason..
it's slow here, and cops are real jackasses (seriously)..

apparently i either A). look extremely suspicious walking around or B). fit the description of every hooligan that does something worthy of being sought after..

it's probly 'cause i wear baggy clothes.. that's suspicious around here. *lol*

the only LEO's i've met that i truly liked are from CPF.. and maybe two or three localy officers outta the entire precint..

CPF truly did change the way i looked @ LEO's..

 

[McGizmo]

[ QUOTE ]
Empath said:
......... Hopefully, public opinion will always play the least role in their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean this? If so, because the public is incapable of knowing what is best for themselves? I don't know if I consider the public that savvy but there was that "For the people, by the people" as I recall.

Frankly, I think public opinion is often of the mark not due to a fault in ability to reason but more likely due to it being based on faulty or incomplete information. Control granted to the benevolent is fine provided the benevolent remain benevolent. Historically, we have seen so many abuses of power and control that we should be wary of granting either. When it is taken without our consent, we have even more cause for concern. JMHO

Frankly, I find much of this a quandary because I have little confidence in the public to decide what is "right" for me nor do I consider that someone in power is necessarily tuned in to what is "right" for me. Consequently, I hope for the maximum freedom allowable so that I might find my own path.

 

[gadgetboy]

I'm so busy right now guys that I can't keep up, but here is the decision itself in pdf format. it's thirteen pages and I don't know if that includes the dissenting opinions. I'll catch up later. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[BC0311]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I find much of this a quandary because I have little confidence in the public to decide what is "right" for me nor do I consider that someone in power is necessarily tuned in to what is "right" for me. Consequently, I hope for the maximum freedom allowable so that I might find my own path.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right on, Don. This is what the founders had in mind and why many sensible citizens view the 9th Amendment as stating people "have the right to be left alone".

I'm pretty darn jealous of that right, myself. I have to be, because the country teems with busybodies and control freaks who want to stick their nose in my business and make me an unwilling participant in their crackpot social engineering fads.

Britt

 

[NewFlash]

[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
For my two cents, one of the more despicable laws (of many out there) are the ones that allow police to seize property that is believed to be used or profits from drug crimes. These laws allow the police to **not even** arrest and **still** pocket any cash/cars/etc. found without further court proceedings.

-Bill

[/ QUOTE ]

In California things changed a few years back (mid 90's) so that Law Enforcement kept far less of what was seized. It was being used as revenue enhancement by various agencies, as well as equiping officers with nice things like confiscated stereos for their cubicles.

No, I don't know that every agency was doing it. But I do know first hand it was happening in my location. The fact that the State DOJ took action tells me it was not just a local issue.

The fact that the same people who utilized this this practice get to make the determination of who to stop is of great concern to me.

 

[Greta]

Ok... first... I still don't see any quotes or links that state, "The highest court in America now says that you can be detained with no probable cause,..." ... sorry gadgetboy but I don't "do" pdf files... they lock up my computer and are a general PITA.

Second... NoShadow said... "It is possible you are more afraid than you care to admit so you chuckle at those with hindsight and imagination and tell yourself "It Can't Happen Here." ... No... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif... I chuckle 'cuz if you knew anything about me, you'd realize what an incredible silly statement that is... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

And NoShadow also said... "Sasha.....I guarantee it would 'rile' you if a black clad squad of heavily armed men stormed into your home..." ... Well actually... seeing as how I sleep with one of those black clad guys every single night, I really don't get riled by them... unless he is sportin' his big gun... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

Look... I'm far from complacent about all this. But I do consider myself to be realistic. Everyone here is jumping on law enforcement. Granted, they are not all "polly-pure" but every one of them is accountable. Their job is to enforce the law as written. They don't write the laws and they don't decide in the courts whether the law was actually broken or not. Their job is to bring into court those who have appeared to have broken the law. It's the court's job to convict.

I agree with Empath's post 98%! (The public opinion statement should have qualifiers... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif )... The Constitution was written and designed to grow with the nation. The founding fathers wrote it based on how society was when they were around. Do you think they imagined meth labs next door to elementary schools? Because they didn't provide for that in the Constitution, should be say that it's ok to have meth labs next to elementary schools? I doubt it. The founding fathers intended the laws to be changed and adjusted as society changed and adjusted. That's what this nation is about. If we want to live under laws that haven't changed in thousands of years, we might as well all be Muslims.

As far as being scared... sorry to disappoint. Nothing posted here has managed to make me go running into the closet with my L4.

Still waiting on the exact wording that allows for me to be detained without any probable cause.

 

[BlindedByTheLite]

what's your definition's extremes of "probable cause"..

 

[Avix]

"those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it"

or in other words...

"Your Paperz Plize!"

in the last couple of monthes SCOUTS has ruled

Congress can limit free speach.

the govt doesn't have to make public the names of people arrrested or detained nor make public the warrents under which they are detained.

you can be interogated at any time by any LEO as long as you are on a public road.

people forget, the Constitution and BoR are documents limiting what the GOVORNEMT may and may not do. not what Citizens may and may not do.

 

[Greta]

I'm not the one who made the statement about being detained without any probable cause. So honestly, I don't know what you're asking... or if you're even asking me... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[James S]

OK, well I read the PDF. As always the distinctions are subtle and in the details are the good things and bad things.

The supreme court DID NOT SAY that the police can stop and detain you for no reason. They said that the police can stop and ask you questions to help with a current criminal investigation to which you can refuse to answer or help. It is left up to the police in the short term to decide whats reasonable. But road blocks are still not allowed for general crime control. They can't just decide to stop traffic and walk a drug sniffing dog through your car. This is still against the law. However, if they see you snarfing down your dubage when they come to ask you about something unrelated they will arrest you at the "informational" stop.

I find this somewhat troubling, as someday it's going to make me late for something. But beyond that I'm not concerned yet. The real test will be when the police start using this and try to push it. It will be necessary for someone someday to bring another case to the courts when the police take advantage of it. But this does not actually make it any more legal than it is now for them to stop and search you.

Even today, behaving strangely to the police officer is enough probable cause to get you searched. As a teenager I've had my license run by officers on patrol just for walking through town as I guess being a teenager must be against the law. these things were illegal then, and they are still illegal now. however you have to prove it.

If the police happen to notice you're drunk when they ask you about the accident that happened here last week then they can arrest you. And good thing too. But they are specifically NOT allowed to stop you just for the sake of seeing what illegal things you might be doing. Keep your pipe under the seat and you'll be OK.

deciding probable cause is always dicey. Just look how many crooks are caught through a "routine traffic stop" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Even before this law, the police officer only had to say "he was swerving in traffic your honor in a way that made me suspect him of DUI" and you say "I was not! and the 100 pounds of cocaine in the trunk were found illegally!" the judge isn't going to be particularly sympathetic. But then, the people that aren't arrested dont normally take it to that level. I did not sue the local police because they harassed me as a teenager...

EDIT: indeed, as I think further on this I feel more strongly about it. If your child was snatched you'd want the police to setup a road block and ask everybody on the road about it as soon as possible wouldn't you? And then you'd want them to do it again next week when the same people might be driving to the same places that might have seen something? In the case before the court, a 70 year old guy on a bicycle was killed in a hit and run and the police were asking people if they saw anything. You say "no officer" and drive on or you help. If you saw something and DON"T come forward then the hell with you. You should help.

Tell me again how this lets them erode your civil rights? again, they can't just stop everyone to see whats in your trunk. But they can stop you to ask you if last week you saw anything strange here because something bad happened.

If you happen to give them probable cause to search you at this point thats your own problem. I know this will be abused to a certain extend, police power often is, but it is not a blank search warrant for every car on the road!

 

[Greta]

[ QUOTE ]
Avix said:
Congress can limit free speach.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what instance? Please post a link for me? Thanks... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
the govt doesn't have to make public the names of people arrrested or detained nor make public the warrents under which they are detained.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually like this one... (would still like to see the precedent though)... what if someone is wrongly accused? You see the police blotters full of arrests but you never see how it turned out in court. So a guy comes through my line at KMart and I see his name on his credit card and all I know is that he was arrested for child molestation... he's a pedophile... or is he? I don't know how it turned out in court. His life is ruined.

[ QUOTE ]
you can be interogated at any time by any LEO as long as you are on a public road.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interrogated? Let's not over exaggerate here, ok? You can be questioned regarding an investigation. How is that an infringement of your rights? If it's your child that is missing or your loved one who was run over in a hit and run, are you going to be so righteous? Doubt it... I know I'd be the first one demanding roadblocks on all exits and entrances to the city and I'd be right there making sure that not one vehicle was missed in the "interrogation".

[ QUOTE ]
people forget, the Constitution and BoR are documents limiting what the GOVORNEMT may and may not do. not what Citizens may and may not do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. But it does not limit the government in growing with the citizens. As the citizens come up with new and exciting ways to circumvent the laws of the government within the Constitution, the government has a responsibility to the citizens to keep up. Freedom of speech does not extend to those who would incite violence. Don't try to tell me that our founding fathers intended for that to be allowed. That's just ridiculous. Even back then, rabble rousers were tossed in the clink.

As with everything else, it seems that all of this too is up to interpretation... yours, mine, the SCOTUS... I interpret it as it states. No more, no less... no huge leaps into an endless abyss of "what if's?". I live my life as a law abiding citizen... not on the edge of the law... well within the law. I have no problems whatsoever with this! I have my guns, I have my flashlights, I have my $40K swimming pool in the back yard and my $40K urban SUV in the front yard. I have no desire whatsoever to drive down the road drunk, or to run stop signs or drive 25 miles over the speed limit. My life is damn good and I'm very, very content. I don't live in fear... I live in peace. I'm not complacent and I'm not ignorant. I'm just a law abiding citizen of the United States of America and have no desire to be otherwise... 'cuz frankly, it just don't get any better than this... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif ... IMHO, of course... your mileage may vary...

 

[Greta]

Great Googley-Moogley!!! James and I actually agree on something... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/faint.gif

 

[gadgetboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
Great Googley-Moogley!!! James and I actually agree on something... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/faint.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

and unfortunately Justice Stevens disagrees with both of you when he said:

"In contrast to pedestrians, who are free to keep walking when they encounter police officers handing out fliers or seeking information, motorists who confront a roadblock are required to stop, and to remain stopped for as long as the officers choose to detain them."

 

[Greta]

Uh... ok gadgetboy... that's just a little bit different than being thrown into a deep dark hole or taken into custody as was implied with your statement. Being stopped at a roadblock and being questioned to help with a current criminal investigation is hardly the same thing. And it's hardly without probable cause. They are seeking information concerning a current criminal investigation. The probable cause is that you may know something that could help them. They can't just set up a roadblock on a whim. They have to show probable cause to the COURTS in order to set up these roadblocks and question citizens.

Again... HUGE leap!!!

 

[gadgetboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
The probable cause is that you may know something that could help them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sasha, I can't even begin to state how incorrect some your statements have been today. Let alone the one above. Ask ANY ANY ANY police officer you can find what probable cause is -- PLEASE.

I will be back at my comp around 10ish mtn time. I can't believe what I'm reading in these posts...I mean crap if you want to talk HUGE leaps theyre the ones you are making from my original words to how you and James are paraphrasing. "DARK HOLE" unbelievable.

 

[Lux Luthor]

I hope this is on topic, but has anyone else ever been stopped by the U.S. border patrol? They stopped me in upstate NY a few months ago for no reason. They had a checkpoint set up, and stopped every single person. I would have seen this as being reasonable if they were looking for a specific person suspected of committing a crime. But to stop every single car on a highway and ask them general questions? I don't know about that.

 

[Drjones]

[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
Bravo... I think you're making such a huge leap here that it's no wonder that it scares the snot out of you. But I don't make that leap. I take this for what it is and what it is intended to be... nothing more. That doesn't scare me in the least bit.

BB... good posts! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't have a problem with being presumed guilty until proven innocent?

And as asked above; would you change your thoughts on this after a SWAT team invaded your home and dragged your husband away without even a hint of a reason why, where he will be held, for how long, etc?

This is a serious question, as it could very seriously happen now.

 

[BlindedByTheLite]

i'm stopped regularly by LEO's here for no reason..

should i assume they're stopping me to question me, in order to aid for an ongoing investigation?

or would baggy clothes and headphones = probable cause?