Supreme court gone south.

Bravo25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,129
Location
Kansas, USA
So now I can be stopped, detained, and questioned for no other reason, than a LEO wants to "databse" information from me. Does anyone else see where this is going?
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
Do you have a link to an article so that we can all read what you're referring to?
 

gadgetboy

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
50
Location
TX
Here's a link:
Supreme Disaster

When you add this to the decision the day before that says the us gov't can now hold certain people in complete secrecy without due process, it's even more frightening.
 

oldgrandpajack

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
931
I've seen this being done for years. I don't have a problem with it. I can understand how some may be frightened by it though.
oldgrandpajack
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
As with everything else, I have nothing to hide... so this really doesn't bother me. And I guess I would be grateful for something like this if my child were missing or it were someone that I loved who had been the victim of a crime. Maybe I'm just getting too complacent in my old age... this stuff just doesn't rile me.
 

Bravo25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,129
Location
Kansas, USA
The way I see it everyone should be frightened by it. One day our kids will have to ask permission to go to the toilet because it is out of range of the locator chip they are implanted with, and having no recourse when they are denied.
Don't see it happening? I am quite sure that our founding fathers didn't see yesterdays supreme court rulling coming either.
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
I usually have a problem with these type of court cases... It is written and adjudicated has some sort of high policy about, in this case, illegal searches. But in reality, in this case, about some drunk trying to get the evidence tossed:

[ QUOTE ]
Authorities in Lombard, Ill., got no helpful tips that night in the death of a 70-year-old bicyclist, but they arrested Lidster after police said he nearly hit an officer with his minivan.

[/ QUOTE ]

My belief that the original rules tossing evidence of illegal activities as "punishment" directed towards law enforcement have been an easy cop-out by courts so that defendants can win the "lottery." Also, this is an "easy" court decision to throw this or that search out of court because "nobody" is harmed by tossing evidence (other than society--IMHO).

I know that there are many LEO's on this board--what would be your concerns if the law was "if rights are violated, the evidence is still allowed, but the officer/department is truly punished for illegal searches?"

I believe that courts will be much less likely to let otherwise guilty free if there was a difficult downside to their decisions (such as sending an otherwise upstanding officer to jail for two years) because some judge decided that a car trunk cannot be opened at a traffic stop (courts writing laws instead of interpreting them).

And, from what I have seen, police are already criminally and civilly liable for illegal conduct--so there would not seem to be much risk to change the way these rulings are executed anyway.

-Bill
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
[ QUOTE ]
Bravo25 said:
The way I see it everyone should be frightened by it. One day our kids will have to ask permission to go to the toilet because it is out of range of the locator chip they are implanted with, and having no recourse when they are denied.
Don't see it happening? I am quite sure that our founding fathers didn't see yesterdays supreme court rulling coming either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still remember my kindergarten/school years (40+ years ago)--I had "...to ask permission to go to the toilet..." Had nothing to do with implanted chips or GPS.

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."

Remember these "new" cultural customs are based on the fact that the criminals cannot control themselves from attacking other members of our societies. How about implanting these chips in felons and making them "ask permission" to go to the bathroom, leave home, jail or before they attack us or our kids again and again and again...

-Bill
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
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
 

gadgetboy

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
50
Location
TX
It's really not a matter of having anything to hide. On Ft. Bliss I go through check points and vehicle searches every day. They don't bother me. Every highway leaving el paso has a border patrol checkpoint with more questions and more searches. I'm used to them too and certainly not afraid of them. The el paso police dept uses "safety checkpoints" (oka-ticket writing parties), and roadblocks for fugatives, DUI and missing children already exist. The constitutionality of all of these can be debated, but what we're talking about is different. The highest court in America now says that you can be detained with no probable cause, so when people say they "FEAR" this they don't mean the checkpoints, they mean the erosion of the US constitution.
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
[ QUOTE ]
The highest court in America now says that you can be detained with no probable cause,...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I must be stuck on dumb this morning... I didn't see that in the link provided or hear/see it elsewhere. Could you please help me out and provide a direct quote and link? Thanks much... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Off to work... I'll be back in a few hours! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 

gadgetboy

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
50
Location
TX
Thanks for the homework Sasha /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif I'll look for quotes and links if I get a chance today. Hope you have a nice day at work. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 

Bravo25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,129
Location
Kansas, USA
[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
[ QUOTE ]
The highest court in America now says that you can be detained with no probable cause,...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I must be stuck on dumb this morning... I didn't see that in the link provided or hear/see it elsewhere. Could you please help me out and provide a direct quote and link? Thanks much... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Off to work... I'll be back in a few hours! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

"I would hope this wouldn't be an excuse for them to engage in willy-nilly roadblocks," said San Antonio, Texas, attorney Gerald Goldstein, former president of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "We're taking the officers at their word that they're looking for information and not looking at the occupants."


Ronald Allen, a law professor at Northwestern University, said the decision gives police "another reason to create a roadblock and to pull people over."


Breyer predicted the ruling would not lead to widespread roadblocks because of limited police funding and community hostility to traffic delays.

Short link by Saaby®
 

NoShadow

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
208
At first I thought, 'This topic is just a little afield from illumination tools'. Then it occured to me if we continue done this path it won't be long and we will,once again, return to the Dark Ages. You are correct. 100% correct. I,for one, stand with Nathan Hale. "I know not what course others may take. But,as for me, give me liberty or give me death." Sept. 11,2001 ,as destructive as it was, has become the catalyst for the power grabbers to scrap our beloved Constitution,Bill of Rights, established law all in the phony name of security. We should fear the so-called Patriot Act far more than a thousand terrorists. I do. I believe my 'security' comes for the Supreme Being who has numbered my days. Just think was has happened here. Because a dozen ,give or take a few, lawless men commit an act of murder and sabotage the apathetic masses are willing to submit to what has loathsome resemblence to Germany in the mid forties. We had a good example in the RICO laws. This body of law was enacted to combat organized crime. Not long after, it was applied to those who demonstrated -- for the most part peacefully -- outside abortion clinics. You asked where are we headed. I think you and I clearly know and we need to make our voices heard. The loss of life was extensive as well as was the cost of property destroyed. But that isn't the greatest victory for those who would bring us down. If we allow our liberties to be abolished we have only begun to see what damage they have caused. Be afraid,be very afraid of the dark.
 

NoShadow

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
208
Sasha.....I guarantee it would 'rile' you if a black clad squad of heavily armed men stormed into your home and dragged your husband or son or daughter for that matter away in shackles and wouldn't tell you a thing. Nothing! You labeled the problem. Complacency with a capital 'C'
 

jayflash

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 4, 2003
Messages
3,909
Location
Two Rivers, Wisconsin
As mentioned, when added to the mix of questionable new laws, the TREND is what is frightening. The constitution has been ignored in the over-zealous war on drugs and terror. Property and money is confiscated leaving some innocent people unable to defend themselves. Innocents have been killed in the pursuit of drug offenders. The reason for all of this is pure politics and the government's desire to control its citizens.

Politics was the only reason the federal government has withheld highway money from states that didn't reduce the legal alcohol limit to .08%. LEOs will tell you that the problem drinker/drivers are usually at .2% or higher. Why don't we retest every five years if safety is the real concern? There are so many absolutely awful and dangerous sober drivers killing others. Only politics prevents retesting.

Our excessive number of laws are, too often, politically motivated and, like the drug war, create greater injustices than the crimes they will, supposedly, eliminate.

Americans have been, willingly, forfeiting Constitutional rights that a million soldiers have died to protect. Even here at the CPF, those who have questioned our foreign and domestic policies have been called anti-American by some. If nobody ever questioned their government do you really think we'd be better off? The middle class is deteriorating even when we do try to hold our polititans accountable.

Having nothing to hide does not protect one from unjust persecution. Why does the government need my library records? I've lived here for 51 years and work within the system to effect change. I've always read about guns and other weaponry; should I stop just to be on the safe side? Could I fit a certain profile? What if my kid or his friend accidently download a child porn site? I could go to prison because I've no money for self-defense.

Be afraid, be very afraid.
 

NoShadow

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
208
Sasha.....Bravo is looking at history and how things progress when left unto themselves. You said you are not afraid in the least. Well, I have heard it said many times that ignorance is bliss. Is bliss until it's you sitting in some cold damp hole being held without charges, without the ability to contact someone who cares for you, without any of the comforts and protections of the Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution and it's Bill of Rights ( These you know are an 'individuals rights' ) and no promise in the near future of being afforded any special consideration. 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." Understand if our forefathers had said as you have, we'd be under British rule today. If we aren't careful and watchful be sure of one thing....it can happen here.
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
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.

Civil forfeiture laws are easily abused by government agencies and should be declared unconstitutional (IMHO).

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
"Unlike a criminal trial where the government has to prove its case, hearings on civil forfeiture require people such as Jacob to prove the money is not proceeds from drug sales. It is a heavy burden for anyone in Jacob's position, but he could show business records to account for every cent."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that carrying cash ($7,500 to purchase a car in this case) should be illegal. And in any case, the government should prove guilt, not the defendant having to prove innocence.

-Bill
 

Kiessling

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 26, 2002
Messages
16,140
Location
Old World
The viewpoint of an outsider (non-US):
During my time on CPF I read various discussions about new laws and decisions like this one.
If I were you, I'd be concerned. Really concerned.
The direction you are heading is not a good one, it is state of fear where you might have to prove your innocence rather then the others needing to prove your guilt. Powerful police forces that can arrest anyone without a cause. Or just because he is demonstrating. And whatever else will come on this road ...
This is not only a problem of the criminals, can happen to anyone, even you. Even if you have nothing to hide. maybe just because a mischievous neighbour said something to someone who said something ... and suddenly you find yourself sitting in that cold cell being the subject of those special questioning techniques used upon terrorists nowadays ... you know what I am talking about.
It started like this in Germany back then, and we all know where it went.
Again, this is an outsider's view, and maybe I am missing something completely, but this stuff just bothers me.
bernhard
 

Empath

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 11, 2001
Messages
8,508
Location
Oregon
[ QUOTE ]
Bravo25 said:
I am quite sure that our founding fathers didn't see yesterdays supreme court rulling coming either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without comment regarding the decision, as to whether it's good or bad, the "sacredness" attributed to our founding fathers' wishes and intent is far more disconcerting than court decisions. Considering the intent and meaning of our founding fathers' words as absolute chiseled in stone sacredness would be nothing more than reducing American society and laws to a religion. The intent and wishes of our founding fathers can be clearly discerned by the lives they led and the society of their day. The intent of our founding fathers, as demonstrated by their lives and society, was to give white males some very exclusive rights, and permitted only the white males to offer input into the creation, interpretation, enactment, and execution of the laws governing everyone.

Fortunately, court decisions to the greatest degree, and legislation to a lesser degree has overturned those wishes and intents of our "founding fathers". They have seen the hypocrisy of the rights and privileges they envisioned exclusively for themselves, and seen that they should be for all people. Court decisions are time sensitive, and can be considered again should circumstances merit. Court decisions put only a dab of consideration into what "founding fathers" envisioned or intended, and puts greater emphasis on what is fair, and what can be permitted under the word of the law as written. The words, and every nuance is evaluated not only seeking reasonable rights for individuals, but also freedoms for the governing branches of our society to more effectively function. That's a heavy responsibility, and is certain to be unpopular, regardless of the outcomes. Hopefully, public opinion will always play the least role in their decisions.
 
Top