Posted on 01/21/2014 9:05:21 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Navarette v California, a case in which a wrong decision will effectively repeal the 4th Amendment rights of the American people.
The text of the 4th Amendment reads:
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 issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that “…law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest.” This reasonable suspicion standard...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
/johnny
Ah yes, it’s now the seriousness of the charge. Where have we heard that before?
We need a moratorium on hyperbole in topic titles. Unless it’s struck down via judicial review or Congress votes to repeal it, it isn’t repealed at all.
Is there going to be a requirement that the alleged tip be authenticated? Or can the cops say they got a tip and perform a search?
“We got a tip that you were a clone of Hitler, and you were about to commit genocide. So we did the search and 2 bags of weed. You’re under arrest.”
It takes an ammendment to repeal an ammendment, ala Prohibition.
War on drugs, war on terror, war on the American public is more like it.
That was in pre-bammy days.
I hope the Supremes rule broadly and correctly on this. “Probable cause” is unambiguous, and they should read the words exactly as written. The police lacked probable cause, so the evidence was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. Case closed. I would prefer to use such evidence in court and allow civil suits over the violation of rights, but that’s not the standard we follow.
Yes, the headline is wrong... but ignoring the provisions of an amendment is tantamount to the same thing, and regrettably has a fairly rich history that is building up.
It says ‘effectively’ repeal.
If the Supreme Court sets precedent for others to invade privacy and violate 4th Amendment rights, who needs an official repeal?
I've been putting up with that crap from a wacko SIL who says I'm stalking her and threatening her. She says she's going to go to the police, hasn't yet, but I've already been expected by one family member to somehow *prove* I wasn't doing it. I shudder to think what problems she could be causing me if she wasn't such a drunken moron. I actually considered anonymously ordering a couple of cases of vodka to be delivered to her house in the hope that she'd drink herself into a coma.
Point is, she goes to the cops, she doesn't have to provide any real evidence, just make the claim in order to cause me problems.
I don’t see the court getting rid of this requirement.. I have been in law enforcement for 23 years and always we have been told to have our own reasonable suspicion before stopping a vehicle, even if someone calls in a complaint. Only time I can recall a stop without was a brandishing call on an occupant of the vehicle. But we had the callers information and he was willing to give a statement...
Instead of fixing that, the powers that be choose to easier path to erode our constitutionally protected rights.
This is a warrant to search: Your house
For: Illegal stuff
Probable cause: Anonymous tip
Somehow this seems a little short of the original intent.
You should probably be documenting this very carefully and thoroughly. Threatening you with false arrest is probably a crime.
I would, at the very least, get written statements from any witnesses to her false and malicious behavior. At some point such evidence might be sufficient for a restraining order. I certainly wouldn't just ignore such threats.
There appears to be a presumption, perhaps slightly justified, that the first person in a conflict to call in the police is the one to be believed. You may want to be that person.
I'm not a lawyer, but if this was happening to me I would be consulting one with the reasonable expectation that the transgressor would eventually have to cover my legal costs.
They have been chipping away at the 4th Amendment for 25 years now. Sadly, too many people took the “if you haven’t done anything wrong you don’t need to worry” approach and, well . . . here we are. The “law and order” vote is the terribly mistaken belief that only the “criminals” need worry. The criminals are the ones who need worry the least. But, hey ... most of America cheered the passage of the Patriot Act so I don’t hold out much hope for what is left of our Republic. You see, people always think it’s “the other guy”. No, as far as the State (fed or local) is concerned, it’s you.
Not how it works.
I also think a lot of people simply don’t know that you are supposed to be able to travel freely within the US without being stopped and asked for your papers. Or using cones to funnel you to the side of the road so somebody can try to coerce you into letting them swab your mouth.
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.