Posted on 04/19/2024 12:39:09 PM PDT by nickcarraway
And, apparently, you have your panties in a twist because someone doesn’t agree with you?
This decision usurps the Constitutional protections against illegal search, IMO.
There are many supporters of the police state here. Always has been. Most of us already know on which side gator firmly stands.
I know, but I have to keep asking him. Someday he might think rationally and surprise me. :)
“This decision usurps the Constitutional protections against illegal search, IMO.”
While that is a gray area because he was a parolee. It is absolutely forced self incrimination for sure.
Forced self incrimination should always be a huge no no in any and all cases. Especially physical forced self incrimination. That is akin to torture to get a confession.
“But it is another cup of lard on the slippery slope, I’ll grant you.”
Thank you for the wise logic.
Here is the problem. In our current dysfunctional unconstitutional justice system, this is just one case away from being misinterpreted and taken out of context by a different (unquestioned) judge in another case in another court and being applied to a non-parolee. That will set precedent for all future cases universally.
It will then be law until taken to the Supreme Court and struck down. Then the individual states will defy the Supreme Court and practice it anyhow. We should have learned by now that all things that give the current justice system one inch they will abuse into a mile if they can get away with it.
This current real pattern is pretty much unquestionable.
Parolees agree to let the police search them as a condition of parole. So no constitutional violation.
“Someday soon the government may force us to carry a phone at all times.”
Someday soon, elected constitutional sheriffs may arrest all gestapo cops operating in their county.
But they cannot force self incrimination.
This is not about him being a parolee, this is about this ruling being used in the future to self incriminate non-parolees.
You don’t see the pattern in how this really works yet? The seed is being planted.
Again... Today parolees tomorrow everyone universally.
Bet on it....
“And, apparently, you have your panties in a twist because someone doesn’t agree with you?”
Obviously you have no idea of the facts.
“This decision usurps the Constitutional protections against illegal search, IMO.”
It is a legal search. Courts since when have ruled that inmate and parolees don’t have that protection!
“While that is a gray area because he was a parolee. It is absolutely forced self incrimination for sure.”
The law requires him to submit to searches including giving up his phone.
“There are many supporters of the police state here. Always has been. Most of us already know on which side gator firmly stands.”
I support the facts. Try learning the facts before posting.
I am guessing you are a fighter for more inmate and parolee rights.
Wow. You and I can have our national convention in the former phone booth behind an abandoned video rental building next to the newsstand.
I have a burner phone like other criminals for calling car emergency service.
Nonsense.
It is akin to taking the keys out of my pocket and opening the door to my house in order to illegally search it.
Fingerprinting is used for identification at a police station, not as keys to a lock. This should be overturned.
It's why I only use a PIN or pattern swipe. I have no biometrics on my devices.
-PJ
We both read the same facts.
We disagree.
That is why it’s America.
But, you have a great day...
Lol! The decision cites the specific law so no danger of being misinterpreted. Access by police to cellphones prior to conviction is well established.
Did these justices get their law degrees from a box of Cap’n Crunch?
“We both read the same facts.
We disagree.
That is why it’s America.
But, you have a great day...”
The parolee gives up rights. A condition of parole is to submit to searches and turn over his phone.
Do you also think that searches of parolees person and abode are unconstitutional?
This is the seed to change that...
“This is the seed to change that...”
Your logic implies that since a warrant is not needed to search s parolee’s house some judge will decide that warrantless searches of suspects’ homes is legal thus we should make it a law that a warrant is required to search a parolee’s home.
America is finished. Those with intelligence and economic means will be leaving.
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.