Posted on 05/29/2018 11:15:47 AM PDT by zeugma
You will find full the opinion listed as Collins vs. Virgina at the Supreme Court website - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/17
You might also be interested in reading through the Oral Arguments before the court. You'll find that here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1027_p4k8.pdf.
I tried to get rid of most of the funky characters from this, but I might have missed some.
RBG?......................
It’s interesting that probable cause didn’t enter into this.
But now that I think about it, he was not SURE it was the stolen bike. Rather, he was just “pretty sure”. He wasn’t sure until he entered the enclosed area and ran the title. That is the same as seeing, through the window of a house, a plant in the window that, though severely obscured, may be a pot plant. You would need a warrant unless it is OBVIOUSLY a pot plant.
He needed a warrant.
If he saw the stolen motorcycle on Facebook why is that not probable cause?
Note to self - always keep stolen motorcycles under tarps!
Could have probably used that fakebook entry to get a warrant, but he decided he didn't need one.
LOL. Yes, it didn't work in that case.
The cop should have said, “A big gust of wind came up and blew the tarp off!”......................
He should have gotten the warrant first.
It’s not like he didn’t know where the bike was kept.
So the cop was right about the motorcycle.
It’s always interesting to see when Supreme Court justices with very different political philosophies about the Constitution, and their own roles, concur on a case centered on a fundamental Constitutional right.
So what?
Yes. We're all so much safer when the police can lie with impunity.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution exists for a reason.
That’ll part right out.
Just sayin’.
Alito’s ‘Originalist’ dissent:
” Since the First Congress sent the Bill of Rights to the States for ratification, we have often looked to laws enacted by that Congress as evidence of the original understanding of the meaning of those Amendments. See, e.g., id., at 150–151; Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (slip op., at 7–8); United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U. S. 579, 585–586 (1983); United States v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606, 616–617 (1977). Carroll itself noted that the First Congress enacted a law authorizing officers to search vessels without a warrant. 267 U. S., at 150–151. Although this statute did not expressly state that these officers could cross private property such as wharves in order to reach and board those vessels, I think that was implicit. Otherwise, the statute would very often have been ineffective. And when Congress later enacted similar laws, it made this authorization express. See, e.g., An Act Further to Prevent Smuggling and for Other Purposes, §5, 14 Stat. 179. For this reason, Officer Rhodes’s conduct in this case is consistent with the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment, as explicated in Carroll. “
So what happens now that they know where the stolen MC is and who stole it? Does the thief get to keep it?
thanks for posting
Ironically he probably could have waited for the guy to get home (which he did anyway) just walked up to him in the driveway and said “I’d like to talk to you about that stolen motorcycle.” The thief would probably have just given up. Police are allowed to lie.
Get a warrant! It’s not that hard. If it is time sensitive, judges are available for TELEPHONIC warrants.
The CONSTITUTION is pretty clear on this (look at the broad range of Justices that agreed). This was what I would call bad (lazy or inexperienced officer) police work.
Oldplayer
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.