Supreme Court: Police may stop drivers based on "anonymous" tips.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nextone

I believe the liberal justices in recent decades have been more protective of individuals' rights against search and seizure. Justice Stevens, for example.

From the guy that wants to change the constitution?
What other examples do you have?

Justice Stevens was probably the most influential justice in recent decades for protecting citizens' rights with regard to search and seizure. Had there been more conservative justices, we would have significantly less rights in this respect than we do now. If you want another example of how liberal justices are more protective with regard to rights against search and seizure, here's a current story with regard to searching cellphones. You'll see that Justice Kagan wants to protect people's rights, and the most conservative justice, Justice Alito, wants to give everything to police.

Justices split on whether police can search cellphones during arrests

originally posted by: nextone
Justice Stevens was probably the most influential justice in recent decades for protecting citizens' rights with regard to search and seizure.

The same Justice Stevens who dissented in Heller? Was on the majority in Kelo? The same justice who could defend "citizens' rights" with Penn Central Transportation and then turn around and administer the horrendous Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council....

Yep; he was a shining beacon of citizens' rights.

Your whole premises is misguided and ill-informed.

Had there been more conservative justices, we would have significantly less rights in this respect than we do now. If you want another example of how liberal justices are more protective with regard to rights against search and seizure, here's a current story with regard to searching cellphones. You'll see that Justice Kagan wants to protect people's rights, and the most conservative justice, Justice Alito, wants to give everything to police.

Hogwash and I say that not to be meant that the other Justices are fantastic. Each of them have made terrible opinion and dissent (in our subjective views of the Constitution and Law). Stop cheer leading.


ETA:

You made a very narrow distinction that I missed in my initial read of your post: you stated "in regards to search and seizure"... in which he stoutly held firm on the 4th Amendment -- but other judges hold stoutly on other amendments also; Alito for instance holds strong on the First Amendment; Kennedy the Ninth and Tenth Amendments....

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: gladtobehere

If this is being interpreted properly, I as a police officer disagree with this decison.

In no way should an anonymous tip be considered reliable, and it definitely shouldn't be considered reasonable suspicion.

So basically someone that dislikes you can say that they saw you driving recklessly...

This will cause so many issues. This needs to be overturned.

Torquey, you must be a good cop. Because what's really gonna happen with this is going to be more like:

"Hey Joe, look at that guy, I bet he's up to something"
"Yeah, but he's driving so cautiously"
"No probs. I just got me one o' them anonymus tips HAR HAR HAR"
(sirens, lights)

"Sir, we received an anonymous tip that you have dope in your car, so based on that we're going to search you"

Of course, this sort of thing violates habeus corpus and the 4th amendment, but cops really NEED to be able to search whomever they'd like for the flimsiest of pretenses, ya know.

eta: not like it wasn't bad enough anyway. Cops have the most amazing noses, you know. "I smelled marijuana coming from your car as you drove past me at 70mph" Ya, right.

a reply to: gladtobehere

This isn't even a small stretch anymore, more like a huge leap in personal rights violations. Go back to bed 'Murica, you gov't is in control you sheep.

originally posted by: sarra1833
Glance at a police officer wrong because maybe you're thinking about an argument with a friend an hour before and you'll be taken down for looking like you want to kick the cops butt?

I've heard this called "aggressing them" and yeah, it gets their attention. It's probably the #2 thing that precipitates me speaking to police. Looking at them and shaking my head sadly. They don't like that a bit.

The thing that really pops them off is me looking at them and laughing. Just walking past, glancing at them, getting a big grin and breaking out into a laugh as I walk by. I have been stopped and attempted to intimidate 100% of the time I've done that. I just can't help it sometimes, though. If they're all roided out and decked out like faux Rangers with shades on and grim looks, it's so over the top I get tickled. And man, do they hate that. And no, guys, looking at you and going Har, Har! isn't grounds for a Terry.

eta: The first time this happened, the Huntsville, Al guys had just had their dress code changed so that street cops could wear SWAT looking regalia. They did. The next day every cop in town looked like something off Soldier of Fortune. We were in Rosie's eating lunch and in came a couple of them not only decked out but acting like they were off the set of 24 or something. I busted out laughing, and here they came. SIR SIR what is your problem, SIR? I said "I think you missed something" "WHAT" "You left off the STABO rig"

a reply to: gladtobehere

Revolution is coming. I hope you all are ready.

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: gladtobehere

Revolution is coming. I hope you all are ready.

Decade number three with the same clarion call as you put above...and I am sure if I ask my father and his father, they would tell me that the same was whispered then as it has now. I wish you luck in your revolution; though you are vague on its breadth.

Of course, this sort of thing violates habeus corpus

Since you can't spell it it's habeas corpus Latin for a body of rights-more or less. How could that violate habeas corpus when it applies only after you are arrested.

Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without any individualized suspicion.

That is the ruling concerning the 4th Amendment and informant information.

So, you are wrong about both.

So we're right back where we started with the British claiming general warrant to do anything they want to you and your property.

I guess we're just waiting on those first shots at this point. Sad thing is in today's America when they fire on us the media will blame us for being in harms way and laud them for their glorious patriotic duty to put holes in our heads.