Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Supreme Court: Pennsylvania cops no longer need a warrant to search citizens’ vehicles

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Link to source


The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.

Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.

That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.

Well, then. Cops in Pennsylvania no longer need a warrant to search your vehicle. As long as they have "probable cause" you have no rights.



“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...” Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.

This came to be because cops pulled over and siezed 2 pounds of weed from some guy who refused a police search. So, in the name of busting the .0001% of drivers who are transporting copious amounts of drugs in their cars, the entire state of Pennsylvania has to lose its rights. The drug war is such a failed concept as it is, but I don't even want to get into that here. Instead of taking away our rights, they could follow the steps of Colorado and legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. Oh no, that would make too much sense! Why be proactive in solving a societal problem when you can just use it as an excuse to implement draconic laws and strip citizens of their rights?



“It’s an expanding encroachment of government power,” defense attorney Jeffrey Conrad said Wednesday morning, while reviewing the opinion. “It’s a protection we had two days ago, that we don’t have today. It’s disappointing from a citizens’ rights perspective.”

Christopher Patterson, another veteran defense lawyer, said: “I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement.”




posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
This is the problem in a nutshell.....
The police and the government will keep expanding police powers indefinitely.....(one only needs to look backwards to see how far they have come....)
SWAT,Armoured cars,Drones,Radar,(and many more technological advances that allow snooping spying, warrantless searches,) and indefinite detainment, secret proceedings and trials.... )
There is NO limit to the demands that will be enacted upon our freedom.....
ANYONE who understands the concept of LIBERTY......MUST oppose this constant encroachment the system will NEVER STOP trying to accomplish.....That's the way it works....

The tree of Liberty,...must, from time to time....
Be watered with the blood, of freemen, and tyrants alike....

Either stand for liberty, or get on your knees.....



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy


“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,”


Probable cause defined as, "We decided to search because we felt there was probably something in there".



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: stirling

What do you suggest? Citizens take up arms against the govt? I don't think that's reasonable. Any small insurrection by the people will be spun as domestic terrorism.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The lawyers in Pennsylvania aren't worth the paper their degrees are printed on if they allowed this kind of legislation to be passed. Someone proposed and voted for this. It didn't come out of thin air.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Rolls eyes... Not likely. This isn't communist China. It's America. a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

edit on PM000000300000000441839302014-04-30T12:39:03-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)
edit on PMu30u0441839302014-04-30T12:39:22-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
It doesn't have to be taking up arms. More like picking up signs. No reaction needs to be THAT extreme. a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

A lot of states have this stance. It is nothing new. The idea that they can search your car with probable cause is the same as the reason they can search your house with probable cause (i.e., a neighbor says he saw a fleeing suspect go into your house -- no warrant required) . The big problem is that "Probable cause" can be defined very loosely and with no burden of proof in any given situation.

The spirit of the law would be that if they smell pot or alcohol in your car, see some bomb making materials, see dye on the upholstery after a recent bank robbery etc, that they would have the right to search. Seems to make sense and as I said, many states already have this stance. However, often, they just have to say "I smell pot", or I see a bunch of (legal) meth ingredients. They have no burden of proof to show that there was in fact any probable cause. This is how the abuse of the law takes place.

On the other hand, without this kind of law, they would have to sit and wait for a warrant if they saw blood on the seat, and some bloody woman's clothing in a bag all the while somebody is dying in the trunk.

The way it should be defined is require a warrant unless delaying the search would cause possible imminent harm to someone, or public property.
edit on 30-4-2014 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I guess this is what this site is all about. Extremist with a cause. Good golly miss Molly. a reply to: stirling



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

cardboard paper against bullets & steel?

that doesn't sound like a fair fight at all.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

OMFG! The daily erosion of our rights has really been making me more and more angry, but what irks me even more than that is why in the world does everyone just sit back and ALLOW them to keep on doing this?!
It's become SO blatantly obvious what their agenda is, so WHEN are we going to do something about it?!

Martin Niemöller said it best:

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
edit on 30-4-2014 by LrdRedhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DestroyDestroyDestroy
a reply to: stirling

What do you suggest? Citizens take up arms against the govt? I don't think that's reasonable. Any small insurrection by the people will be spun as domestic terrorism.


So you suggest we kiss the foot attached to the iron boot?

Screw that.. I will gladly be a terrorists if that's the case..

Remember 1 mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter..

Oh in case you havent been paying attention.. It already has been spun that way..

Sen. Reid calls supporters of Nevada rancher Bundy 'domestic terrorists'

But man.. really.. Remember this also.. God history is awesome.. I would swear if things like this happened I could have swore some people who may be still alive are like De Ja Vu..

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. "

Remember you may not be something, but in time you will be.. and when that time comes.. Nobody will be around to help you because YOU decided to obey..

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

So So So highjacked me..



originally posted by: Halfswede
On the other hand, without this kind of law, they would have to sit and wait for a warrant if they saw blood on the seat, and some bloody woman's clothing in a bag all the while somebody is dying in the trunk.
The way it should be defined is require a warrant unless delaying the search would cause possible imminent harm to someone, or public property.


Could care less... Why?? Ya that god damn piece of paper...

You know.. what does it say?? oh ya this..
Amendment IV: 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.

Damn that constitution.. Damn it.. Damn it to Hellz I tellz ya.

I also want to point out that You going to give your right up just because that very small percent of people who are axe murderers?
edit on 4/30/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
I guess this is what this site is all about. Extremist with a cause. Good golly miss Molly. a reply to: stirling



Did you just call Thomas Jefferson an extremist?

OP - This is just more tightening of the screws from every direction of the controllers. Courts do not serve the people much anymore.

One way we could maybe fight back is have a total boycott of the elections, all of them. Maybe a 100% tax holiday year or so by everyone as well. Cut off their air supply.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

Son you haven't learned? There would still be votes from someone... And always for the person they want in..



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

That's not true. They already have the power to search your car if they see weed, suspect you are drunk, hear somebody kicking around in the trunk, etc.

What this law does is eliminate the in-between. Your car is not government property; they have (or rather, had) no right to search it without your consent if you do not consent to a search. However, they have always been able to search your car without a warrant if they see drugs lying around.

If the drugs aren't in plain sight, they should need a warrant. They are even able to detain you for a few days while they obtain a warrant.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded

I don't think that armed rebellion will solve anything. Violent revolution accomplishes nothing; it just creates chaos and, should it be "successful," power vacuums. We need to change the system by putting honest, moral men in positions of power.

Of course, this is easier said than done, but it's juvenile naivety to think that fighting government footsoldiers, i.e. cops, is going to have any positive affect on the law. You can't cut off the head of the hydra; you must aim for the heart.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
It's only the state supreme court, and I have no doubt it will be overturned.

Regardless, if they're going to start doing this they damn well better be crystal clear as to what they're defining as probable cause. And there better be film. Because we all know damn well that cops lie for a living. Window tint too dark, my ass. Baby screaming inside, my ass.
edit on 4/30/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

i think certain men named Washington, Franklin & Jefferson may disagree with your statement.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
LOL, yeah that decision will go over like a lead balloon here in Pa. Lets not forget this is an open carry state and as such many people here hunt therefore carry openly and concealed. A recipe for disaster....



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ThichHeaded



Son you haven't learned? There would still be votes from someone... And always for the person they want in..


Yeah there would but can you imagine how the politicians and America would look globally if something like the following occurred:
    Jeb Bush wins the presidency with 7,268 votes, .001% of the US votes!
    -or-
    Hilary Clinton wins White House amidst turnout of 9,026 US voter's!

At least the globe would see what a sham this whole thing is.

ETA - Whoops, I forgot about the crooked voting machines. My bad.
edit on 844pm3838pm22014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join