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

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

I don't know about the specific law which covers such, but in my state it has always been accepted as legal for an officer to search a moving vehicle if i is stopped for "probable cause". ( Or almost any reason. )
I would guess this is to help assure the safety of the officers involved as many folks down here in the south are just barely civilized to begin with.
At any rate we don't seem to make much of it when we are stopped.




posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: teamcommander
a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

... safety of the officers...


If i have to hear about this excuse being the end all reason for ppl PAID to stand in harm's way to protect me from the dregs of society one more time, i swear to god i'm going to puke coat hangers!



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

It has already been proven our system is corrupt.. Ben Swann did a few hits on the news show he was on..
Then they didn't allow Libertarians to be on the ballots in NC.. ya...

a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy
The 2nd amendment is in place when all other amendments fail.. Soon we are getting there.. I aint condoning violence.. It is just an inevitable thing that happens when you keep kicking that damn dog in the corner.. Sooner or later it is going to bite the crap out of you and their will be jack you can do about it.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThichHeaded



So So So highjacked me..



So So So highjacked me..


Great minds!
edit on 30-4-2014 by LrdRedhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

What you are describing is the definition of "probable cause" without it, they cannot do anything. Smelling weed, suspecting you are drunk, hearing noises etc. are the very definition of probable cause. There is no "other" law that lets them search on suspicion alone. My point, however is that they can define probable cause however they see fit, and that is where the abuse lies.

In all of the examples I gave, there were no drugs in sight, no noises from the trunk. Those are all your examples which are blatant probable cause. The examples I gave were where there is no immediately visible crime, but "probable cause" that something illegal is going on. I was very specific in my examples.

If you read carefully, they are only aligning their state law with the current (and long-standing) federal definition which has for a long time allowed warrantless searches WITH probable cause.

Most states currently use this same definition. It is not new. It is not the beginning of a some systematic change. It has been interpreted in most states this way for a long time. It is however abused frequently. I am just trying to get across that this is not a new thing, just Pennsylvania adopting a federal view. Not saying it is right or good.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

Whether this law exists or not doesnt matter because there are other ways around it...Illinois had a "search" incident to arrest where cops would search the vehicle..they actually changed the law that said only the immidiate area...do you know what the cops did then? Well they started towing the vehicle but to tow it you have to do an "inventory"...during your inventory you may just happen to stumble upon things.

So they have access in another way...legally..but here is how to fight it...in my opinion if this happens to you id subpoena all their tow sheets and see ....are they more detailed after an arrest or during a standard tow...if their is a discrepancy id say you have grounds for a law suit...just an opinion.
edit on 30-4-2014 by cosmicexplorer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:18 AM
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.


George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, know all about being domestic terrorists.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:24 AM
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.


Honest moral men. Name a group of 10 people in the US right now who, without it already being the established law of the land could come up with a document offering atleast as many protections as the constitution, and a better political system.

In a country of 310,000,000 I honestly do not believe we even have 10 such people on the national/state/local stages.


a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy
The 2nd amendment is in place when all other amendments fail.. Soon we are getting there.. I aint condoning violence.. It is just an inevitable thing that happens when you keep kicking that damn dog in the corner.. Sooner or later it is going to bite the crap out of you and their will be jack you can do about it.


We are already there. Military hardware is used as a police tool on American citizens, this very subforum is proof of that. We have more jailed per capita than Stalin, our prisons are a mix of slave labor camps and rape rooms, our constitutional rights do not exist. I don't own a gun, my choice to not own one makes me equally as guilty as those who do but didn't use them. To claim the 2nd is some ultimate protection well... even the 2nd amendment has failed because the time to use it has already come and gone. It did nothing.
edit on 1-5-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: schadenfreude

Since you seem to be ejoying this display of histaria, allow me to furture expound upon my statement as to the safety and protection of the officers involved.
You see, in my state we still have people who carry a case of dinomite with them for fishing. There are even some who would not hesitate to throw a slick or two out the car window, from time to time, just for the hell of it. Specially when they have had a pint or so to drink, and there may be five or six guys in any vehicle at any time. These same people WILL carry loaded weapons of all kinds in their cars, drunk or sober. Imagine "Deliverance" on wheels.
When you deal with these people daily you soon get a sense of caution.
It is not that they are bad people, they were raised this way and don't care to know any better. Actually a police officer needs more protection from them than the general population does.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
What difference does it make. If you refuse the search they can detain you until a warrant is signed. Also, you just threw away your chance of getting a state citation instead of going to the crossbar hotel, and saved yourself thousands of dollars. Of course it also counts a point against your driving privileges.

Refusing a search is insanely stupid.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: spooky24
What difference does it make. If you refuse the search they can detain you until a warrant is signed. Also, you just threw away your chance of getting a state citation instead of going to the crossbar hotel, and saved yourself thousands of dollars. Of course it also counts a point against your driving privileges.

Refusing a search is insanely stupid.



That's just another way of saying your constitutional right to be free from a search doesn't exist.

If I'm doing nothing wrong, why do they get to search me?



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   


That's just another way of saying your constitutional right to be free from a search doesn't exist. If I'm doing nothing wrong, why do they get to search me?


Because driving is a privilege not a right. You are involved in a situation in which your actions could injury or kill someone else and they have the right not to encounter someone who is operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous and illegal fashion.

If you don't want your vehicle searched take the bus. Millions of other persons accept that condition as part of their driving privilege. If you don't give a patrol officer a reason to suspect you then it's never a problem.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: spooky24



That's just another way of saying your constitutional right to be free from a search doesn't exist. If I'm doing nothing wrong, why do they get to search me?


Because driving is a privilege not a right. You are involved in a situation in which your actions could injury or kill someone else and they have the right not to encounter someone who is operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous and illegal fashion.

If you don't want your vehicle searched take the bus. Millions of other persons accept that condition as part of their driving privilege. If you don't give a patrol officer a reason to suspect you then it's never a problem.


Then why was I pulled over for "driving suspiciously"? Why was I then searched for "smelling alcohol"? It was nothing more than a random stop where they hoped to get lucky and find something. No actual reason behind it.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Honest moral men. Name a group of 10 people in the US right now who, without it already being the established law of the land could come up with a document offering atleast as many protections as the constitution, and a better political system.

In a country of 310,000,000 I honestly do not believe we even have 10 such people on the national/state/local stages.


We had one, but I heard he was bat sh*t crazy.. Thats what the news told me..(ironic sarcasm)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThichHeaded

originally posted by: Aazadan
Honest moral men. Name a group of 10 people in the US right now who, without it already being the established law of the land could come up with a document offering atleast as many protections as the constitution, and a better political system.

In a country of 310,000,000 I honestly do not believe we even have 10 such people on the national/state/local stages.


We had one, but I heard he was bat sh*t crazy.. Thats what the news told me..(ironic sarcasm)


I'm not so sure Ron Paul was capable either. He was a constitutionalist, by definition he stuck to what it said, because that's what it said. While I somewhat liked him as a politician and even voted him for president, I wouldn't say he was wise enough to be able to see beyond his own circumstances and design a system that creates liberty. He could only defend one that others built for him.





new topics




 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join