It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It’s not a Fourth Amendment search if a cop swipes your credit card, court finds

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I also want to mention that "credit" transactions don't always need a zip code, but does require a signature. If they forge your signature, that is illegal.




posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

* - Whren vs. United States

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), was a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision[1] that "declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop."

The case's Supreme Court syllabus states that the court held that "the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective." In other words, it does not matter if the traffic stop was pretextual, so long as there was independent justification for the stop.


As long as the initial stop is valid pursuing another line of investigation is permissible. Now, some states restrict law enforcement ability to expand an investigation beyond the initial reason for the stop but even in those cases exceptions exist. For instance a moving violation of failing to signal and the driver being intoxicated.

If a person driving down the road fails to signal when making a right hand turn at an intersection, and upon contact by law enforcement, who witnessed the violation,the driver is visibly intoxicated (intoxicating odor present, slurred speech) is the officer solely restricted to the moving violation or can he investigate the possible dwi?
edit on 11-6-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thats the new one... off of this case isnt it? What im speaking of is two other decisions one said they couldnt transition unless probable cause like in plain sight... nor detain for over 20 minutes for routine stop unless in plain sight probable for another. Two different rulings... that are precidence over this ruling. Thinking you smell something is not probable cause plain view however is and even without consent in plain view for actual probable cause the officer requires a warrant to escalate tis is federal law mind you... states however have their own set which can make tings a nightmare with 51 different constitutions and so many federally illegal statutes and laws on the books... this is why there are so many debates and cries for states rights, sure it keeps from sweeping legislation but it also allows for sweeping descrimination... which is why weve been hearing so much in the news lately.

NC is a huge discriminator on rights so the bathroom topic has shed some light... the DOT will discriminate individuals on sight with medical forms of they are limping walking with a cane or even appear ahem to whatever unprofessional on hand johnny on the spot eval they wanna make push papers at you and say heres a temp paper one for a month or flat deny you until you get astronaught style tests no doctor wants to fill out except DOT "approved" ones cause they are legally liable if they say yep and accident occurs... so can you smell a scam and corruption? Yarp especially when voter registraition is tied in and they can profile you into this medical program at whim with no medical training just descrimination... and thats exactly what it is. Then the nerve to say driving is a priviledge when tax payers pay for all the roads their salaraies and upkeep and with federal funds that make this whole discrimination scam illegal... someone figured that since there was a commercial unit medical review branch how they could bridge it into the private sector side to screw undersirables at whim and on sight... violates at least 4 federal laws.

So states rights? Pffft not gonna hear me being for that argument any time soon.
edit on 11-6-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Thats the only ruling im familiar with with regards to traffic stops and an investigation going beyond the reason for the stop. The decision was from 1996.


There was a recent scotus ruling that allows police to conduct a traffic stop based off of a 3rd party tip and it allows the person reporting to remain anonymous.

A recent supreme court ruling restricts an officers ability to prolong a traffic stop while waiting for a drug dog to arrive. In this case the sgt. is a k9 handler.

Scotus has ruled a traffic stop should run about 20 minutes but its not an absolute. An officer can detain for longer but the officer will be required to justify the extended length should anything go to court. The 20 minutes is a guideline and not an absolute.

An officers ability to identify a substance by smell is admissible and the officer will be grilled on their experience and training. Secondly the k9 was present in this case and the dog confirmed what the officer smelled.

The reason we hear so much in the news is because the media will only report on what goes wrong and not on what goes right as thats not news worthy. The media likes to fill in the blanks using their own guesses / ignorance.

As for NC and DOT I have no idea what you are referring to.

As for states rights even they are subordinate the the Constitution. Any issues that deal with potential constitutional violations is by definition a federal issue that can be resolved at the federal level.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yep thats the stuff im talking about... and yeah it has been thrown at the federal level but state attorney lets the state drag things out so it sits without resolution forever... then theres state legislation where tey can just toss and refuse to hear it in no less than two years rinse repeat and it gets put off indefinitely... this system got jacked up by Jessie Helms and the boys for over 50 solid years... stuff is so entrenched its dug halfway to China, they have tried to chase the movie industry out with higher and higher fees simply because of the transexuals etc or artist types and now that they used the entertainment industry to grow they want to give them the boot then discriminate out those they deem undersirable.

Leeches with no appreciation for all the industry and growth... of course when I went to college in Alabama gov was similar theyd ban with the local churches and shut down any place teens might gather like coffee shops etc with any free expression and all the kids basically hung out in Walmart parking lots on weekends with no where to go with rampant teenage pregancy numbers in a stuck cycle of small town rinse repeat vortex... lol being covered in tattoos I was always followed in was hillarious as ive no criminal record of any sort and near 4.0 total gpa with 3 colleges under my belt... so hey I know some good old fashioned discrimination we dont take kindly to yer kind around here types. Silly business... where if you even seem like you like an opposing college football or basketball team you could be lynched or one of the family. I didnt pick sides it just meant more bbq invites...

Small town america well those are the values Ive seen the pander to keep and um thats like jumping out a hole neck deep for kids these days from starting on their knees of course.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
Swipe my card isn't a crime? Fine. But taking my money is still theft. Some hacker needs to develop software that empties out police department accounts when an infected card is swiped. That will show those theaving bastards.

People on here keep mentioning that the cops took his money. As I said in an earlier post, I didn't see that in the article that the OP posted.

Can someone please post a link to the information that says this guy's money or assets were taken by the cops? Thanks.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Yet another dissappointing verdict. What a sham



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

They didn't take his money. The cards that were seized were fraudulent and he was charged. There is another thread along similar lines where the guys money was seized via civil forfeiture.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
Yet another dissappointing verdict. What a sham


Not at all please read ALL the facts and not just the op source which intentionally left out a LOT of relevant info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


(post by readingnews16 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join