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.

 

Supreme Court Says Police May Search Even If Arrest is Invalid!

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Supreme Court Says Police May Search Even If Arrest is Invalid!


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I'm starting to feel like I'm stuck in the middle of a bad dream that I can't wake up from...Bye bye more rights! Now illegal search and seizure is now LEGAL search and seizure! Thanks to the ever-corrupted and crony-laiden Supreme Courts! One more step towards total police state enforcement!

So now all cops have to do is 'suspect' you 'might' have done something wrong---and NO WARRANT IS NECESSARY! They can violate and ransack away without fear of violating laws that have been in place for ages!


The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.


^^^I BET THEY DID!!^^^ It coincides perfectly with everything they're trying to implerment against the populace!


The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency.




news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 23-4-2008 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Now illegal search and seizure is now LEGAL search and seizure!

DD, please tell me that you are actually in another dimension, doing your detective work there, and then bringing it back here... DD..? DD...? Please...?

Following your 'step' line of thought... welcome to the point where one foot stepped completely inside the "police state" door


From your Y source:

Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.


And chalk another one up to this ridiculous War on (petty) Drug (offenses). I'm not particularly interested in keeping this guy in jail, spending tax-payer money, from somewhere, all b/c of a moving violation and a little crack... ridiculo-U.S.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RabbitChaser
 



The most bewidering, head-scratching thing is that there are STILL, right on this very site, PEOPLE IN DENIAL that we are headed towards this! You see comments like "This won't happen"..."Stop being paranoid"..."It could never happen" etc.,etc....And yet, day by day, these stories, and incremental steps, with all the writing on the wall are there, as clear as day, for anyone who actually opens their eyes and LOOKS! It's not a matter of "speculation"---THIS IS HAPPENING PEOPLE! WAKE UP!


[edit on 23-4-2008 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Flagged and Starred!

I'm going out to get drunk!

I can't believe how much 'flak' I've gotten from people here saying how I'm being alarmist and otherwise 'silly'. Frankly, I've cut my posting down by about 70% just to avoid the unswerving attacks of people who don't see these developments as a problem.

What I can't understand is how as a people we're so incredibly 'dense.'



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
it's almost sounds like... the whole scenario was a 'planted' OP. Think about it...




The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.


Just sounds to ...simple.. ya know? 'Drug dealer' gets stooped for suspended violation.. which could be enacted any time from DMV (well paid insider) since they have the entire record of who's who in the zoo out there, cop tracks dealer, BAM....

all of the sudden we get 18 AG's (yes men) yep .. sounds good..

Just sounds WAY to fishy to me..

In the end, ....someone is going to be accountable for all the injustice.. I so glad it won't be me .. cuz the bottomless pit .. is dark and cold and well.. bottomless
....and oh don't forget, ....they don't server breakfast in HELL !



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I fail to understand the psychology of these 'people' who are supposedly well-educated patriotic public servants. How can they not see what they are doing to Americans? How can they 'function' in a normal society when every act they seem to partake in is about furthering repression and suppression?

Where do they live and what do they know of 'the people' anymore? It's no wonder there are rampant CTs out there about "elitist" corporate fascists!



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


That's just it---Virtually NONE of them CARE what they are doing to the "peons" of this nation...Once they are "in" the elitist circle, its a free meal ticket to unlimited wealth, power and unaccountability. The popilace is nothing to them whatsoever. Most of these folks in high positions are BORN into wealth and family circles that endow them 'first rights' towards top gov leadership positions. And to even be considered for the highest levels, they must be pre-approved by the folks who are really in charge of things: International Bankers, Corps, M.I.C....



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Just ran into this sickening tid-bit that fits right into this puzzle. It's nearer completion everyday... can you tell what it is yet? Hmmmm... those kinda look like shackles...

Chertoff Says Fingerprints Aren’t ‘Personal Data’

In a recent briefing with Canadian press (which has yet to be picked up in the U.S.), Chertoff made the startling statement that fingerprints are “not particularly private”:

QUESTION: Some are raising that the privacy aspects of this thing, you know, sharing of that kind of data, very personal data, among four countries is quite a scary thing.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.

Chertoff’s argument about leaving fingerprints lying around on “glasses and silverware” is also beside the point. Today, we leave our Social Security numbers lying around with every employer and numerous others. Yet the fact that SSNs (or fingerprints) are widely known exposes us to risk.

There have been numerous questions raised about how this Administration is treating our personal information. Secretary Chertoff’s comments show a new reason to worry — they don’t think it’s “personal” at all.


Jezus... where's my hole in the ground... it's time to crawl in.
I'll come back out when the rest of this country wakes up...

Ok -- not in my hole yet... I just read somewhere Chertoff was the son of a Mossad agent, but I cannot locate that again... but I did find this.
CONTROLLED PRESS HIDES CHERTOFF'S ISRAELI ROOTS

Although the media scrutinized Bernard Kerik, President George W. Bush's first choice to head DHS, and uncovered embarrassing details about his mother, there was no discussion of Chertoff's mother, who played a noteworthy role in the creation of the Zionist state in Palestine.

Secretary Chertoff was evasive when American Free Press asked about his mother's nationality, which if Israeli, would make him an Israeli national.

Chertoff's children have attended Jewish private schools, and his wife, Meryl Justin, was a co-chair of the regional Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) civil rights committee.
Chertoff is secretive about his childhood, perhaps to avoid discussing the intense Talmudic and Zionist upbringing he received in a family in which all the men were rabbis and scholars of the Talmud.
"My childhood was...average...Nothing stands out. It all kind of blends into the murky past," he told The Star Ledger in March 2001. Pressed for more details, Chertoff "reclined in his chair" and said, "I'll take the Fifth."


Of course he will. Just look at him... the Israeli bloodline appears obvious to me.

[edit on 4/24/2008 by RabbitChaser]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by RabbitChaser
Of course he will. Just look at him... the Israeli bloodline appears obvious to me.


Sometimes I can't help but feel like these are all 'in your face!" appointments, meant to rub America's nose in her utter loss of voice and control.

But he is not the only 'real' problem;

The fact that our congressional seat warmers and senatorial glee club just prance around like 'everything is OK, nothing to see here, it's all procedural trivia, just move along...' makes me think maybe they are all guilty of some form of sedition.

It boggles the mind that our political leaders are so completely without breadth of vision - lacking any motivation whatsoever to 'defend' the people and the contract we call the Constitution. That a Supreme Justice would spit on the only principles known to actually have the legal 'teeth' to protect innocent people from abusive authority is beyond me.

Where does the 'almighty' BAR stand on this ruling? How about the numerous righteous civil freedom organizations?

[edit on 24-4-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Because the government has not been able to get away getting the public from using their cameras and phones to record police violence against citizens that later can be use against them, this will fall pretty good into their hands.

I see it as a way to allow police to go after people witnessing and recording police brutality without been in trouble for doing so and get rid of evidence easily.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


That's a very good point marge...Now they can just say someone filming them "looked" suspicious, and hit them with a now LEGAL search, and more importantly SEIZURE of their cameras!

This is just adding into the total Police state, Marshall law enforcement agendas that we see being rammed down our throats on a daily basis, and the goal of basically eradicating the constitution, so these "authorities" can piss all over the peons with no recourse or accountabilitywhatsoever. It becomes more apparent by the day what is happening...Very, very sad.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


They don't care because it doesn't affect them. This only affects the peasant class, which happens to be anyone middle class or below. These laws are justified to them because it makes them feel safer, knowing that the the checks are put in place to lock the peasants up before they get a chance to rise up.

They are simply looking after their best interests.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I have a few questions about this case. First was the individual was pulled over in a lawful stop? Reading the article it seems that he was.

Second is if through that lawful stop did the police find that he had committed a crime. It seems as if they ran his license and found that is was suspended. Driving with a suspended license is a crime, a class 1 misdemeanor if I recall correctly.

Third, if after the police had probable cause that the individual committed a crime then they were lawfully able to make an arrest. After a person is arrested a full blown search can be done of their person and all grab-able space around them.

What I don't understand is this "The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go."

If he committed a crime (not a violation as the article misuses the term) I thought it was lawful for police to make an arrest. Maybe the officers had some reason to believe that the individual would not appear in court. Maybe there was some other piece of information that I have no idea of. The article only says so much, and it uses non-legal terminology.

I agree with the Supreme Court on this case. The cops had probable cause to arrest, the search was lawful under those conditions, so evidence obtained through the search is admissible. In the end the Supreme Court is the law of the land and if they rule that the search was lawful thats about it.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I cannot believe that there's not more people commenting and being outraged by this! It is ANOTHER VIOLATION of the Constitution, and taking away the rights of people, by these criminalistic thugs in our gov! The rug is being yanked right out from under our feet folks!

This nations COMPLACENCY will be what allows these maniacs to burry us all. Look what they've already achieved. And look what they continue to achieve--With nary a whisper from the conforming sheep as they are being herded into their slaughter pins.

Unreal.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Sadly, I saw today why this is being allowed to happen. Everyone I've told about this thinks that I am the one who's nuts for caring. Statements like: "It doesn't effect me, I have nothing to hide." or "This only effects people who are breaking the law." sum up the majority of responses. When I bought up the fact that it's a direct violation of the Constitution, people still didn't care. Well, now they've made illegal search and seizure, and imprisonment legal. Well, now the police can "legally" search your home and arrest you, all without a warrant, because, well, you looked suspicious and that's enough to be labeled "probably cause," these days. So what happens when items not now considered illegal become contraband? Like, oh, say... books?

Apathy is killing America faster than any NWO ever could.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NettleTea
I have a few questions about this case. First was the individual was pulled over in a lawful stop? Reading the article it seems that he was.

Second is if through that lawful stop did the police find that he had committed a crime. It seems as if they ran his license and found that is was suspended. Driving with a suspended license is a crime, a class 1 misdemeanor if I recall correctly.

Third, if after the police had probable cause that the individual committed a crime then they were lawfully able to make an arrest. After a person is arrested a full blown search can be done of their person and all grab-able space around them.

What I don't understand is this "The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go."

If he committed a crime (not a violation as the article misuses the term) I thought it was lawful for police to make an arrest. Maybe the officers had some reason to believe that the individual would not appear in court. Maybe there was some other piece of information that I have no idea of. The article only says so much, and it uses non-legal terminology.

I agree with the Supreme Court on this case. The cops had probable cause to arrest, the search was lawful under those conditions, so evidence obtained through the search is admissible. In the end the Supreme Court is the law of the land and if they rule that the search was lawful thats about it.


Actually the determination was that the scope of the search was not legal, but despite that fact, they allowed the evidence to be used against him. I am not one for allowing criminals to go free on technicalities, but those technicalities are there because police authority HAS BEEN and continues to be ABUSED. Without this layer of protection no one can reasonably expect that an officer is restrained in his treatment of your private property and space (ever see "Soylent Green? great example of upcoming search and seizure scenarios there).

Ever hear of people arrested with 'planted evidence'? We could see a lot more of that in the future.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlaznRob
.... thinks that I am the one who's nuts for caring. Statements like: "It doesn't effect me, I have nothing to hide." or "This only effects people who are breaking the law." sum up the majority of responses. When I bought up the fact that it's a direct violation of the Constitution, people still didn't care. Well, now they've made illegal search and seizure, and imprisonment legal. Well, now the police can "legally" search your home and arrest you, all without a warrant, because, well, you looked suspicious and that's enough to be labeled "probably cause," these days. So what happens when items not now considered illegal become contraband? Like, oh, say... books?

Apathy is killing America faster than any NWO ever could.


It's funny that they say that, because, if I was motivated to do so, as a police officer, I could enter your home (without cause) and PLANT whatever evidence I like. Then you could point out "NOW YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE DON'T YOU?"



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I suppose you need to read the article. This idiot was driving on a suspended license. (dumass) Packing drugs (doubledumass) and then wanted to whine and cry about having his car searched? He needs cooler time. Suspended means just that. No more driving till you get a valid license back.

People like this are idiots and need the jail time. If he had dope in his car they should impound it as well. I would even up the anti myself and anyone convicted of dealing and trafficking (not users) would get a full size photo taped inside the windshield when the car went to auction so all could see how it got there, and it wasn't left in a pay parking lot or something. Tie the crime to the asset in full view of the public. Only the auction buyer could remove it by law.

Yeah. Bad call by the court, but this guy was wrong from the start.

Moral of the story is don't run around town breaking multiple laws and you won't get pulled over to begin with.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars


Actually the determination was that the scope of the search was not legal, but despite that fact, they allowed the evidence to be used against him.


Thank you for responding. Here is where I'm getting tripped up.

If he was placed under arrest and the drugs were seized from his person than those drugs should be admissible.

Now if they were seized from the car I think the police would have had to 1. seen the drugs in plain view or 2. the driver was wigged out on drugs and that gave the police probable cause to think there were drugs in the car.

I am not sure if the cops can openly search your car after your under arrest.

If the VA court ruled that the scope was not legal then I would have to see the circumstance they cited. From what I read though I thought the police acted within their right.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join