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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.
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.
Now illegal search and seizure is now LEGAL search and seizure!
Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.
The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.
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.
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."
Originally posted by RabbitChaser
Of course he will. Just look at him... the Israeli bloodline appears obvious to me.
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.
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.
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.