It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
“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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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
Son you haven't learned? There would still be votes from someone... And always for the person they want in..