U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
From the above...
"...“By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, the Supreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end—given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the police state.”..."
Does everything just go right over your head?
If you understood the case, you'd understand my post. Instead, you understand neither.
Incidentally, since this will very likely arise in your life, if you grant permission for a search even a warrant is not required.
Interesting case. Clearly the stop was based on a pretext, the notorious broken tail light excuse. Cops also do not routinely ask to search your vehicle when they stop you for an equipment issue. While db is correct that the Court said the motorist consented to a search, it probably was not a factor in the decision(I didn't read the opinion). The police have considerable discretion to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles after a lawful stop.
Still, if you're ever in that situation, never give consent, at least if you have contraband. Failure to consent to a search cannot be used as evidence against you or as ground for an arrest.
The case seems odd to me because it appears to decide an issue that was unnecessary to the decision, which courts usually try to avoid doing. Even if one broken tailight is not a violation of the law, a cop can still stop you and tell you it is broken. If he then decides he wants to search your car, he can ask for consent. He could have done the same thing if you were stopped at a 7-11. So we are back to DB's point regarding consent. I don't see a constitutional issue there.
The question of whether the police can rely on an erroneous albeit reasonable interpretation of the law has typically involved issues of criminal procedure, eg whether they can conduct a warrantless search of a house. This turned on a simple issue of state vehicular law, not some exotic question of constitutional interpretation. It does not seem unreasonable to me to require the police to know the state vehicular equipment rules. I don't understand how the Court could say it was a reasonable mistake when there is a clear cut law.
At the end of the day, I don't see this as a very important case at all. Prior cases have established that motorists and pedestrians have very diminished rights versus people in their homes. The stop and frisk issue in NYC is an example. Is having your car searched any more intrusive than being frisked on the street by a cop when you are minding your own business?
Still, if you're ever in that situation, never give consent, at least if you have contraband. Failure to consent to a search cannot be used as evidence against you or as ground for an arrest.
The case seems odd to me because it appears to decide an issue that was unnecessary to the decision, which courts usually try to avoid doing. Even if one broken tailight is not a violation of the law, a cop can still stop you and tell you it is broken. If he then decides he wants to search your car, he can ask for consent. He could have done the same thing if you were stopped at a 7-11. So we are back to DB's point regarding consent. I don't see a constitutional issue there.
The question of whether the police can rely on an erroneous albeit reasonable interpretation of the law has typically involved issues of criminal procedure, eg whether they can conduct a warrantless search of a house. This turned on a simple issue of state vehicular law, not some exotic question of constitutional interpretation. It does not seem unreasonable to me to require the police to know the state vehicular equipment rules. I don't understand how the Court could say it was a reasonable mistake when there is a clear cut law.
At the end of the day, I don't see this as a very important case at all. Prior cases have established that motorists and pedestrians have very diminished rights versus people in their homes. The stop and frisk issue in NYC is an example. Is having your car searched any more intrusive than being frisked on the street by a cop when you are minding your own business?
With the notable exception that probable cause must be justified, and that's not always an easy thing to do. Certainly accepting the search request was mind boggling, especially if you're traveling with cocaine. I don't understand what the owner was thinking there.
having worked for a District Attorney and knowing some cops... I can say I became suspicious of everything in a police report. They were reviewed and sanitized by multiple people people before they ever were filed and then released to defense attorneys.
they don't always have probable cause at the time of the stop... but by the time the report is edited... they do.
Our constitutional rights are being eroded from the left and the right.
they don't always have probable cause at the time of the stop... but by the time the report is edited... they do.
Our constitutional rights are being eroded from the left and the right.
But they can ignore it! Or on occasion interpret it as though it had been rewritten. :eek:
An example of ignoring it (although, in this instance, properly so, as it was Congress' responsibility to see it followed because the Constitution makes the Court subservient to the House) is Bush v. Gore. The Constitution states clearly how the situation of an election for President having been held, but the winner still uncertain, is to be handled.
An example of treating it as though it had been rewritten is District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court dismantled the 2nd Amendment and interpreted it as though the part before the comma hand no connection to the part after the comma.
The English language has by far the most extensive vocabulary of any language. It is truly amazing what can be accomplished by those skilled in using it.
_____________________
"You can steal more money with a Fountain Pen than with a Gun."
Last edited: