http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-police-stops-20160620-snap-story.html


Supreme Courts just took away our 4th amendment rights in a 5-3 ruling.

Police can stop a person illegally,  obtain evidence and it can be used in courts.

The Courts can soon take away our 2nd Amendment right.

Thank the "conservative" justices for this 5-3 decision written by Thomas! Nice to know they can get five votes to let the cops do illegal shit, but not to protect our civil rights on firearm matters.  For those who may have used their free monthly allotment of L A Times articles (like me), here are a couple of others.

This is from Minnesota NPR and is a reprinting in its entirety of Sotomayor's dissent (how often are you going to agree with a social justice warrior?).

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/06/while-america-was-preoccupied-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-4th-amendment/

Here's one tidbit:

The Justice Department analyzed these warrant-checked stops and reported that “approximately 93% of the stops would have been considered unsupported by articulated reasonable suspicion.”

SCOTUSblog analysis:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-the-exclusionary-rule-is-weakened-but-it-still-lives/

Opinion analysis: The exclusionary rule is weakened but it still lives

Utah v. Strieff is a significant win for the police. It goes a long way toward creating an exception to the exclusionary rule for searches of persons who have outstanding warrants (which turns out to be a lot of people).

The current SCOTUS is also oddly backwards on most First Amendment cases as well. It's the 4 liberals that have been defending First Amendment issues intelligently, and the 5 (now 4) conservatives who have been revoking individuals' First Amendment rights. The conservative justices have only been backing the Second Amendment.

Don't you hate it when conservatives aren't conservative?!

Don't you hate it when conservatives aren't conservative?!

That's why anyone who values personal freedom and liberty rejects the mainstream parties and their liberal/conservative positions which abrogate freedom on various issues (arms rights, "illegal substance" rights, etc.) would adopt a more libertarian view and tell them both to go to hell. Why not advocate personal freedom on all issues? I think we know the answer to that: control. Based upon the desire to make people conform to their own values even if no one is harmed by holding the other (liberty/personal freedom)  view.

Been commenting on several different sites regarding this today.

Despite her racial bias, Sotomeyer is correct, Thomas got it wrong. An illegal stop should've disqualified the evidence and resulted in, at the least, disciplinary action against the officer involved.

I am not too concerned. The justice acknowledged the stop as illegal, he just clarified that since the warrant was outstanding, and predated the interaction, that the evidence could be used. I don't look at it as a "stop and give me your ID for no reason" empowerment. Again, the justice acknowledged the stop was illegal but just ruled the evidence could be used. With him acknowledging the stop was illegal, I don't think it gives police a pass to continue illegal interactions.

Dude had meth, walking out of a suspected drug house. I have no sympathy, Phuck em.

On another note, if law abiding citizens (no warrants) are stopped and asked for ID, and have done nothing wrong (again, no warrants) this interaction with the police would be illegal. And a citizen could sue, I believe.

Police cannot search you for no reason, but If you have outstanding warrants, that gives them a reason. He could have refused to show ID, and stated he is exercising his 4th amendment.

Also found this: "In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place."



Please point out the dangers to law abiding citizens, just curious as I might have missed something.

I am not too concerned. The justice acknowledged the stop as illegal, he just clarified that since the warrant was outstanding, and predated the interaction, that the evidence could be used. I don't look at it as a "stop and give me your ID for no reason" empowerment. Again, the justice acknowledged the stop was illegal but just ruled the evidence could be used. With him acknowledging the stop was illegal, I don't think it gives police a pass to continue illegal interactions.

Dude had meth, walking out of a suspected drug house. I have no sympathy, Phuck em.

On another note, if law abiding citizens (no warrants) are stopped and asked for ID, and have done nothing wrong (again, no warrants) this interaction with the police would be illegal. And a citizen could sue, I believe.

Police cannot search you for no reason, but If you have outstanding warrants, that gives them a reason.

Please point out the dangers to law abiding citizens, just curious as I might have missed something.

I think the warrant might be the explanation for the ruling going this way. Even though the stop was illegal the warrant was valid and warrants technically command police to arrest the person so it could be seen that, "OK, yes the stop was bad but there is a warrant and we still have to arrest for the warrant since we know about it" So the stop is illegal but the arrest is and then apparently what flows from the warrant arrest ends up being legal in their ruling.

I do see the potential for abuse though. Will cops regularly use this abusively? Hard to know for sure. I suspect it wont happen regularly because what if they do make a stop without good cause and find something very important but no warrant is found? Then they risk losing that all.

I do see the potential for abuse though. Will cops regularly use this abusively? Hard to know for sure. I suspect it wont happen regularly because what if they do make a stop without good cause and find something very important but no warrant is found? Then they risk losing that all.

That's when, under oath and/or on the stand, they make shit up. It's not like it hasn't already happened a million times. Giving them another inch (or foot or mile depending on one's perspective) certainly won't help limit civil rights abuses.

I am not too concerned. The justice acknowledged the stop as illegal, he just clarified that since the warrant was outstanding, and predated the interaction, that the evidence could be used. I don't look at it as a "stop and give me your ID for no reason" empowerment. Again, the justice acknowledged the stop was illegal but just ruled the evidence could be used. With him acknowledging the stop was illegal, I don't think it gives police a pass to continue illegal interactions.

Dude had meth, walking out of a suspected drug house. I have no sympathy, Phuck em.

On another note, if law abiding citizens (no warrants) are stopped and asked for ID, and have done nothing wrong (again, no warrants) this interaction with the police would be illegal. And a citizen could sue, I believe.

Police cannot search you for no reason, but If you have outstanding warrants, that gives them a reason. He could have refused to show ID, and stated he is exercising his 4th amendment.

Also found this: "In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place."



Please point out the dangers to law abiding citizens, just curious as I might have missed something.

Because, the 4th Amendment.

I agree with you on not having much sympathy for a meth head, but, the officer apparently had no reason to suspect him of anything other than visiting a home that suspected drug activity was taking place in. This is not, in and of itself, an illegal activity.

The danger to law abiding citizens is that once you start talking to a LEO anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. This is why we have the 5th Amendment. It's also where Mr. Methhead made his mistake. As a free citizen protected by the 4th Amendment you cannot be compelled to identify yourself to LE without their being able to articulate reasonable suspicion. "I want to know who you are" or "If you haven't done anything wrong you should have nothing to hide" doesn't qualify. Even the old nut "For my safety, I need to know who you are" is BS. It is also not uncommon for LE to lie to you to obtain your cooperation, it's happened to me. The vast majority of jurisdictions follow the Constitution in that they have no laws requiring you to identify yourself to LE without a reasonably articulated suspicion that you've committed a crime, the notable exception being if you're driving a vehicle, in that instance they are allowed to demand you present your operators license. Honolulu is one of these, yet I've had LEO's tell me that it's "illegal" for me to walk the streets without ID and to fail to present it to them on demand.

Had Mr. Methhead asked "Am I being detained?" and the officer responded "No" he should've then asked "Am I free to Go?" If the LEO responded "Yes" his question should've been "What crime am I suspected of?" as the LEO is obligated to tell you what crime you're suspected of. Other than that, he should've kept his mouth shut. You have no legal obligation to cooperate with LE by answering their questions, you will more than likely incriminate yourself by giving them the reasonable suspicion they are looking for. He identified himself, and that's where the warrant came up, sealing his fate. He deserved it, but that's beside the point.

In short { although it's obviously too late for that } the danger for the average law abiding citizen is abuse of power by LE. Know your rights and exercise them and you can avoid this.

The noose just got a little bit tighter. When you look at rulings like these they may not seem like much, but add them up and you get a pretty clear picture of how far along we are in our descent into totalitarianism. It also puts cops in more danger because at some point the rules are stacked so heavily against the civilians that they have nothing to lose. Our rights aren't just for show. They are the framework that keeps our civilization stable.

That's when, under oath and/or on the stand, they make shit up. It's not like it hasn't already happened a million times. Giving them another inch (or foot or mile depending on one's perspective) certainly won't help limit civil rights abuses.

They couldn't lie about a warrant though. If a warrant exist it exists, if not then it doesn't.

If we are going to go into the realm of abuse by police then this ruling really doesn't matter because if we are going to assume police are just lying then they would fabricate probable cause for the stop anyway. When it comes to driving violations, for example, it always comes down to the word of the officer. So if an officer was going to knowingly make an illegal stop he is going to lie from the beginning, not admit he made an illegal stop but hinge the whole thing on hopes of a warrant existing.

Recently the SCOTUS ruled that blood draws rating to DUIs require warrants. Interesting that here they aren't in favor of the police.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_says_warrantless_blood_tests_incident_to_drunken_driving_arre