You No Longer Have the Right to be Secure in Your Home!

[longknife]

In this case – your vehicle.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution


However, by an 8-1 decision [Justice Sotomayer dissenting] SCOTUS has decided all cops have to do is say, “Oops. We made a mistake.” With that, our supreme court of the land say any evidence gathered by a traffic stop for any reason at all can be used to land you in jail.


Okay, so driving a car is a privilege and police have authority to pull you over for anything at all – including not washing your vehicle. But this goes far too far. Sotomayer says it's another step in eroding our constitutional rights.


The full story is @ Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Citizens Have No Protection Against 4th Amendment Violations by Police Ignorant of the Law - Freedom Outpost

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

in confused here, the guy CONSENTED to the search. How is there a 4th amendment question here?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

in confused here, the guy CONSENTED to the search. How is there a 4th amendment question here?

There isn't. The usual bed wetters are at it again. This is the second thread I have seen on this and the other was no better. Both occupants of the vehicle agreed to the search. The supposed complaint was that NC does not require that all tail lights be working and so they had no reason to be stopped. The Court ruled that the law was not clear and that a reasonable interpretation was not a violation of anyone's right. They did not over rule the 4th amendment at all.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

in confused here, the guy CONSENTED to the search. How is there a 4th amendment question here?

There isn't. The usual bed wetters are at it again. This is the second thread I have seen on this and the other was no better. Both occupants of the vehicle agreed to the search. The supposed complaint was that NC does not require that all tail lights be working and so they had no reason to be stopped. The Court ruled that the law was not clear and that a reasonable interpretation was not a violation of anyone's right. They did not over rule the 4th amendment at all.

That's kind of what I thought to, but this didn't seem like a pretextual stop question.

 

[longknife]

in confused here, the guy CONSENTED to the search. How is there a 4th amendment question here?

There isn't. The usual bed wetters are at it again. This is the second thread I have seen on this and the other was no better. Both occupants of the vehicle agreed to the search. The supposed complaint was that NC does not require that all tail lights be working and so they had no reason to be stopped. The Court ruled that the law was not clear and that a reasonable interpretation was not a violation of anyone's right. They did not over rule the 4th amendment at all.

I know that! I just posted it that way to see the reactions.

 

[Care4all]

in confused here, the guy CONSENTED to the search. How is there a 4th amendment question here?

There isn't. The usual bed wetters are at it again. This is the second thread I have seen on this and the other was no better. Both occupants of the vehicle agreed to the search. The supposed complaint was that NC does not require that all tail lights be working and so they had no reason to be stopped. The Court ruled that the law was not clear and that a reasonable interpretation was not a violation of anyone's right. They did not over rule the 4th amendment at all.

I know that! I just posted it that way to see the reactions.

So you were just trying to stir up trouble? Wonderful...gotta love free speech...eh? At least your own....

 

[longknife]

I know that! I just posted it that way to see the reactions.

So you were just trying to stir up trouble? Wonderful...gotta love free speech...eh? At least your own....[/QUOTE]

Sad that it took you so long to figure that out.

Certainly. There are some threads I am very serious about.
There are many others I simply post for the reaction and to see what, if any, interesting discussion comes out of it.

Sadly, far too many degenerate into childish name-calling and inane diatribe.