- Banned
- #1
From a somewhat unexpected source, while addressing the ambiguity (caveat) in the 4th amendment-
We've had an infection, again, from the PPE crowd who assert "common sense" has to do something to placate their fears- while completely ignoring the rights, (clearly out lined lines to not be crossed), by the miscreants in the District of Criminals, in the rules for them, the real criminals- yes I'll be happy to address that- start a thread if you want the reason I call it like it is.
In the mean time, feast your eyes-
"I am deeply concerned about the 1st Circuit's claim that there is no requirement that officers must select the least intrusive means of fulfilling community caretaking responsibilities,"
Sonia Sotomayor Questions Warrantless Gun Seizure in Big Fourth Amendment Case
“There was no immediate danger,” Sotomayor said, yet the police “decided on their own to go in and seize the gun.”
We've had an infection, again, from the PPE crowd who assert "common sense" has to do something to placate their fears- while completely ignoring the rights, (clearly out lined lines to not be crossed), by the miscreants in the District of Criminals, in the rules for them, the real criminals- yes I'll be happy to address that- start a thread if you want the reason I call it like it is.
In the mean time, feast your eyes-
"I am deeply concerned about the 1st Circuit's claim that there is no requirement that officers must select the least intrusive means of fulfilling community caretaking responsibilities,"
Sonia Sotomayor Questions Warrantless Gun Seizure in Big Fourth Amendment Case
“There was no immediate danger,” Sotomayor said, yet the police “decided on their own to go in and seize the gun.”