SCOTUS FINALLY Abolishes the Fourth Am by 8-1 Vote

[Contumacious]

U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law


I guess SCOTUS' justices know what Jonathan Gruber Knows

AMERICANS ARE STUPID HENCE THEY DON'T NEED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT


.

 

[Skylar]

U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law


I guess SCOTUS' justices know what Jonathan Gruber Knows

AMERICANS ARE STUPID HENCE THEY DON'T NEED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT


.

Have you read the specifics of this case? Both suspects consented to a search of the vehicle.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law


I guess SCOTUS' justices know what Jonathan Gruber Knows

AMERICANS ARE STUPID HENCE THEY DON'T NEED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT


.

There are no Leftist Americans. Therefore, those who 'believe' that the SCOTUS has some bearing on what rights people have, being Leftist, are irrelevant to Americans.

Where a court rules that Constitutional Protections of a right are lifted, then the system which that court represents has simply become the enemy of Americans and it becomes the duty of Americans to destroy that system and to create another which will return their governance, to the service of justice.

Nothing complex about any of this.

What this decision indicates is that evil presently has no check by which such can be balanced. The first sign was the Roberts ACA decision... this pretty well firms that up.

Down is up, Right is wrong and 2+2=0

Brace yourselves kids... The Anti-Christ Rises and the Idiocracy: BEGINS!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I doubt this counts as an 'abolishment' of the 4th Amendment. Heien's friend agreed for the car to be searched. While he had standing as far as the traffic law was concerned; the fact he consented to a search pretty much sunk his case.

May I remind you of some previous SCOTUS rulings affirming the 4th Amendment:

Riley v. California 573 U.S. ___ (2014)

New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Missouri v. McNeely 569 U.S. ___ (2013)

Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

 

[Contumacious]

U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law


I guess SCOTUS' justices know what Jonathan Gruber Knows

AMERICANS ARE STUPID HENCE THEY DON'T NEED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT


.

Have you read the specifics of this case? Both suspects consented to a search of the vehicle.

Mr sheeple sir:

The Court ruled that


" that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police"

How retarded or stupid can you be not to understand that from now on the police are going to make "reasonable mistakes"

?!?!?!?!?!

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law


I guess SCOTUS' justices know what Jonathan Gruber Knows

AMERICANS ARE STUPID HENCE THEY DON'T NEED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT


.

Have you read the specifics of this case? Both suspects consented to a search of the vehicle.

Mr sheeple sir:

The Court ruled that


" that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police"

How retarded or stupid can you be not to understand that from now on the police are going to make "reasonable mistakes"

?!?!?!?!?!

.

I've read the brief twice now.

A mistaken understanding of a traffic law does not violate the constitution inasmuch as the mistaken interpretation doesn't violate any constitutional rights by itself. Heien's friend agreed to let Sgt. Darisse search the car, which belonged to Heien. This 'mistaken interpretation' has no bearing on the Constitution whatsoever. None. Zip. Zero. Ignorance of a traffic law does not violate his rights under the constitution. Now, if Darisse had forcibly searched the vehicle without acquiring consent, or stopped the vehicle on a trumped up charge, then yes, there would be nothing protecting us from 4th Amendment violations.

It is the duty of Police Departments to educate their officers on the law, and the SCOTUS isn't in the business of dictating how constitutional laws should be enforced in the states by their respective police forces. We don't allow for human error anymore, and you expect a police officer to perfectly uphold or enforce the law. That is unreasonable. This is nothing more than hyperbole.

You are overreacting.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moreover, there is a big difference between being ignorant of the law and mistakenly interpreting it. Trying to interpret means you are cognizant of the law but are mistaken to it's premise.

 

[Skylar]

Mr sheeple sir:

The Court ruled that


" that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police"

Clearly, my little lemming....you've never read the ruling. As the passage you just cited doesn't exist in it. And like a good little automoton, you're mechanically reciting the script you've been told to think....quoting an op-ed piece by John W. Whitehead AS the court ruling.

In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law

Word for word, like mindless lemmings are wot to do. While never bothering to educate yourself on the actual ruling itself. The court never found that the suspect's 4th amendment rights were violated, finding instead that the officer's understanding of the law was reasonable, and that a reasonable search is a constitutional search.

The state supreme court squarely held that the officer’s view of state law was reasonable, and its assessment of its own law should not be lightly disturbed. In any event, the court was correct, because North Carolina’s provisions permitting brake lights to be “incorporated in to a unit with one or more other rear lamps,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-129(g) (2009), and mandating that “all originally equipped rear lamps” be “in good working order,” id.§ 20-129(d), strongly suggest that rear brake lamps are “originally equipped rear lamps” that must be kept in working condition. Because the officer in this case acted on a reasonable view of the law, the Constitution did not bar the modest intrusion of a vehicle stop.

NICHOLAS BRADY HEIEN, PETITIONER v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/2014/01/01/2013-0604.mer.ami.pdf

Which, of course, you'd know if you'd ever read the case. But you didn't. You simply recited, word for word, without a single thought or question, what you were told to think. You're not a thinker. You're a regurgitator. Someone who mindlessly vomits up whatever predigested rhetorical cud they've been told to believe.....obsequious, complaisant and happy to have someone else do his thinking for him.

Either that your did read the case and just lied your ass off about the court's findings. A servilely attentive, mindless sheep......or a hapless liar.

Pick which.

How retarded or stupid can you be not to understand that from now on the police are going to make "reasonable mistakes"

How retarded or stupid can you be to not have read the ruling before you started babbling about it? You factually misrepresented the ruling, which NEVER found that the suspect's 4th amendment rights had ever been violated.

Demonstrating yet again why you're simply an awful source of information

 

[Contumacious]

I doubt this counts as an 'abolishment' of the 4th Amendment. Heien's friend agreed for the car to be searched.

HUH? Show me where they consented - why the **** would they move to suppress if they consented ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

"
Two men were in the car: Maynor Javier Vasquez sat behind the wheel, and petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien lay across the rear seat. Sergeant Darisse explained to Vasquez that as long as his license and registration checked out, he would receive only a warning ticket for the broken brake light. A records check revealed no problems with the documents, and Darisse gave Vasquez the warning ticket. But Darisse had become suspicious during the course of the stop—Vasquez appeared nervous, Heien remained lying down the entire time, and the two gave inconsistent answers about their destination. Darisse asked Vasquez if he would be willing to answer some questions. Vasquez assented, and Darisse asked whether the men were transporting various types of contraband. Told no, Darisse asked whether he could search the Escort. Vasquez said he had no objection, but told Darisse he should ask Heien, because Heien owned the car. Heien gave his consent, and Darisse, aided by a fellow officer who had since arrived, began a thorough search of the vehicle. In the side compartment of a duffle bag, Darisse found a sandwich bag containing cocaine. The officers arrested both men. 366 N. C. 271, 272–273, 737 S. E. 2d 351, 352–353 (2012); App. 5–6, 25, 37.

The State charged Heien with attempted trafficking in cocaine. Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized from the car, contending that the stop and search had violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. After a hearing at which both officers testified and the State played a video recording of the stop, the trial court denied the suppression motion, concluding that the faulty brake light had given Sergeant Darisse reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, and that Heien’s subsequent consent to the search was valid. Heien pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression decision. "


The truth of the matters is that BOTH "liberal" and "conservatve" justices are state supremacists scumbags !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I doubt this counts as an 'abolishment' of the 4th Amendment. Heien's friend agreed for the car to be searched.

HUH? Show me where they consented - why the **** would they move to suppress if they consented ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

"
Two men were in the car: Maynor Javier Vasquez sat behind the wheel, and petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien lay across the rear seat. Sergeant Darisse explained to Vasquez that as long as his license and registration checked out, he would receive only a warning ticket for the broken brake light. A records check revealed no problems with the documents, and Darisse gave Vasquez the warning ticket. But Darisse had become suspicious during the course of the stop—Vasquez appeared nervous, Heien remained lying down the entire time, and the two gave inconsistent answers about their destination. Darisse asked Vasquez if he would be willing to answer some questions. Vasquez assented, and Darisse asked whether the men were transporting various types of contraband. Told no, Darisse asked whether he could search the Escort. Vasquez said he had no objection, but told Darisse he should ask Heien, because Heien owned the car. Heien gave his consent, and Darisse, aided by a fellow officer who had since arrived, began a thorough search of the vehicle. In the side compartment of a duffle bag, Darisse found a sandwich bag containing cocaine. The officers arrested both men. 366 N. C. 271, 272–273, 737 S. E. 2d 351, 352–353 (2012); App. 5–6, 25, 37.

The State charged Heien with attempted trafficking in cocaine. Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized from the car, contending that the stop and search had violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. After a hearing at which both officers testified and the State played a video recording of the stop, the trial court denied the suppression motion, concluding that the faulty brake light had given Sergeant Darisse reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, and that Heien’s subsequent consent to the search was valid. Heien pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression decision. "


The truth of the matters is that BOTH "liberal" and "conservatve" justices are state supremacists scumbags !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


.

Hate to burst your bubble my friend.


From the brief (Page 7-8):

"When a law enforcement officer reasonably believes that a crime has been committed, but uncertainties of fact or law remain, the Fourth Amendment allows the officer to make a seizure to start the judicial process, thereby ensuring that contested questions of fact and unsettled questions of law are decided after full and fair proceedings in a court. ... Decisions from the Founding forward establish that these standards allow officers to make the seizures that enable them to bring cases of legal uncertainty before the courts, so long as they act reasonably. The Court held as much in its earliest cases construing the probable cause standard. In 1809, Chief Justice Marshall determined that officers had probable cause for a seizure despite a mistake of law, explaining that “[a] doubt as to the true construction of the law is as reasonable a cause for seizure as a doubt respecting the fact.” United States v. Riddle, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 311, 313.

Later cases routinely found probable cause when officers acted based on reasonable but ultimately mistaken readings of the law. This Court adopted that principle in the constitutional context in Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979). The Court in that case found that an arrest was constitutionally valid under the probable cause standard although the criminal provision underlying the arrest was later determined to be unconstitutional. Because the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred in light of the statute, the Court concluded, the officer had satisfied “the constitutional prerequisite for an arrest.” Id.at 37. DeFillippo establishes that an arrest based on a reasonable, but mistaken, understanding of the law meets the standards of the Fourth Amendment."

 

[Contumacious]

Pick which.

How retarded or stupid can you be not to understand that from now on the police are going to make "reasonable mistakes"

How retarded or stupid can you be to not have read the ruling before you started babbling about it? You factually misrepresented the ruling, which NEVER found that the suspect's 4th amendment rights had ever been violated.

Demonstrating yet again why you're simply an awful source of information

Tell me Mr Government supremacist/fascist sir:


HOW THE **** will you prevent government agents from “benefiting ” from their mistakes of law, deliberate or otherwise ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?


.

 

[Skylar]

Pick which.

How retarded or stupid can you be not to understand that from now on the police are going to make "reasonable mistakes"

How retarded or stupid can you be to not have read the ruling before you started babbling about it? You factually misrepresented the ruling, which NEVER found that the suspect's 4th amendment rights had ever been violated.

Demonstrating yet again why you're simply an awful source of information

Tell me Mr Government supremacist/fascist sir:

Ah, lemming....you still straight up refuse to review the case, don't you? You're still just mindlessly, obediently repeating whatever you're told to think word for word......and WANT to remain ignorant.

I mean, the link to the case is in the OP. And still you won't read it. You wont' review it. When given a choice between knowledge with effort and easy ignorance.......you gladly choose the ignorance.

You can't teach that.

HOW THE **** will you prevent government agents from “benefiting ” from their mistakes of law, deliberate or otherwise ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

By holding officers to the standard of the constitution; the a search and seizure be reasonable. As the officer's was. He pulled them over because they were missing a tail light. They acted suspiciously, giving inconsistent answers and appearing visibly nervous. He asked them if he could search their car. They agreed. And it was only after he received their consent that he found the illegal drugs and arrested them.

At every stage his actions were reasonable. That the N. Carolina motor vehicle law *could* be interpreted as allowing for only one tail light doesn't make the officer's interpretation that 'all originally equipped rear lamps' mandated both tail lights function as unreasonable.

His interpretation was reasonable. His pulling them over was reasonable. His suspicion was reasonable. His request to search the vehicle was reasonable. His acquiring consent from both the driver and the vehicle owner is reasonable. His search with such consent was reasonable.

Which satisfies constitutional requirements. And the standard I expect every officer to meet.

.[/QUOTE]

 

[Contumacious]

Pick which.

How retarded or stupid can you be not to understand that from now on the police are going to make "reasonable mistakes"

How retarded or stupid can you be to not have read the ruling before you started babbling about it? You factually misrepresented the ruling, which NEVER found that the suspect's 4th amendment rights had ever been violated.

Demonstrating yet again why you're simply an awful source of information

Tell me Mr Government supremacist/fascist sir:

Ah, lemming....you still straight up refuse to review the case, don't you? You're still just mindlessly, obediently repeating whatever you're told to think word for word......and WANT to remain ignorant.

I mean, the link to the case is in the OP. And still you won't read it. You wont' review it. When given a choice between knowledge with effort and easy ignorance.......you gladly choose the ignorance.

You can't teach that.

HOW THE **** will you prevent government agents from “benefiting ” from their mistakes of law, deliberate or otherwise ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

By holding officers to the standard of the constitution; the a search and seizure be reasonable. As the officer's was. He pulled them over because they were missing a tail light. They acted suspiciously, giving inconsistent answers and appearing visibly nervous.

.

[/QUOTE]


And you know this is true, how?

 

[Steven_R]

tl;dr version:
Ignorance of the law is no defense...unless you're an agent of the state, then you're free to do whatever you want because it's a "good faith" exception.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"SCOTUS FINALLY Abolishes the Fourth Am by 8-1 Vote"

Obviously you have no idea how ignorant, ridiculous, and pathetic you are.

 

[Contumacious]

"SCOTUS FINALLY Abolishes the Fourth Am by 8-1 Vote"

Obviously you have no idea how ignorant, ridiculous, and pathetic you are.

"SCOTUS FINALLY Abolishes the Fourth Am by 8-1 Vote"


But stupid ***** like you who believe in government supremacy will back here hollering "arms up don't shoot" next time the angelical police officers shoots one of your people.


.

 

[Contumacious]

[

"When a law enforcement officer reasonably believes that a crime has been committed, but uncertainties of fact or law remain, the Fourth Amendment allows the officer to make a seizure to start the judicial process, thereby ensuring that contested questions of fact and unsettled questions of law are decided after full and fair proceedings in a court. ... ."

Bye Bye Fourth

If we go back to the origins of the Fourth Amendment, one root of it is a case in 1765 that “involved pamphleteers charged with seditious libel for criticizing the king’s ministers and, through them, the king himself. In both cases, agents of the king issued a warrant authorizing the ransacking of the pamphleteers’ homes and the seizure of all their books and papers.” This is a specific instance of the more general point I am making. The law against criticizing the king’s ministers removed a free speech right that every libertarian would support. To enforce it and obtain evidence, the king’s agents used a loose warrant procedure. The case vindicated the accused when the warrants were found to be void. The main point is that the king attempted to lever his suppression of dissent by obtaining personal materials from the accused.

.

 

[Skylar]

And you know this is true, how?

You've just moved your goal posts, lemming. Now attacking the factual veracity of the officer's account rather than the court's logic in ruling as they did.

Can I take it from your absolute abandonment of your every criticism of the Court's ruling that you acknowledge you didn't know what you were talking about?

And do you have the slightest indication that the officer's account was wrong or inaccurate? If you're going to be questioning the officer's account of events, you'll need some rational basis of evidence. As the issue you're contesting isn't challenged by.....

....anyone. Not the defendants. Not the prosecutor. Not the courts.

We have an eye witness at the scene telling us why did what he did. And you insinuating otherwise. I'm gonna go with the eye witness. As you've already demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

"SCOTUS FINALLY Abolishes the Fourth Am by 8-1 Vote"

Obviously you have no idea how ignorant, ridiculous, and pathetic you are.

"SCOTUS FINALLY Abolishes the Fourth Am by 8-1 Vote"


But stupid ***** like you who believe in government supremacy will back here hollering "arms up don't shoot" next time the angelical police officers shoots one of your people.


.

No, I believe in reading the actual cases rather than mindlessly repeating op-ed pieces verbatim without thought or question. Which is why I read the court ruling before commenting on it.

And you never have.

 

[Skylar]

tl;dr version:
Ignorance of the law is no defense...unless you're an agent of the state, then you're free to do whatever you want because it's a "good faith" exception.

The issue wasn't a 'good faith' exception. It was that the officer's interpretation of the law was reasonable. Which satisfies the requirements that a search be reasonable.