Now the 4th ammendment gone

Discussion in 'Second Amendment and Legal' started by phideaux, Jun 21, 2016.

  1. phideaux

    phideaux Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Let me say up front I'm a huge fan and promoter for our LEO.

    But this can lead to some serious problems.
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

    The justices voted 5-3 to reinstate the drug-related convictions of a Utah man.

    The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding warrant for Strieff.

    Strieff was placed under arrest and searched. He was carrying methamphetamine.

    Justice Clarence Thomas said for the court that the officer’s actions were not a flagrant violation of the law.

    But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent that the decision is a blow to constitutional rights.

    “The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate dissent.

    The fourth member of the court’s liberal wing, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined the four conservatives to form a majority on the eight-justice court.

    Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


    Last edited: Jun 21, 2016
  2. havasu

    havasu In the army now..

    This IMHO is an attempt from the Supreme Court to make it sound like they are fair and impartial.

  3. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    Note that the 'conservatives' were the majority here. What were they conserving, I wonder? Certainly not the 4th Amendment.

    [Somewhere or other I had the idea that SCOTUS' main job was to preserve and protect the Constitution. Making it easier for the government ain't in it. Making the government do it right - yeah, that's it.]
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2016
  4. Tommycourt

    Tommycourt Tommycourt

    It's to my thinking in my pea sized brain that SCOTUS is to interrupt the law and NOT legislate from the bench. When did that all start to change? I will give you an idea. When Obama did the Obamacare act was part of the start. And when he said he did not have executive power to grant amnesty to illegals but went off and did it under executive privilege. That is only one reason why we CANNOT allow Hildebeast to become POTUS. She will be just like Lame Brain and will end up shredding the supreme court with her appointments. Even if you hate Trump (not my favorite) I will NOT vote for Hildebeast. End of continuing rant for now.

  5. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    It seems we only have constitutional rights until we try to use them. The Supreme Court is now taking the position of authority to make law rather than enforcing constitutional law. It seems the Constitution is just old parchment that doesn't apply to the changing times of today.
    The founding fathers of the Constitution would surely wonder why the people have not already rebelled against the tyranny of the government.
  6. nickndfl

    nickndfl Active Member

    Same as stopping somebody for a vague traffic violation. It happened to me and I'm a white male.
  7. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Lifetime Supporter


    Interpret the Law...don't make new ones up to circumvent the Constitution

    This is why we need to stop Hillary...can you imagine her stacking the deck with Liberal Justices...!?
  8. Bullitt69

    Bullitt69 New Member

    You can get pulled over for anything as they can make up what ever they want if they don't like your looks or color or license plate. oh you didn't signal back there at that turn, not a complete stop - rolling stop etc etc.