 |
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Supreme Court strikes a blow for the Fourth Amendment
- Text size
Stephen Webster / Raw Story | April 22, 2009
In an unusual reversal of roles today, traditionally right-wing Supreme Court Justices formed a majority in a decision which expands, in practice anyway, citizens’ Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights.
From the Criminal Lawyer blog:
In a stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today reversed its longstanding bright-line rule which had permitted warrantless car searches after an arrest, even when there was no concern for officer safety or the preservation of evidence. The case is Arizona v Gant.
Writing for the majority in this important decision, Justice Stevens held that the police may only search the passenger compartment of a vehicle, pursuant to the arrest of a recent occupant, if it is reasonable to believe that the arrested person might access the car while it’s being searched, or that the car contains evidence of the crime for which that person was arrested.
Interestingly, the votes were contrary to common stereotype. The majority, which limited police powers, included the two most right-wing justices in the popular mind, Scalia and Thomas. The minority, which would have expanded police powers, included two fairly liberal justices, Kennedy and Breyer.
“The high court’s conservative majority in recent years has generally sided with the police while cutting back on the rights of criminal suspects in car cases,” noted Reuters, reporting on the case in late March after the high court agreed to rule.
The events leading up to the court’s decision were summarized in the court’s decision, available here (PDF link).
“On August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs, Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed knocked on the front door and asked to speak to the owner,” reads the court document. “Gant answered the door and, after identifying himself, stated that he expected the owner to return later. The officers left the residence and conducted a records check, which revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.
“When the officers returned to the house that evening,they found a man near the back of the house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. After a third officer arrived, they arrested the man for providing a false name and thewoman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Gant arrived. The officers recognized his car as it entered the driveway, and Officer Griffith confirmed that Gantwas the driver by shining a flashlight into the car as itdrove by him. Gant parked at the end of the driveway, got out of his car, and shut the door. Griffith, who was about 30 feet away, called to Gant, and they approached each other, meeting 10-to-12 feet from Gant’s car. Griffith immediately arrested Gant and handcuffed him.
“Because the other arrestees were secured in the only patrol cars at the scene, Griffith called for backup. When two more officers arrived, they locked Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car: One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat.”
Scalia, concurring with the majority, wrote:
“I believe that this standard fails to provide the needed guidance to arresting officers and also leaves much room for manipulation, inviting officers to leave the scene unse-cured (at least where dangerous suspects are not involved) in order to conduct a vehicle search. In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred. Because respondent was arrested for driving without a license (a crime for which no evidence could be expected to be found in the vehicle), I would hold in the present case that the search was unlawful.”
Now that’s an interesting turn of events.
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
- Share on Twitter
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
that’s seems like a swing in the right direction….but won’t the cops just “bulls---” their story to hold a search anyways? they sometimes have been known to bold face lie..even in court…..so what does this really mean?
razor Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
IT MEANS THAT THEY ARE BEING WATCHED CLOSER BECAUSE OF THEIR LIES.
lowoutput Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
what it means is video tape the assholes anyway possible .. when you get stopped .. these surveillance gadgets can be used for more good than bad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....annel_page watch this video at the end and tell me if the last 2 segements are blatant 4th amendment violations
a blow to the corruption! Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Why the HELL didn’t the supreme court step in before Obama was even elected? I mean what have these old senile people been doing? They have more power than the President himself. They can rip apart any law Obama makes with 5 people. Guess the bankers own the supreme court..
Billy Boy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
the police will search anyway….it is up to us to persue our cases up the court system and challenge the legal varacity of each case. Unfortunatly most cases are plea bargined and or people snitch to get out of trouble……for the defendant to go all the way is very rare…….
TakerOfCorporateSouls Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
my hat is off to him and his freedom……hope he gets another gun and bag of coke, more power to him…..hell our government brings it all in anyway, what the hell they even arrest him for?????? they don’t investigate the crruption in our gvt’s across America….what about the rico act???? what abouit the trillions of dollars stolen????? what about the banker/lobbyist/politician corruption????? what about posse commitus being violated at the behest of the banking elite????? what about the moderate law enforcement across the country at all levels fed/state/county standing up to the corrupted radical law enforcement across the country????? until then let the man have his gun and bag of cke…..peace out……
DErAngeD Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
but for those who do pursue it, they have a valuable tool at their disposal.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
This is indeed encouraging, but I’m afraid the first two posters are right. Take, for instance, Trooper Brad Odle of Missouri’s Highway Patrol. He recently worked an accident in which a young person was tragically killed. I wonder if he rifled through what was left of the car and pilfered the deceased’s belongings. After all, if he’s corrupt enough to steal from the living, what’s to stop him from stealing from the dead?
JF Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
That would not surprise me in the least, given the amount of corruption going on.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
IT APPEAR THAT THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE FANS OF YOUTUBE. THE POLICE ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMY.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:18 pm
THIS IS A CASE OF THEM KNOWING THEY ARE BEING WATCHED, THEY CAN NOT BE OUTWARDLY ANTI-RIGHTS EVERY TIME KEEP AN EYE OUT. MAYBE THE JUDGES KNOW THEY WILL BE THE FIRST TO BE LYNCHED IN A REVOLUTION, SO ITS NOT TIME TO PISS PEOPLE OFF WHEN THEY ARE GETTING MADDER EVERY DAY
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
This is why the best you can hope for in government is gridlock. The 3 branches will only check each other when they represent competing interests (even if their interests are competing oligarchs). I think one of the best mid-term goals for this movement would be to fill congress with conservatives in 2010 (repub or dem). Anyone want to run for office?
Harpster Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:38 pm
BIG Government has never been the answer to any citizens problems. The left right paradigm is phony as well so voting in a rep or dem does not make a damn bit of difference, they have to be CFR free to start and grass roots to end.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
About time the supremes got some sense between their ears. We need much more though.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
ha, ha, ha, dirty ass cops, you better watch your step because you are being watched.
you are being watched as closely as the fbi is watching tea parties.
Billy Boy Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Make it a point to know where all of the cops and other agents in your area live….that way when the time comes….well…you know.
Billy Boy Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:37 am
I would add, be certain to note which ones are true patriots….there are many hiding among the ranks….believe me there are…
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
One small step in the right direction. I wish Congress would initiate legislation that addresses in detail all the recent erosions of the Constitution. I have a title suggestion even, The Constitution Restoration Act. I won’t be holding my breath on that one.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
big brother brain washing whats next mandatory cameras and microphones in your car and houses connected trough a micro chip implant.and you still get interrorgated and cars searched when ever they want to by militant bully type police that are trained in control and intimidation !all under the chemcloud skies :>( the future we face from them, obamas slogan change we need will still be used to i bet so so sick and twisted!
TakerOfCorporateSouls Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
they already have that with all the gizmos every idiot carries on his/her person…….
Eric Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Chemtrails and HAARP are connected. Barium Clouds (seeded clouds with Barium or often called “chemtrails”) are used to create ionized clouds. “An atom can become ionized by the absorption of light. The atom of barium is particularly easy to ionize, because its outermost electron is very loosely bound.
The HAARP system uses a method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere. Ie. Weather alteration as weapons.
Another prominent characteristic of the element barium is the ability to absorb x-rays and radiation. Research indicates that the use of barium is a viable means of absorbing energy from nuclear explosions.
“When a nuclear weapon explodes, about seventy percent of the energy released is in the form of kilovolt X-rays.”
“It has also been proposed to release large clouds of barium in
the magnetosphere so that photoionization will increase the cold
plasma density, thereby producing electron precipitation through
enhanced whistler-mode interaction.”
Google: Electromagnetic Radiation & Barium Clouds
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
i reckon things have gone to hell in a handbasket…BRING BACK THE TROOPS!!
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Its things like this that make me believe there is still hope for the world.
The illuminati are not all powerful and can be defeated.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Patriots don’t rely on 9 cloaked traitors for the preservation of their rights. They will betray you as they have been doing since the CIA-bankster coup of 1963. Right?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
I don’t think there is anything unusual about the so-called “right wing” Justices siding for the Fourth Amendment. Freedom from government tyranny used to be the conservative mantra. The problem is that they tripped themselves up with so-called “law and order” conservatism, thinking that being “tough on crime” meant that they were fighting the good fight because of all those whiney lefties who always seemed to be willing to let any scum bag walk. It was an ideological trap and they fell right in to it.
The lefties, for their part, never really cared about the “downtrodden” per se, as much as they found them useful as a moral foil against their enemies. It was a way to power.
So the law and order conservatives gave up freedom for security, and got neither, and the lefties whined about freedom and liberty (for a special few) and never really meant it. As a result, we now have lefties running our police state.
Thanks conservatives, you guys rock!
-Ken
http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com
Billy Boy Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Very good points Ken. I can comfortably say that I would rather see 10 “scumbags” go free, than to have even 1 person’s Constitutional rights violated…
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 am
The title to this article is STUPID!!
What the fck. It seems to me that the supreme court is upholding the 4th amendment to unlawful search and siezure.
This article is clear as mud.
Stop writing crappy, chopped up articles please.
otter Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:00 am
whats the deal?
so the title makes it sound bad…but its not !
im sick of the llies and misinformation they keep putting out.
AJ is a fear monger! this article creates fear when none is needed!
Billy Boy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
What the hell are you talking about??? The title makes it sound good….and it IS good.
ok Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
This is 14th Amendment law. It is not common law. It is Babylonian talmudic slave law for 14th Amendment Babylonian Egyptian slaves. Wake Up. God commands us all to come out of Inequity!!!
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 am
They are still going to play their “gotcha” games. If a cop gets his head inside your window they are going to claim that you “tacitly” gave them permission to search your car. That’s why they stick their head in the window, they know you aren’t going to “assault” them and push them back out.
This is the way all the police have acted anytime I’ve ever seen a traffic stop. Once the head is in the window, they will make you get out and they’ll search your car.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 am
Never open the window more then is necessary to hear the officer and pass ID to them. I would rather deal with scumbags walking any day rather then a militant steroid hyped cop armed to the teeth.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 am
One other bit of advice….keep your doors locked and if you chose to get out of the car be sure to lock the door when you exit.
I Should Have Taken The Blue Pill Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
That happened to me once. A cop wanted to search my car…i got out, locked and shut the door…..he started freaking out on me, asking for my keys. I just shoved them down my pants and said No
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 am
And one more point…..5-4 sucks it should have been 9-0 then we would have something to hoot about.
sandy Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:50 am
amen
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:40 am
And while I am at it…..the next time some jerk wearing a badge and can hardly speak english asks you for ID….ask him/her for a certified copy of their birth certificate and two forms of government issued ID with pictures on them.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 am
No validation of the Constitution will mean ANYTHING once they decide to throw it out. They’re going to state it doesn’t work and the great experiment is over. When that happens, we had best be BEYOND ready….
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:39 am
This has already been the law for searching a vehicle. SIA, or Search Incident to Arrest regarding a readily mobile conveyance is the immediate area of the passenger compartment which can be reachable by the driver.
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:18 am
Judge Napolitano is mistaken about AIDS. The U S government is responsible for not allowing independent scientific review of the HIV = AIDS theory as well as responsible for not allowing the clear evidence of hiv research fraud to be admitted into the courts,Also why didn’t Alex bring this to the attention to Napolitano,i hope i didnt hear Alex saying fox news is speaking the truth?Fox news is garbage !
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
The globalist know how to navigate our Constitution, for example we will lose our second amendment right through international treaties, not legislation. The 4th amendment is plainly written, no interpretation is needed. There is no need to search a vehicle for a simple traffic stop,
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 am
This is a distraction because they’re doing away with (or already have) the constitution anyway. Its a step by step process. So slowly that the herd don’t see it for what it is.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
It’s just too bad that this law can’t be retroactive. That would free up the prison and probation population for non-violent offenders.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
it maybe a surprisingly swing in the right direction but we are already a police state… so the cops will continue to search as they like!
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
be on your toes! taking some power from the local pigs and probably will in turn give more power to the feds!
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
It doesn’t matter what the supreme court or any other court for that matter, says when the assholes charged with enforcing the laws get carte blanche to do whatever they like to the citizenry. Why do you think there is the “blue shield”? They protect their own at the loweer level so that it very rarely makes it up the chain to the level of the supreme court. Until people start surgically striking back, we can expect to be continually brutalized. The cops sure don’t peacefully demand compliance- they taser your ass or execute you on a train platform. The more violent and dangerous these animals become to us, the more its going to be necessary to meet force with force if we want to survive.
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_________________************
_________________************
_________________************
Billy Boy Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Yes, I agree….surgical strikes are likely our best recourse. Learn where they live….their family compositon….learn their habits…where they hang out. It is much easier to get away with a carefully planned surgical strike, than it is to just go crazy to their face in public. One man can cause a hell of a lot of damage to these thugs….you don’t even have to have training, or be particularly strong…use your brain….there are literally 1000’s of things you can do. If your mark requires violence in order to right a wrong they have committed against you or yours, then perhaps consider crippling or maiming them. That way, in the worse case scenario, if you were some how caught, and nailed for it, you will get a relatively light sentence versus if you kill them. On the other hand, a clean kill usually leave far less forensic evidence than a personal attack. You have to gauge for yourself which is best.
Knees are always good targets….you can completely alter the way someone can function in life by taking out a knee…likewise with ankles. Hyper extending an elbow is another good way to limit the tyrannical tendencies of certain people.
Use your imagination…by the way, have you seen the movie, “Saw”? hehe
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Big deal. They gave us back some of the freedom they stole from us, while taking more of it away in other areas. Anyone who never reads beyond the headlines or between the lines believes this bulls--- and thinks that the states are “declaring sovereignty” or “seceding,” when, in fact, they are stepping up the passage of laws that rob us of more of our liberty and facilitate the rise of the police state. They ALL have FEMA camps within their borders. Now, we’re supposed to believe that the Supreme Court is somehow “striking a blow for the fourth amendment?” Anyone who believes this s--- is an idiot.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Well I fail to understand WHY we needed a Supreme court ruling on this issue to begin with.
I police, prosecutors would fallow the LAW and the constitution then it would have already been CLEAR that the search of the car was UNLAWFUL!
If the police and prosecutors do not understand the law then they have NO business claiming to “enforce” it.
BTW, after what happened to the preacher at the UNCONSTITUTIONAL road block I wanted to pass on some information for others who may not be awaure.
One of the FALSE claims the THUGS/cops claimed for their
“probable cause” was that the dog alerted them that there were drugs or people in the car.
But what the THUGS neglected to ask the preacher is if he would give PERMISSION to alow them to let the dog sniff/search the car.
Because the dog is also considered a cop, (which all you have to do is read about anyone who killed one to find this out), they must also get a WARRANT for the dog as well.
The supreme court rule don this in a case involving the police allowing a dog to sniff a suspects trunk. I forget the case, but if I remember right they did find drugs in the car but it was thrown out as FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE do to the lack of a search warrant on the dog.
So, my point here is that when you refuse them to search your car, house,papers etc and they threaten to send in the dog, remind them that the DOG NEEDS PROBABLE CAUSE AND A WARRANT AS WELL!
They TRICK many people by threatening to send in the dog because most people do not know that the dog carried the SAME requirement as the actual cop.
Also, when they say to you, “WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE”, say to them, “I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE BUT A LOT TO PROTECT”.
Of course they will say protect what or something along those lines, just say, MY RIGHT TO BE FREE AND TO TRAVEL FREELY and you have NO RIGHT to take that away from me for ANY UNLAWFUL REASON or COMMAND”
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I wouldn’t trust those 9 shysters any further than I could throw ‘em.
This appears to be a small bone thrown to distract us from them
taking a hell of a big chunk of flesh next time on a bigger issue.
The whole damn filthy mess is corrupt and needs to be flushed.
Until we have every criminal politician, judge and cop locked up in
prison where they belong there will be no hope for a “U.S. Gov’t”.