4 votes

Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches. Are we sure the year isn't 1984?

Wonderful. This keeps getting worse and worse. I pointed out to my liberal friends that Obama does nothing about this. They respond the president can't do anything about this! Of course I remind them that indirectly he can by shifting focus onto the topic and debating it. But he wouldn't. He supports the Patriot Act so of course he supports the continual erosion of our civil liberties.

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136368744/in-warrantless-searc...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

good luck

I'm still waiting for some type of response to the email I sent to my Senators and Congressman. Guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Insanity

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on this issue is nothing more than an unabashed assault on the fourth amendment. The Court erroneously assumes that all authorities are honest and would never stretch the bounds of propriety by misleading a jury or judge. Kudos to the Kentucky State Supreme Court for recognizing, however futile in this case, the true meaning of our Constitution. I'd love to see an impeachment of all eight of the miscreants who beleive they can re write the Constitution. I'm curious as to how the Court would have ruled if this case involved someone in an upper class neighborhood rather than in an impoverished area.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Another ridiculous position by the Court - unwarranted searches

Quote:

The justices said that the Fourth Amendment bars unreasonable searches, and here the police acted reasonably.

I first came across this stupidity when our former CIA chief under Bush claimed that only unreasonable searches required warrants, and that as long as government was acting reasonably, it didn't need a warrant.

How stupid.

Can people not read?

The Constitution clearly spells out that unreasonable searches are prohibited. It then provides a means to define a search or seizure as reasonable - it must be warranted by oath or affirmation upon probable cause SPECIFICALLY describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

Thus the only search that is allowed under the Constitution is a reasonable one, and in order to be reasonable, it must be warranted with proof of that reasoning. Any search that is not warranted, is by definition - UNREASONABLE and therefore unconstitutional.

There is no such animal as an unwarranted, yet reasonable search. Any claims to the contrary are pure horse pucky. If the search is reasonable, then a warrant is obtainable and required. If not, then no warrant shall issue, and the search or seizure is then UNREASONABLE and thus prohibited.

Warrants do not exist to allow unreasonable searches. That is pure ignorance and stupidity. They exist to authorize reasonable ones. They are proof that the Constitutional standard has been met to determine reasonableness.

..but..but..how can this BE?

..but..but..how can this BE? This is completely against the letter of our Constitution! How could they possibly...??

What's up with media types trying to discuss the Constitution

and just making crap up about it?

For example from the article linked:

The Constitution bars warrantless searches except in certain circumstances — for example, when police fear that evidence of a crime is being destroyed.

Here's the pertinent part of the Constitution:

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.

I don't see any exceptions in there. Do you?

What part of "shall not be violated" or "no Warrants shall issue" does this author not comprehend? (or does the Supreme Court not comprehend)

This is pure asinine stupidity - or, outright tyranny. Looks like it's tar and feathers time...

Silver lining

As dumb as this decision is, technically all the supreme court did was rule against the test for police-created exigent circumstances as it was constructed by some of the lower courts. The actual question of whether the search was lawful was not decided, and the case goes back to the state where level where it belongs.

I don't agree with the SC's ruling against the police-created exigent circumstances test, but at least we can say that the process of judicial minimalism is being respected.

Bump

Bump for liberty

Pottawattamie County Iowa

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." -Dr. Ron Paul

Yes, I heard this tonight.

Yes, I heard this tonight. Outrageous ruling by the Supreme Idiots.