Politics and Religion

Hey Johnny one note, how do you feel about the IRS targeting private citizens
NeedleDicktheBugFucker 22 Reviews 823 reads
posted

And ginning up investigations based on their dislike of that persons politics?

Posted By: DA_Flex
The Supreme Court in Heinen vs N. Carolina has decided (8-1) that evidence collected as a result of a "mistake in the interpretation" of the law can still be used against you.   Here's a synopsis of the case.  Police made a stop of person who had 1 non-operational tail light.  Police ended up searching the vehicle and found drugs and arrested the subject.  The Subject was subsequently convicted.  Sounds cut and dry, however, under N. Carolina law, it was perfectly legal to operate the vehicle with one tail light.  What this means is that the officer had no legal/lawful basis in which to stop the suspect in the first place.  The state argued that the officer made a reasonable mistake in the interpretation of the law and that the evidence collected should stand, because it was a good faith mistake.  The only dissent in was by the only Justice with any prosecutorial experience who said the following:  
   
 "Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a solo dissent, protested that the decision “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” She pointed out that “[g]iving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands [their] authority.” And setting out a standard that permits stops based on “reasonable” errors but not on “unreasonable ones,” she argued, further confuses the world of criminal procedure. Even a citizen who knows the law and conforms to it may be subject to police seizure of the officer “reasonably” misunderstands that same law. The Court’s new standard, she wrote, “will prove murky in application.”  
   
 I agree with Sotomayor.  What this ruling does is basically give license to any police office to make a stop and collected evidence based what they perceive to be a violation of the law instead of an ACTUAL violation of the law.  Add this to the many 4th Amendment erosions, such as allowing "Stop and Frisks", "Checkpoints", "No Knock Warrants", "Declaring that Dog Sniffs don't constitute a search", etc. The SCOTUS has given law enforcement free reign to stop, search, and collect anything they want without consequence.  
   
 http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/when-cops-dont-know-the-law/383861/  
 http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/12/16/heien-v-north-carolina-close-enough/  
   
   
   
 

DA_Flex2169 reads

The Supreme Court in Heinen vs N. Carolina has decided (8-1) that evidence collected as a result of a "mistake in the interpretation" of the law can still be used against you.   Here's a synopsis of the case.  Police made a stop of person who had 1 non-operational tail light.  Police ended up searching the vehicle and found drugs and arrested the subject.  The Subject was subsequently convicted.  Sounds cut and dry, however, under N. Carolina law, it was perfectly legal to operate the vehicle with one tail light.  What this means is that the officer had no legal/lawful basis in which to stop the suspect in the first place.  The state argued that the officer made a reasonable mistake in the interpretation of the law and that the evidence collected should stand, because it was a good faith mistake.  The only dissent in was by the only Justice with any prosecutorial experience who said the following:

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a solo dissent, protested that the decision “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” She pointed out that “[g]iving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands [their] authority.” And setting out a standard that permits stops based on “reasonable” errors but not on “unreasonable ones,” she argued, further confuses the world of criminal procedure. Even a citizen who knows the law and conforms to it may be subject to police seizure of the officer “reasonably” misunderstands that same law. The Court’s new standard, she wrote, “will prove murky in application.”

I agree with Sotomayor.  What this ruling does is basically give license to any police office to make a stop and collected evidence based what they perceive to be a violation of the law instead of an ACTUAL violation of the law.  Add this to the many 4th Amendment erosions, such as allowing "Stop and Frisks", "Checkpoints", "No Knock Warrants", "Declaring that Dog Sniffs don't constitute a search", etc. The SCOTUS has given law enforcement free reign to stop, search, and collect anything they want without consequence.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/when-cops-dont-know-the-law/383861/
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/12/16/heien-v-north-carolina-close-enough

And ginning up investigations based on their dislike of that persons politics?

Posted By: DA_Flex
The Supreme Court in Heinen vs N. Carolina has decided (8-1) that evidence collected as a result of a "mistake in the interpretation" of the law can still be used against you.   Here's a synopsis of the case.  Police made a stop of person who had 1 non-operational tail light.  Police ended up searching the vehicle and found drugs and arrested the subject.  The Subject was subsequently convicted.  Sounds cut and dry, however, under N. Carolina law, it was perfectly legal to operate the vehicle with one tail light.  What this means is that the officer had no legal/lawful basis in which to stop the suspect in the first place.  The state argued that the officer made a reasonable mistake in the interpretation of the law and that the evidence collected should stand, because it was a good faith mistake.  The only dissent in was by the only Justice with any prosecutorial experience who said the following:  
   
 "Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a solo dissent, protested that the decision “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” She pointed out that “[g]iving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands [their] authority.” And setting out a standard that permits stops based on “reasonable” errors but not on “unreasonable ones,” she argued, further confuses the world of criminal procedure. Even a citizen who knows the law and conforms to it may be subject to police seizure of the officer “reasonably” misunderstands that same law. The Court’s new standard, she wrote, “will prove murky in application.”  
   
 I agree with Sotomayor.  What this ruling does is basically give license to any police office to make a stop and collected evidence based what they perceive to be a violation of the law instead of an ACTUAL violation of the law.  Add this to the many 4th Amendment erosions, such as allowing "Stop and Frisks", "Checkpoints", "No Knock Warrants", "Declaring that Dog Sniffs don't constitute a search", etc. The SCOTUS has given law enforcement free reign to stop, search, and collect anything they want without consequence.  
   
 http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/when-cops-dont-know-the-law/383861/  
 http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/12/16/heien-v-north-carolina-close-enough/  
   
   
   
 

DA_Flex490 reads

Check out the following and it's not a hard read either:

http://verdict.justia.com/2014/04/30/u-s-supreme-court-considers-whether-fourth-amendment-allows-reasonable-mistakes-substantive-law

http://verdict.justia.com/2014/05/05/supreme-court-considers-whether-fourth-amendment-allows-reasonable-mistakes-substantive-law-2
 

Posted By: DA_Flex
The Supreme Court in Heinen vs N. Carolina has decided (8-1) that evidence collected as a result of a "mistake in the interpretation" of the law can still be used against you.   Here's a synopsis of the case.  Police made a stop of person who had 1 non-operational tail light.  Police ended up searching the vehicle and found drugs and arrested the subject.  The Subject was subsequently convicted.  Sounds cut and dry, however, under N. Carolina law, it was perfectly legal to operate the vehicle with one tail light.  What this means is that the officer had no legal/lawful basis in which to stop the suspect in the first place.  The state argued that the officer made a reasonable mistake in the interpretation of the law and that the evidence collected should stand, because it was a good faith mistake.  The only dissent in was by the only Justice with any prosecutorial experience who said the following:  
   
 "Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a solo dissent, protested that the decision “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” She pointed out that “[g]iving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands [their] authority.” And setting out a standard that permits stops based on “reasonable” errors but not on “unreasonable ones,” she argued, further confuses the world of criminal procedure. Even a citizen who knows the law and conforms to it may be subject to police seizure of the officer “reasonably” misunderstands that same law. The Court’s new standard, she wrote, “will prove murky in application.”  
   
 I agree with Sotomayor.  What this ruling does is basically give license to any police office to make a stop and collected evidence based what they perceive to be a violation of the law instead of an ACTUAL violation of the law.  Add this to the many 4th Amendment erosions, such as allowing "Stop and Frisks", "Checkpoints", "No Knock Warrants", "Declaring that Dog Sniffs don't constitute a search", etc. The SCOTUS has given law enforcement free reign to stop, search, and collect anything they want without consequence.  
   
 http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/when-cops-dont-know-the-law/383861/  
 http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/12/16/heien-v-north-carolina-close-enough/  
   
   
   
 

GaGambler632 reads

Cops will no longer have to break your tail light with their nightstick to justify their illegal stop/s.

For the record I completely agree that our constitutional rights are being constantly eroded right before our eyes, and that that the erosion is coming from BOTH sides of the aisle, with Obama/Holder leading the charge.

"Driver and Passenger gave consent to search the vehicle" The law isn't designed to protect people from doing stupid things.

Posted By: DA_Flex
Check out the following and it's not a hard read either:  
   
 http://verdict.justia.com/2014/04/30/u-s-supreme-court-considers-whether-fourth-amendment-allows-reasonable-mistakes-substantive-law  
   
 http://verdict.justia.com/2014/05/05/supreme-court-considers-whether-fourth-amendment-allows-reasonable-mistakes-substantive-law-2  
   
   
Posted By: DA_Flex
The Supreme Court in Heinen vs N. Carolina has decided (8-1) that evidence collected as a result of a "mistake in the interpretation" of the law can still be used against you.   Here's a synopsis of the case.  Police made a stop of person who had 1 non-operational tail light.  Police ended up searching the vehicle and found drugs and arrested the subject.  The Subject was subsequently convicted.  Sounds cut and dry, however, under N. Carolina law, it was perfectly legal to operate the vehicle with one tail light.  What this means is that the officer had no legal/lawful basis in which to stop the suspect in the first place.  The state argued that the officer made a reasonable mistake in the interpretation of the law and that the evidence collected should stand, because it was a good faith mistake.  The only dissent in was by the only Justice with any prosecutorial experience who said the following:  
     
  "Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a solo dissent, protested that the decision “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” She pointed out that “[g]iving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands [their] authority.” And setting out a standard that permits stops based on “reasonable” errors but not on “unreasonable ones,” she argued, further confuses the world of criminal procedure. Even a citizen who knows the law and conforms to it may be subject to police seizure of the officer “reasonably” misunderstands that same law. The Court’s new standard, she wrote, “will prove murky in application.”  
     
  I agree with Sotomayor.  What this ruling does is basically give license to any police office to make a stop and collected evidence based what they perceive to be a violation of the law instead of an ACTUAL violation of the law.  Add this to the many 4th Amendment erosions, such as allowing "Stop and Frisks", "Checkpoints", "No Knock Warrants", "Declaring that Dog Sniffs don't constitute a search", etc. The SCOTUS has given law enforcement free reign to stop, search, and collect anything they want without consequence.  
     
  http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/when-cops-dont-know-the-law/383861/  
  http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/12/16/heien-v-north-carolina-close-enough/  
     
     
     
 

If I remember correctly the defendant allowed the search of the car after the traffic stop. If they would have said get a warrant a judge either should have said you had no valid reason for stopping them or if he allows the warrant they'd have a text book case for dismissal. Either way if you are hauling drugs and allow your car to be searched without a warrant you ll probably end up in jail.  
      I m not a lawyer; maybe someone else knows more than I do here??  

Posted By: DA_Flex
Check out the following and it's not a hard read either:  
   
 http://verdict.justia.com/2014/04/30/u-s-supreme-court-considers-whether-fourth-amendment-allows-reasonable-mistakes-substantive-law  
   
 http://verdict.justia.com/2014/05/05/supreme-court-considers-whether-fourth-amendment-allows-reasonable-mistakes-substantive-law-2  
   
   
Posted By: DA_Flex
The Supreme Court in Heinen vs N. Carolina has decided (8-1) that evidence collected as a result of a "mistake in the interpretation" of the law can still be used against you.   Here's a synopsis of the case.  Police made a stop of person who had 1 non-operational tail light.  Police ended up searching the vehicle and found drugs and arrested the subject.  The Subject was subsequently convicted.  Sounds cut and dry, however, under N. Carolina law, it was perfectly legal to operate the vehicle with one tail light.  What this means is that the officer had no legal/lawful basis in which to stop the suspect in the first place.  The state argued that the officer made a reasonable mistake in the interpretation of the law and that the evidence collected should stand, because it was a good faith mistake.  The only dissent in was by the only Justice with any prosecutorial experience who said the following:  
     
  "Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a solo dissent, protested that the decision “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” She pointed out that “[g]iving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands [their] authority.” And setting out a standard that permits stops based on “reasonable” errors but not on “unreasonable ones,” she argued, further confuses the world of criminal procedure. Even a citizen who knows the law and conforms to it may be subject to police seizure of the officer “reasonably” misunderstands that same law. The Court’s new standard, she wrote, “will prove murky in application.”  
     
  I agree with Sotomayor.  What this ruling does is basically give license to any police office to make a stop and collected evidence based what they perceive to be a violation of the law instead of an ACTUAL violation of the law.  Add this to the many 4th Amendment erosions, such as allowing "Stop and Frisks", "Checkpoints", "No Knock Warrants", "Declaring that Dog Sniffs don't constitute a search", etc. The SCOTUS has given law enforcement free reign to stop, search, and collect anything they want without consequence.  
     
  http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/when-cops-dont-know-the-law/383861/  
  http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/12/16/heien-v-north-carolina-close-enough/  
     
     
     
 

Was bad, even a subsequent consensual search gets tossed.

What if one of the defendants admitted to the charge

I was more questioning the fact the Supreme Court upheld the officers search because it was "a mistake in the interpretation" of the law. If the driver had requested a search warrant the officer would have to get said warrant and if a judge issues a warrant on the basis of a broken taillight that is not illegal the court should have decided differently right? Meaning the officer is given the benefit of the doubt but the judge should know the law and if he acts in error the warrant is invalid. But I am not entirely sure...  

Posted By: marikod
Was bad, even a subsequent consensual search gets tossed.

Timbow711 reads

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=468&invol=897

Posted By: 613spades
   I was more questioning the fact the Supreme Court upheld the officers search because it was "a mistake in the interpretation" of the law. If the driver had requested a search warrant the officer would have to get said warrant and if a judge issues a warrant on the basis of a broken taillight that is not illegal the court should have decided differently right? Meaning the officer is given the benefit of the doubt but the judge should know the law and if he acts in error the warrant is invalid. But I am not entirely sure...  
   
Posted By: marikod
Was bad, even a subsequent consensual search gets tossed.

And you think this rule would prevent further erosion  of 4th amendment rights?

You really are unfamiliar with how this works in the field. A traffic  cop has no particular incentive to see that the bad guy is prosecuted. He will have no further involvement but to testify. The remedy you advocate will simply play no role in  curtailing future bad stops.  And you are still left with an uneducated cop on the beat.

Let's put the bad guy in jail and make the cop complete a legal education course before he can go back on the beat. That way we protect society, educate the cop, and actually prevent further4th amendment violations rather than your knee jerk application of the exclusionary rule which has a poor fit with your constitional concern.

Posted By: marikod
And you think this rule would prevent further erosion  of 4th amendment rights?  
   
 You really are unfamiliar with how this works in the field. A traffic  cop has no particular incentive to see that the bad guy is prosecuted. He will have no further involvement but to testify. The remedy you advocate will simply play no role in  curtailing future bad stops.  And you are still left with an uneducated cop on the beat.  
   
 Let's put the bad guy in jail and make the cop complete a legal education course before he can go back on the beat. That way we protect society, educate the cop, and actually prevent further4th amendment violations rather than your knee jerk application of the exclusionary rule which has a poor fit with your constitional concern.

DA_Flex594 reads

You are pretty clueless to how policing has evolved in this country or rather you choose to keep your head in the sand.  Police officers are routinely given quotas, although they would deny it, for arrests, tickets etc.  Many police departments utilize civil asset forfeiture to steal property from citizens on a daily basis. Municipalities, especially rural smaller communities, rely upon revenue generated from tickets and other fines to keep their communities afloat.  In criminal cases, the exclusionary rule, was the hammer that ensured that police and prosecutors played by the rules in terms of the law.  Now, the SCOTUS, has basically neutered this rule to the point of ineffectiveness.  We can now apply the flawed, Objective Reasonableness standard to LEs interpretation of the law.  Now any officer can use any reason to stop an individual and grant them license to collect evidence to be used against the citizen.  Many of you people seem to forget that these rules are in place to protect the innocent, not the criminal.  Government has unlimited resources in which the can use to incarcerate anyone.  Those without the financial ability to mount an effective defense, will be prosecuted....innocence not withstanding.

Posted By: marikod
And you think this rule would prevent further erosion  of 4th amendment rights?  
   
 You really are unfamiliar with how this works in the field. A traffic  cop has no particular incentive to see that the bad guy is prosecuted. He will have no further involvement but to testify. The remedy you advocate will simply play no role in  curtailing future bad stops.  And you are still left with an uneducated cop on the beat.  
   
 Let's put the bad guy in jail and make the cop complete a legal education course before he can go back on the beat. That way we protect society, educate the cop, and actually prevent further4th amendment violations rather than your knee jerk application of the exclusionary rule which has a poor fit with your constitional concern.

Be a prosecution. Only then would the evidence be tossed. Do you really believe the cop would deterred? He will still get credit for his arrest quota and he still is an uneducated cop.

Just as you can't propose a workable alternative to objective reasonableness , you can't explain why your version of the exclusionary rule would have any effect on police behavior. Letting a criminal go free when exculsion would not effect the cops behavior is ridiculous.

Timbow647 reads

)
There is little difficulty in
concluding that Officer Darisse’s er
-
ror of law was reasonable. The North Carolina vehicle code that re
-
quires “a stop lamp” also provides that the lamp “may be incorpo
rated into a unit with one or more other
 rear lamps,” N. C. Gen. Stat.
Ann. §20–129(g), and that “all originally equipped rear lamps” must
be “in good working order,” §20–129(
d). Although the State Court of
Appeals held that “rear lamps” do
not include brake lights, the word
“other,” coupled with the lack of state-court precedent interpreting
the provision, made it objectively
reasonable to think that a faulty
brake light constituted a violation. Pp. 12–13

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

DA_Flex622 reads

I understand...what the courts was trying to justify, but one one justice that expressed concerns was the on with actual criminal experience.  This ruling will inevitably lead to more an more "reasonable misinterpretations" of the law because LE will leave that decision up to the judge.  Once the SCOTUS said that a dog sniff around your vehicle didn't constitue a search under the 4th Admendment, it's routine for officers to hold a person during a traffic stop in order to get a dog delivered on scene in order to generate probable cause to affect a search of a vehicle.  This occurs daily when it has been proven that officers routinely cause the animal to falslely hit and despite the obscenely high false hits by these aniimals. This ruling is another tool that the officer can/will use against a citizen.

Posted By: Timbow
 
   
  b)  
 There is little difficulty in  
 concluding that Officer Darisse’s er  
 -  
 ror of law was reasonable. The North Carolina vehicle code that re  
 -  
 quires “a stop lamp” also provides that the lamp “may be incorpo  
 rated into a unit with one or more other  
  rear lamps,” N. C. Gen. Stat.  
 Ann. §20–129(g), and that “all originally equipped rear lamps” must  
 be “in good working order,” §20–129(  
 d). Although the State Court of  
 Appeals held that “rear lamps” do  
 not include brake lights, the word  
 “other,” coupled with the lack of state-court precedent interpreting  
 the provision, made it objectively  
 reasonable to think that a faulty  
 brake light constituted a violation. Pp. 12–13  
   
 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

LE should disband the use of canines when it comes to drug investigations. I would saw LE should disband the use of canines entirely, however I know they will never disband the use of gun and bomb dogs for investigative purposes.

 
I do not agree with your statement that a dog sniff "AROUND" a vehicle constitutes a "SEARCH" of a vehicle. Not when that vehicle is on a "PUBLIC" roadway.

GaGambler595 reads

as I am totally against drug laws in general, if I want to destroy my body/brain with drug use, I don't see where Big Brother should have the right to imprison me "for my own good" any more than we should jail fat asses for eating too many cheeseburgers.

I do have a different take on bomb sniffing dogs. Terrorism is a fact of life today, and if a bomb sniffing dog can save lives, I am all for it.

Which is my opinion, however the factual evidence isn't aligned with my opinion. Personal drug use cost non-drug users money through medical costs, loss of production in the work place, along with the cost of enforcing the drug laws levied against the users and other people involved in the supply and distribution of illicit drugs.

I will concede to the fact that the cost of enforcing drug laws are a manufactured problem. Which throws the liberal debate of my body my brain out the window, as you know the law isn't actually designed to protect you personally. Instead the enforcement of such law is a means of generating revenue. Who here would stand in the way of capitalism, regulated or not?

I will also disagree with your terrorism is a fact of life argument. In regard to your anti drug law stance. When the facts often back up the argument that the sale of illicit drugs can fund terrorism.

Finally, we will all have to get use to the fact that LE canines will be, and have been a permanent fixture of the American landscape. Regardless of the purposes they serve.

Register Now!