Could Adam Kokesh arrest turn into Supreme Court case?

[TaftFan]

This is a serious question. Is Adam considering taking this to the Supreme Court?

The Court ruled in Heller that you can own an arm in D.C., but did not touch the subject of bearing it.

Who would be good to represent him?

[kcchiefs6465]

This is a serious question. Is Adam considering taking this to the Supreme Court?

The Court ruled in Heller that you can own an arm in D.C., but did not touch the subject of bearing it.

Who would be good to represent him?
Andrew Napolitano.

Preferably.

[Brian4Liberty]

Who would be good to represent him?

Ted Cruz?

[TaftFan]

Ted Cruz?

Wonder if he could find the time will still a Senator? But year he is overly qualified, having argued before the SCOTUS multiple times.

[RideTheDirt]

This is a serious question. Is Adam considering taking this to the Supreme Court?

The Court ruled in Heller that you can own an arm in D.C., but did not touch the subject of bearing it.

Who would be good to represent him?
He is being charged with possesion of mushrooms and a firearm, and not the incident that happened at freedom plaza. http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/07/adam-kokesh-arrested-activist-doesn-t-speak-during-arraignment-91237.html#ixzz2YtyxuVxo
He didn't speak, and has been assigned a public defender. Hope this turns anround very quickly.

[pcosmar]

He is being charged with possesion of mushrooms and a firearm, and not the incident that happened at freedom plaza. http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/07/adam-kokesh-arrested-activist-doesn-t-speak-during-arraignment-91237.html#ixzz2YtyxuVxo
He didn't speak, and has been assigned a public defender. Hope this turns anround very quickly.

By Constitutional law,, he does not have to speak at all. And he has a right to an attorney.

Public Defenders work for the state,, not for the individual.

He has been "charged with",,,,,, This means exactly diddly squat. He has been "charged with" before and those charges dropped.
I expect he does want a case to fight. I also expect that they don't. And I really doubt the Mushrooms charge.

will see.

[Cap]

GOA attorney?

[tod evans]

This is a serious question. Is Adam considering taking this to the Supreme Court?


If I remember correctly litigation of the Heller case started in 03-05 and wasn't heard in the SC until 08.

And you've got to remember that due to the nature of the SC it's not Adam's choice whether or not the court would grant certiorari.

[presence]

“There are very few people who have the courage to stand up for our constitutional rights,”
said Danny Panzella a libertarian activist and radio host from New York.

Kokesh is risking his own freedom for us, he said.
“He is being brave and should be respected.”
“We are completely committed to non-aggression,” he said.
“Law enforcement operates by intimidation.”


Kokesh is making a powerful statement, Panzella said.
“If he is convicted of a crime he will be a martyr.
If he is acquitted he will be a Second Amendment hero.”



http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/10/witnesses-police-kicked-gun-rights-actvist-ransacked-home/#.Ud5HVPDKcgE.facebook

[Matt Collins]

http://www.cato.org/events/heller-ruling-five-years

[BamaAla]

By Constitutional law,, he does not have to speak at all. And he has a right to an attorney.

Public Defenders work for the state,, not for the individual.

He has been "charged with",,,,,, This means exactly diddly squat. He has been "charged with" before and those charges dropped.
I expect he does want a case to fight. I also expect that they don't. And I really doubt the Mushrooms charge.

will see.

What he's charged with is extremely important, actually. The Supreme Court isn't going to issue a writ of cert on a "bearing arms" question if the original charge wasn't about bearing arms.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Ted Cruz would not defend him. There are worlds apart in their thinking and ideology. One is a neocon, the other is a anarcho-capitalist.

As far as this going to SCOTUS, about 99% of all cases brought to the court are thrown out before even being heard. For example, in 2010 8,159 petitions for writ of certiorari (formal requests for review), and only 87 of those were accepted on appeal, which works out to 1.005%. There is no way they are even going to consider the case. Plus, Adam can't afford a legal team. Those fees have to be absolutely astronomical.

Also, does Judge Nap have any real connection to Adam? I think Adam was a guest on Freedom Watch a few times, but are they actually friends?

[Carson]

I wonder if he knows about Gary Kreep at The United States Justice foundation.

I sort of see them like a right hand or opposite pole of the American Civil Liberties Union. Like an un-bought off version.


Anyway;

http://usjf.net/



Maybe we should get Adam Kokesh word.

[eduardo89]

Andrew Napolitano.

Not a lawyer.


I would think that if this does have a chance of going to SCOTUS and bans on open carry being ruled unconstitutional (ban on concealed carry already has been ruled unconstitutional in Moore v Madigan) then the best lawyer to handle it would probably be Alan Gura who successfully argued both D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.

[eduardo89]

Ted Cruz would not defend him. There are worlds apart in their thinking and ideology. One is a neocon, the other is a anarcho-capitalist.

Ted Cruz is not a neoconservative.

[mrsat_98]

Guns & Drugs charges should be dismissed in lower court. Gun in your own home is generally an exception to the rule. Using "man or other animals" (http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/)will probably shut the whole thing down if someone has the gonads to push it.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't think this is going to the Supreme Court. There's just not enough there.

[eduardo89]

I don't think this is going to the Supreme Court. There's just not enough there.

Of course there is enough. There is a complete ban on open carry in DC, Kokesh is being arrested for open carry. That's certainly is enough.

[TaftFan]

Ted Cruz would not defend him. There are worlds apart in their thinking and ideology. One is a neocon, the other is a anarcho-capitalist.

As far as this going to SCOTUS, about 99% of all cases brought to the court are thrown out before even being heard. For example, in 2010 8,159 petitions for writ of certiorari (formal requests for review), and only 87 of those were accepted on appeal, which works out to 1.005%. There is no way they are even going to consider the case. Plus, Adam can't afford a legal team. Those fees have to be absolutely astronomical.

Also, does Judge Nap have any real connection to Adam? I think Adam was a guest on Freedom Watch a few times, but are they actually friends?

You have no idea what you are talking about. First, Cruz is not a a neocon, second he argued with the Heller case.

[eduardo89]

You have no idea what you are talking about. First, Cruz is not a a neocon, second he argued with the Heller case.

Cruz was the guy who wrote the amicus brief submitted on behalf of 31 states urging SCOTUS to strike down D.C.'s handgun ban.

[tod evans]

Of course there is enough. There is a complete ban on open carry in DC, Kokesh is being arrested for open carry. That's certainly is enough.

I saw "charges" posted a few days back and don't recall open carry listed.

Has something been filed that you're aware of?

[eduardo89]

I saw "charges" posted a few days back and don't recall open carry listed.

Has something been filed that you're aware of?

It appears he hasn't been charged for the DC incident, just for drug possession and possession of a firearm in the presence of a controlled substance.

[tod evans]

It appears he hasn't been charged for the DC incident, just for drug possession and possession of a firearm in the presence of a controlled substance.

It'll be really hard to get the issue to an appellate court let alone the SC without charges.;)

[eduardo89]

It'll be really hard to get the issue to an appellate court let alone the SC without charges.;)

Indeed. I'm guessing the OP was asking if he could bring the case to SCOTUS should he be charged for the shotgun incident in DC.

[tod evans]

Prosecuting attorneys are as trustworthy as a batch of snakes in a hot skillet.

They'll find the least painful way to the "system" they can use to put Adam on ice.

[libertarianMoney]

Prosecuting attorneys are as trustworthy as a batch of snakes in a hot skillet.

They'll find the least painful way to the "system" they can use to put Adam on ice.

Yea. That's what I was thinking. There is no way they intended to get anywhere near the gun issue.

Odds were in the cops favor that they'd find some other excuse to arrest him during the search.

[presence]

Adam Kokesh (http://www.facebook.com/ADAMVSTHEMAN) if you think adam is doing something stupid then you probably dont understand what adam is doing ,

dont underestimate adam kokesh.
15 (https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=10151493444471260) · 18 hours ago · Edited (https://www.facebook.com/ADAMVSTHEMAN?ref=stream&hc_location=timeline#)
..

[Brian4Liberty]

Now that he is in Fed custody, and charged with loading the gun in DC, this is a very relevant question.

Hopefully the waters have not been muddied too much with other issues, like the drug charges and Adam's "Presidential run".

[tod evans]

Now that he is in Fed custody, and charged with loading the gun in DC, this is a very relevant question.

Hopefully the waters have not been muddied too much with other issues, like the drug charges and Adam's "Presidential run".

State charges don't disappear because the feds picked up the ball, usually the feds'll chew 'em up and spit the corpse back to the state when they're done....

[enjerth]

If the warrant with which they raided Kokesh's dwelling was shown to be based on evidence that does not point to any real illegal activity or legitimately raise that suspicion, wouldn't that invalidate the warrant and, consequently, also invalidate the findings and charges that the warrant led to?

[John Taylor]

Yea. That's what I was thinking. There is no way they intended to get anywhere near the gun issue.

Odds were in the cops favor that they'd find some other excuse to arrest him during the search.

Police officers need not have a warrant to search someone: constitutionally, a search must only be reasonable in order to be constitutionally permissible---unfortunately for Mr. Kokesh.

[eduardo89]

Police officers need not have a warrant to search someone: constitutionally, a search must only be reasonable in order to be constitutionally permissible---unfortunately for Mr. Kokesh.

A warrant is needed to search your home, which has the highest level of privacy protections.

Probable cause is needed to search your person or car.

[John Taylor]

If the warrant with which they raided Kokesh's dwelling was shown to be based on evidence that does not point to any real illegal activity or legitimately raise that suspicion, wouldn't that invalidate the warrant and, consequently, also invalidate the findings and charges that the warrant led to?

Unfortunately, No. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes on an individual's privacy, and on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Even were an issue to be found with the warrant, if the officers were acting in good faith in the belief that the warrant was valid, the evidence acquired will not be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

[John Taylor]

A warrant is needed to search your home, which has the highest level of privacy protections.

Probable cause is needed to search your person or car.

I agree that a warrant is needed to search one's home unless a search is exigent. I did not assert anything to the contrary.

In regards to searching of a person or a car, you are not correct according to existing Supreme Court jurisprudence: probable cause is only triggered for the issuance of warrants---which are not needed in order to search an individual. In order to be constitutionally permissible, a search only need be reasonable under the clear text of the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately, as a felony criminal defense attorney, these "reasonable" searches are often the ones which cause the greatest harm to my clients.

[ClydeCoulter]

Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk .--Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or has committed a misdemeanor in their presence. 6 The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause. 7 There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking. 8 In Terry v. Ohio, 9 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved ''patting down'' the subject of the investigation for weapons. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/annotation03.html#2

I see the 4th as applying to persons, their houses, papers, and effects equally. How can a persons person be less than his house?

[eduardo89]

I agree that a warrant is needed to search one's home unless a search is exigent. I did not assert anything to the contrary.

In regards to searching of a person or a car, you are not correct according to existing Supreme Court jurisprudence: probable cause is only triggered for the issuance of warrants---which are not needed in order to search an individual. In order to be constitutionally permissible, a search only need be reasonable under the clear text of the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately, as a felony criminal defense attorney, these "reasonable" searches are often the ones which cause the greatest harm to my clients.

A warrant is not necessary to search an automobile if the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.

Court cases:

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)

The warrantless search of a car does not violate the Constitution. The mobility of the automobile makes it impracticable to get a search warrant.

Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970)

If there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains criminal evidence and there exist exigent circumstances where the vehicle can be removed from the jurisdiction, a warrantless search would be reasonable.

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)

Searches of automobiles must still have probable cause even in the absence of a warrant.

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)

Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant. This includes searching containers found within the vehicle.

California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)

A motor home is subject to the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment search warrant requirement because it is readily movable.

California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991)

Police, in a search extending only to a container within an automobile, may search the container without a warrant where they have probable cause to believe that it holds contraband or evidence.

[eduardo89]

I see the 4th as applying to persons, their houses, papers, and effects equally. How can a persons person be less than his house?

There are different levels of expectations of privacy. You have less of an expectation of privacy in your car than inside your bedroom.

[ClydeCoulter]

There are different levels of expectations of privacy. You have less of an expectation of privacy in your car than inside your bedroom.

There may be some that think that way, but I don't.

The entirety of the 4th is to protect the person...that includes his things. His body is one of those things regardless of where he is. I cannot abuse a person in my home because he has some contrived less expectation, much less in so called "public".

[eleganz]

supposedly, he claims the shrooms were planted. I don't like him but I believe him.

[tmg19103]

Hate to say it, but no chance SCOTUS hears this case. SCOTUS has already ruled states and DC can write their own gun laws as long as they don't completely ban firearms. The have ruled permits to own and possess are valid. See the state of NJ and many other fascist states. Now, if he was a DC resident with a permit, he could make a constitutional argument about "bearing" arms in public, but since he is a VA resident without a permit there will be no legal foundation for such an argument as he flat out broke a supposedly constitutional (by the courts for that is worth) DC law in a form of civil disobedience.

The shroom charges won't come close to SCOTUS. I believe they were planted, the police will lie, and the police will be believed.

[John Taylor]

A warrant is not necessary to search an automobile if the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.

Court cases:

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)


Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970)


Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)


United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)


California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)


California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991)

All your cases are outdated. In 2001 the court, led by Scalia, re-instituted the "reasonableness" standard to the forefront, not the "probable-cause" standard.

[John Taylor]

I see the 4th as applying to persons, their houses, papers, and effects equally. How can a persons person be less than his house?

Clyde,

I'm not asserting that it is not possible to interpret the 4th Amendment in that manner, I would simply state that the "reasonableness" clause... that is, the first clause of the 4th Amendment, can be and has been read to stand alone.

[John Taylor]

Hate to say it, but no chance SCOTUS hears this case. SCOTUS has already ruled states and DC can write their own gun laws as long as they don't completely ban firearms. The have ruled permits to own and possess are valid. See the state of NJ and many other fascist states. Now, if he was a DC resident with a permit, he could make a constitutional argument about "bearing" arms in public, but since he is a VA resident without a permit there will be no legal foundation for such an argument as he flat out broke a supposedly constitutional (by the courts for that is worth) DC law in a form of civil disobedience.

The shroom charges won't come close to SCOTUS. I believe they were planted, the police will lie, and the police will be believed.

Why exactly do you believe these illegal drugs/hallucinogenics were planted? What evidence do you have of that?

[jllundqu]

Indeed. I'm guessing the OP was asking if he could bring the case to SCOTUS should he be charged for the shotgun incident in DC.

This and close thread!

IF he were being charged with carrying (bearing) a firearm in DC, he MIGHT have a SC case.

He is being charged, and will be convicted of, guns+drugs charges. No SC case here. Adam screwed up by having the drugs in the house with his firearms, knowing he would potentially be raided.

I am against all drug laws, but Adam should have known better. They will throw the book at him using 922 prohibited possessor crap all day long. Nothing for the Supreme Court to review at all...

[ClydeCoulter]

This and close thread!

IF he were being charged with carrying (bearing) a firearm in DC, he MIGHT have a SC case.

He is being charged, and will be convicted of, guns+drugs charges. No SC case here. Adam screwed up by having the drugs in the house with his firearms, knowing he would potentially be raided.

I am against all drug laws, but Adam should have known better. They will throw the book at him using 922 prohibited possessor crap all day long. Nothing for the Supreme Court to review at all...

It depends of what he is convicted of, no?

[cubical]

Couldn't they do some DNA tests on the shrooms/bag? I wouldn't be surprised if someone in his household had the drugs, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they were planted.

[John Taylor]

Couldn't they do some DNA tests on the shrooms/bag? I wouldn't be surprised if someone in his household had the drugs, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they were planted.

"Somebody" /\ /\ /\ has been watching too much CSI.

You have got to be kidding, DNA testing on a bad of shrooms in an open closed drug/prohibited possessor case?

[Christian Liberty]

Ted Cruz would not defend him. There are worlds apart in their thinking and ideology. One is a neocon, the other is a anarcho-capitalist.

Ted Cruz is not a neoconservative.

That's iffy, but guns are one issue Cruz is relatively good on (Except when it comes to giving the Feds info, of course) so he might defend Kokesh despite the philosophical differences.

But not as a senator.

[KingRobbStark]

I don't think so. Important cases don't make it the Supreme Court.

[tmg19103]

Why exactly do you believe these illegal drugs/hallucinogenics were planted? What evidence do you have of that?

Because Kokesh knew the jack boots would be coming after he posted that YouTube with the shotgun in D.C. He's not that dumb. He said they were planted in the jail interview. That the jack boots entered his house with brown bags.