SCOTUS signs off on traffic stops solely based on anonymous 911 calls

[devil21]

Ah yes, the infamous 5-4 ruling in favor of more police powers. "You were so close to keeping your rights....so close. Better luck next time."

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305993180/court-gives-police-new-power-to-rely-on-anonymous-tips


In August 2008, an anonymous 911 caller in California phoned in a report that a pickup truck had run her off the road. The caller gave the location of the incident, plus the make and model of the truck and the license plate number.

Police subsequently pulled over a truck matching that description and smelled marijuana as they were walking toward the vehicle. Officers eventually found 30 pounds of marijuana in the truck and arrested the driver, Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette challenged the search and arrest as unconstitutional, arguing that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place because police knew nothing about the identity or reliability of the tipster. more at link

[Anti Federalist]

Clowns in Gowns.

This goes right here:

A Scallawag’s Circular Reasoning

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/a-scallawags-circular-reasoning/

It’s always amusing — some might say infuriating — when a Gowned Clown muses on the evisceration of our freedom — an evisceration his court enthusiastically pursues. And so last “Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment.” Which is rather like Janet Napolitano and Pillary Clinton’s discussing beefcake: you’re surprised they’ve even heard of it and certainly don’t want to hear their ruminations.

But I digress. “Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution: Justice Antonin Scalia said, ‘No because it’s not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute.’” Ahem. Yet these are the unconscionable cretins determining how much liberty to allot the serfs. “Please, sir, may we have some more?”

Scallawag continued. “I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that’s a terrible intrusion…”

Whoa! Hold it right there, Cowboy. “Someone can pass his hands all over our bodies” only because you Clowns specifically perverted the Fourth Amendment to allow it!!!!! Since the 1960s, courts have consistently ruled in favor of the State and against the Fourth Amendment on virtually every case regarding aviation’s security that’s crawled before their sorry bench. Quickly but surely, the courts turned passengers into prisoners and an absolute freedom from unreasonable search and seizure into one that depends on what “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (That’s a quote from Katz v. United States [1967], a seminal case about wiretapping a public phone that the Clowns have duly expanded to legalize virtually any assault Our Rulers launch against the Fourth.)

Scallawag resumes once more: ”…but given the danger that [the TSA's sexual molestation is] guarding against it’s not an unreasonable intrusion…” He’s here referring to another decision (United States v. Bell, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972) in which the Clowns declared that because they’re craven wimps, we’ll welcome groping from their jack-booted minions — though of course they didn’t phrase it like that: “When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, that danger alone meets the test of reasonableness.” Ergo, no one can possibly object to any of the TSA’s atrocities.

Ah, but gate-rape is an unreasonable intrusion, Scallawag. You and your fellow Clowns can claim it isn’t from now till Doomsday, but that doesn’t change reality.

[phill4paul]

300 million anonymous tips a day should keep them hut-hutting about rather nicely.

[RJB]

Anyone notice that the "moderate" "swing" vote seems to gravitate toward tyranny?

[RJB]

We have to work very hard for ANY republican to become president in 2016 so we can get more freedom loving conservatives like Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito on SCOTUS :rolleyes:

BTW Do Thomas and Scalia laugh about this rhetoric afterwards:
In a scathing dissent, fellow conservative Scalia called the Thomas opinion a "freedom-destroying cocktail" Do they flip a coin to see who gets to be the swing voter? Such as when Roberts gave the swing vote for Obama care. It's really sick.

[otherone]

"there are very few freedoms that are absolute"

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOovvQER1uUvGFEdsXUoTnWM9a79u5v iUt8Uq7Jbn4VnxeDfXq

[otherone]

But I digress. “Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution: Justice Antonin Scalia said, ‘No because it’s not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute.’”

Ok then.
Follow-up question, Mr. Scalia.
Perhaps you can tell us WHICH freedoms are absolute?

[devil21]

BTW Do Thomas and Scalia laugh about this rhetoric afterwards: Do they flip a coin to see who gets to be the swing voter? Such as when Roberts gave the swing vote for Obama care. It's really sick.

This is probably closer to the truth than most would believe. It's not like Thomas wrote the decision any way. His clerks and staff did. It's just his name on the paper.

Sorta like how there's always some Republican congressmen that switch sides to ensure the passing of big government legislation. Who drew the short straw this time? Sucks for you. Best of luck with your re-election. Here's a million bucks from the lobbyists in case it costs you your seat.

[Dr.3D]

It should be, if they find something that wasn't listed as being searched for on the search warrant, it shouldn't be admissible in court.

[Danke]

Not only the 4th but the 6th.

"... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him,"

Anonymous tips should be disregarded.

[Lucille]

"there are very few freedoms that are absolute"

"Freedom has no compromise. By definition it is absolute."
--Enrique Gorostieta Velarde (http://blog.independent.org/2012/06/04/see-for-greater-glory/)

It's true! They can look it up!

[otherone]

"Freedom has no compromise. By definition it is absolute."
--Enrique Gorostieta Velarde (http://blog.independent.org/2012/06/04/see-for-greater-glory/)

It's true! They can look it up!

TRUTH.

The insidious part is by making "freedom" the plural "freedoms", they destroy the very notion of Freedom. There are no "freedoms"....there is only Freedom....

[UWDude]

So now police can call in anonymous tips, and then arrest whoever they want.

[osan]

300 million anonymous tips a day should keep them hut-hutting about rather nicely.

Then Theye will enact legislation to put you into prison for some form of "interference" or other tampering with the ponderous business of the almighty state. The new law will have all the clarity and determinate precision of NDAA, PATRIOT, ACA, and so forth so that any time you fart to Theire displeasure, they will have a codified pretext upon which to "run you in"... or perhaps "through".

My morbid curiosity is reaching my limit of tolerance. I just have to know whether we will allow Themme to go all the way.

[Anti Federalist]

300 million anonymous tips a day should keep them hut-hutting about rather nicely.

See Something Say Something!

[Anti Federalist]

So now police can call in anonymous tips, and then arrest whoever they want.

Give that man a cigar.

[Anti Federalist]

Then Theye will enact legislation to put you into prison for some form of "interference" or other tampering with the ponderous business of the almighty state. The new law will have all the clarity and determinate precision of NDAA, PATRIOT, ACA, and so forth so that any time you fart to Theire displeasure, they will have a codified pretext upon which to "run you in"... or perhaps "through".

My morbid curiosity is reaching my limit of tolerance. I just have to know whether we will allow Themme to go all the way.

I'm betting yes, especially since pushback is, for all intents and purposes, nil.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Just you wait... with technology...

Watch all the 911 "Swatting" coming to a roadway near you.

Washington DC and the DOJ-SCOTUS are laughing at Moron America... they probably go to private parties and make bets on how they can fuck Americans tomorrow. Why not, Americans just bend over and take it up the coat

[SeanTX]

Watch all the 911 "Swatting" coming to a roadway near you.



I've heard this sort of thing is becoming more common -- a new type of "road rage." Somebody cuts you off or something, you can get back at them by calling 911 and saying that they appear to be driving drunk or whatever.

I'm sure the police don't mind it , it's just more job security for them. Even better now that it has the Court's seal of approval. Pull the alleged offender over and find that they are not drunk, then it's time for "do you mind if we search your vehicle? You don't consent? Ok then, we'll just wait here for the K9 unit ... " .

[Carson]

They better be able to come up with the anonymous accuser some day when someone actually has a court case where they are actually able to face their accuser.

It's such a crap shoot of that happening we should set up a pool for them to be able to file a law suit. If they've got time for that kind of thing.

[Anti Federalist]

I've heard this sort of thing is becoming more common -- a new type of "road rage." Somebody cuts you off or something, you can get back at them by calling 911 and saying that they appear to be driving drunk or whatever.

I'm sure the police don't mind it , it's just more job security for them. Even better now that it has the Court's seal of approval. Pull the alleged offender over and find that they are not drunk, then it's time for "do you mind if we search your vehicle? You don't consent? Ok then, we'll just wait here for the K9 unit ... " .

See Something Say Something!

[bunklocoempire]

I've heard this sort of thing is becoming more common -- a new type of "road rage." Somebody cuts you off or something, you can get back at them by calling 911 and saying that they appear to be driving drunk or whatever.

I'm sure the police don't mind it , it's just more job security for them. Even better now that it has the Court's seal of approval. Pull the alleged offender over and find that they are not drunk, then it's time for "do you mind if we search your vehicle? You don't consent? Ok then, we'll just wait here for the K9 unit ... " .

True. Check your local scanner folks with the pitiful amount of info police will roll on.

[kcchiefs6465]

So now police can call in anonymous tips, and then arrest whoever they want.
It's not even that serious. They don't need to call.

They'll pull you over for any multitude of fictitious reasons and proceed to search the vehicle on nothing more than officer statements of a jittery driver/passenger, smell of marijuana, etc.

It's really not even anything new. They've been doing this for a while, absent this SCOTUS decree, and will continue to do as much.

[Lucille]

Congressional candidate: ‘When you see tea partiers driving or swerving, call the police’
http://twitchy.com/2014/04/26/congressional-candidate-when-you-see-tea-partiers-driving-or-swerving-call-the-police/


Self-defined left-wing liberal Mike Dickinson, who is running to unseat Rep. Eric Cantor in Congress, has made no secret of his hatred of the Tea Party. When he says he wants the names and addresses of Tea Party members, he’s not kidding. Now he’s asking people to collect and run the license plates of Tea Partiers so he can expose the Tea Party “idiots.”
[...]
460140147015966721

Twitchy missed this one:

460477429409017857

More at the link. h/t http://www.strike-the-root.com/

[thoughtomator]

I'm wondering how there can even be anonymous phone calls, with the current technology.

[Lucille]

I'd like to know why that Dickson fellow hasn't been arrested (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-461). He is encouraging people to call the police when they see a tea partier doing nothing but driving in order to "harass" them.

Great job, you black-robed clowns. It only took a week for the abuse to start.

[Lucille]

He's still at it today.

460731159018999808

460730789513428992

[kcchiefs6465]

He's still at it today.

460731159018999808

460730789513428992
Where's that thread at, Lucille? I can't find it.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I've heard this sort of thing is becoming more common -- a new type of "road rage." Somebody cuts you off or something, you can get back at them by calling 911 and saying that they appear to be driving drunk or whatever.

I'm sure the police don't mind it , it's just more job security for them. Even better now that it has the Court's seal of approval. Pull the alleged offender over and find that they are not drunk, then it's time for "do you mind if we search your vehicle? You don't consent? Ok then, we'll just wait here for the K9 unit ... " .Well, with legalizing MJ shortly down the road, the JUST US enforcement will need new ways to generate revenue/confiscate property.

It's all about lies and theft...

[Carson]

So now police can call in anonymous tips, and then arrest whoever they want.

Exactly.

And...

Seems unconstitutional in regards to facing your accuser. All of the anonymous stuff seems that way.


But imagine your on the police force and one of these calls comes in. That should give you TWO people you may want to take a look into.

And they can "arrest whoever they want".

In my life I don't seem to do very good at pointing my boney, holier than thou, finger at others. When I do it seems it isn't long until I'm doing the same thing or something worse as I accused them of. It's as if, if there is a superior being, I've just found fault in the grand scheme of things and the one I accused is off the hook and I've volunteered myself and am the new boob.

[Czolgosz]

Maybe we need to use the system on as many people as possible.

[Carson]

It should be, if they find something that wasn't listed as being searched for on the search warrant, it shouldn't be admissible in court.


I was thinking that if they are looking in normal places you might expect to find something listed in the warrant and found something unexpected and illegal it would be admissible.

On the other hand if say the listed a stolen cow and where looking in places someone wouldn't expect to find a stolen cow, or a cow would even fit, the evidence would be inadmissible.