SCOTUS Repeals Fourth Amendment

I didn't have to read too far .... and neither would have you had you taken the time to do so .... but I realize reading cases requires intellectual ability:

Justice Thomas (First paragraph of the opinion!)
"To enforce the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” this Court has at times required courts to exclude evidence obtained by unconstitutional police conduct. But the Court has also held that, even when there is a Fourth Amendment violation, this exclusionary rule does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits. In some cases, for example, the link between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence is too attenuated to justify suppression. The question in this case is whether this attenuation doctrine applies when an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop; learns during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant; and proceeds to arrest the suspect and seize incriminating evidence during a search incident to that arrest. We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest."

Hardly a "repeal" of the Fourth Amendment.

Your hysteria is noted. Originally Posted by LexusLover

That is bullshit. Thomas admits that the stop was unconstitutional. End of story. The Court has betrayed us. This has greatly expanded the power of police to stop and hold innocent people just to find out if there is anything they can pin on them. Welcome to Amerika.

So it's ok for the police to detain you until they find out you've done something wrong. God help us. That is not America. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The answer is: Just make sure you are not "up to no good"!

The legal answer to your "concerns" Mr. Attorney is that the police may "detain you for a reasonable amount of time (long enough to assure you are "clear" and your DL is a "valid" one) to determine whether you should be allowed to "carry on about your lawful business." A Minnesota case made it to the SCOTUS to allow the Gray Beards to extend Terry vs. Ohio to vehicle stops ... and so long as the officer is "legally" correct in making the stop he can investigate. But as you just learned the crook ain't gonna walk because the officer made an "illegal" traffic stop (whether the detective should have is another matter all together and perhaps the subject of a different kind of thread!) and discovered that the turd had "been up to no good" somewhere else also!

Rather than get hysterical about Justice Thomas rehashing existing law, Mr. Attorney, the socially helpful response, and the more professionally helpful one, Mr. Attorney, is to encourage ALL of your clients to make sure their "warrants" are not "outstanding" ... their vehicle is current with registration and inspections ... and there are no equipment violations (Ted Bundy was caught THE LAST TIME ..because of a busted tail light seen by a patrol officer in Florida) existing on their vehicle.

That way they won't LEGALLY get snatched leaving a "forbidden abode"!

Self-help on their part can save them the "expense" of appealing a minor offense to the SCOTUS ... an appropriate role of an ethical and professional attorney.

: lmfao: Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

It depends on the neighborhood..... or in your case, the location of the restroom. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The one where you and gay rey suck dicks?

Mebbe that's why assup and EKIM prefer to ride the public TRANS-portation system. Or trade off hummers for rides to their gloryholes ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

HEY HEY DUMB ASS REY,
HOW MANY THREADS WILL YOU SPAM TODAY?

That is bullshit. Thomas admits that the stop was unconstitutional. End of story. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Just the end of your story, Mr. Attorney.

Keep whining, and demonstrating your inability to appreciate precedence.

Thomas is not making new law, just applying existing law to a new set of facts.

Judge's do that, Mr. Attorney. Get over it.

Hardly a "repeal" of the Fourth Amendment.

Your hysteria is noted.

HEY HEY DUMB ASS REY,
HOW MANY THREADS WILL YOU SPAM TODAY? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Probably as many as you! Maybe!

Probably as many as you! Maybe! Originally Posted by LexusLover

LMAO or you.............

LMAO or you............. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Have you put in a call to Justice Thomas yet?

(Didn't think so!)

EKIM EKIM GLORYHOLE KING
How Many bushels of dingleberries will YOU pick today !

^^^^ ... can you believe he accuses anyone of "spamming"????

So it's ok for the police to detain you until they find out you've done something wrong. God help us. That is not America. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Have you put in a call to Justice Thomas yet?

(Didn't think so!) Originally Posted by LexusLover

^^^^ ... can you believe he accuses anyone of "spamming"???? Originally Posted by LexusLover

What would your term be for a idiot who posts gay crap to each of my posts, and never has anything relevant to the OP?

EKIM EKIM GLORYHOLE KING
How Many bushels of dingleberries will YOU pick today ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

spam........

spam........ Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Next YOU'LL be adding " snick " or " snort " to your posts, like YOUR mentor and newest butt buddy assup piggy mamboolah does. And YOU'LL think that it makes YOU sophisticated to expand YOUR limited vocabulary that way !!!!

What would your term be for a idiot who posts gay crap to each of my posts, and never has anything relevant to the OP? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

"i'va biggen"

aka IvaLittleOne!!!!