SCOTUS Repeals Fourth Amendment

Damn lexie you ass should be getting sore as much as Tonto has been kicking it lately. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

If you didn't call your own game, you'd never be able to say you "win."

If you didn't call your own game, you'd never be able to say you "win." Originally Posted by LexusLover

You usually call yours lexie lacking. I was merely making a observation.

You really don't know anything, LexusLoser. But keep trying. It's fun to watch. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I, for one, am enjoying it immensely.

You usually call yours ..... I was merely making a observation. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

"making" is a good choice of words .... as in "fabricating"!

If you couldn't lie about something, you'd have nothing to say.

Speaking of lies ... back to the OP.

COG

so you're saying the police do not have probable cause to question the "suspicious" individual under surveillance in this case?

COG

so you're saying the police do not have probable cause to question the "suspicious" individual under surveillance in this case? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

They don't need "probable cause" ... to talk to a person behaving "suspiciously"!

Terry vs. Ohio ... and if one reads the case immediately following it in the Supreme Court Reporter, which is New York vs. Sibron, the SCOTUS explains the ruling in Terry vs. Ohio (Sibron is actually two cases combined into one opinion, which the SCOTUS does from time to time. The standard in Terry/Sibron is "reasonable suspicion," but Terry is a "pat down" case in which the officer has a right to "pat down" for weapons or contraband (BTW that's a "pat down" not digging in pockets and laying shit out all over the trunk lid or hood of the car)... and ask for identification or identifying information. As in this case the driver had better have a driver's license. The officer then has a right to ask "dispatch" to verify the name and DOB ... or verify the validity of the license and information on it .....provided by the citizen.

Based on the superficial facts of the case just decided, the detective who made the stop should not have been making the stop .. period .. on several levels ... but he should have requested a marked patrol to "shadow" the guy and wait for a traffic violation (there will be one!) .. then stop the guy over on the legitimate traffic stop. If that had been done, it probably would have never gone to the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS allows a reasonable amount of time to detain the person at the scene to verify the information provided, and if during that period of time something occurs or is observed that gives the officer a factual basis to extend the stop and/or "inquire further" or "look further" then he can.

Once a warrant is confirmed (as in the case just decided) that's like a new event that creates a level of response available to the officer that had not been available in the initial stop. (There are instances in which an officer is behind someone driving in traffic, runs the plate, is informed of the name and address on the registration, and then is informed by the dispatcher that the name on the registration has an outstanding warrant. Then the officer can stop the vehicle to identify the driver to see if he or she is the same person as on the registration records ... and inquire about any knowledge they have .... like why is that person driving someone else's car!

Sometimes it goes downhill from there for the driver ...... and anyone else in the vehicle, who can be removed from the vehicle and identified. (Like they are "joy riding" without permission in the neighbor's car, who is out of town for the week!)

Everything above is within the 4th amendment as interpreted by the SCOTUS. The hysteria of the OP is confirmed by a judicial history of the SCOTUS "expanding" the authority of LE based on changing technology, officer safety, and the increased mobility (a function of technology) of our society .... you will see language in the cases that discuss "less intrusive" measures .... as far as the citizens are concerned ... which means that it is less inconvenient and intrusive to allow a warrantless search of a motor vehicle on the side of the road than it would be to detain the people in the vehicle until a warrant signed by a judge can be brought to the location of a traffic stop! Thomas based his opinion on OLD LAW applied to a new set of facts .... 4th amendment cases are almost all different .. based on different fact situations ... (that's why there is no such thing as a "routine traffic stop"! ... that's bullshit from TV.)... and the only difference I see in the Utah case and the Ohio case is the observations made of the individuals involved .... but the detective had been observing the house for an extended period of time ...

... the same principles apply whether the person is foot traffic or vehicle traffic.

COG

so you're saying the police do not have probable cause to question the "suspicious" individual under surveillance in this case? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Justice Thomas said the stop was unconstitutional. But the evidence they discovered after the unconstitutional stop is Constitutional. Read Sotomayor's dissent for the dangerous precedent this decision establishes.

COG

so you're saying the police do not have probable cause to question the "suspicious" individual under surveillance in this case? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Utah vs. Strieff:
"One of those visitors was respondent Edward Strieff.
Officer Fackrell observed Strieff exit the house and walk
toward a nearby convenience store. In the store’s parking
lot, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff, identified himself,
and asked Strieff what he was doing at the residence.
As part of the stop, Officer Fackrell requested Strieff ’s
identification, and Strieff produced his Utah identification
card. Officer Fackrell relayed Strieff ’s information to a
police dispatcher, who reported that Strieff had an outstanding
arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer
Fackrell then arrested Strieff pursuant to that warrant.
When Officer Fackrell searched Strieff incident to the
arrest, he discovered a baggie of methamphetamine and
drug paraphernalia."

Terry vs. Ohio:

"This case presents serious questions concerning the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances."

"......Officer McFadden testified that, while he was patrolling in plain clothes in downtown Cleveland at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of October 31, 1963, his attention was attracted by two men, Chilton and Terry, standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. He had never seen the two men before, and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his eye to them. However, he testified that he had been a policeman for 39 years and a detective for 35, and that he had been assigned to patrol this vicinity of downtown Cleveland for shoplifters and pickpockets for 30 years. He explained that he had developed routine habits of observation over the years, and that he would "stand and watch people or walk and watch people at many intervals of the day." He added: "Now, in this case, when I looked over, they didn't look right to me at the time.""

"His interest aroused, Officer McFadden took up a post of observation in the entrance to a store 300 to 400 feet [p6] away from the two men. "I get more purpose to watch them when I seen their movements," he testified. He saw one of the men leave the other one and walk southwest on Huron Road, past some stores. The man paused for a moment and looked in a store window, then walked on a short distance, turned around and walked back toward the corner, pausing once again to look in the same store window. He rejoined his companion at the corner, and the two conferred briefly. Then the second man went through the same series of motions, strolling down Huron Road, looking in the same window, walking on a short distance, turning back, peering in the store window again, and returning to confer with the first man at the corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece -- in all, roughly a dozen trips. At one point, while the two were standing together on the corner, a third man approached them and engaged them briefly in conversation. This man then left the two others and walked west on Euclid Avenue. Chilton and Terry resumed their measured pacing, peering, and conferring. After this had gone on for 10 to 12 minutes, the two men walked off together, heading west on Euclid Avenue, following the path taken earlier by the third man.

By this time, Officer McFadden had become thoroughly suspicious. He testified that, after observing their elaborately casual and oft-repeated reconnaissance of the store window on Huron Road, he suspected the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," and that he considered it his duty as a police officer to investigate further. He added that he feared "they may have a gun." Thus, Officer McFadden followed Chilton and Terry and saw them stop in front of Zucker's store to talk to the same man who had conferred with them earlier on the street corner. Deciding that the situation was ripe for direct action, Officer McFadden approached the three men, identified [p7] himself as a police officer and asked for their names. At this point, his knowledge was confined to what he had observed."

"He was not acquainted with any of the three men by name or by sight, and he had received no information concerning them from any other source. When the men "mumbled something" in response to his inquiries, Officer McFadden grabbed petitioner Terry, spun him around so that they were facing the other two, with Terry between McFadden and the others, and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the left breast pocket of Terry's overcoat, Officer McFadden felt a pistol. He reached inside the overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun."

"making" is a good choice of words .... as in "fabricating"!

If you couldn't lie about something, you'd have nothing to say.

Speaking of lies ... back to the OP. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Typical bullshit coming from you. Now either call me a liberal or gay. It is your fallback position.

Typical bullshit coming from you. Now either call me a liberal or gay. It is your fallback position. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Quit talking to yourself. Please.

I still agree with Justice Sotomayor's, LexusLoser. Remember, Justice Thomas himself called the stop unconstitutional, which would take it out of the purview of the Terry case. Why do you defend unconstitutional police tactics? Is this part of the wonderful new changes which will make us an even greater country than before? Police able to make unconstitutional stops? I'll bet you like indefinite detention with no right to due process, too, don't you?

Quit talking to yourself. Please. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Go sit in the corner and suck your thumb little boy.

Typical bullshit coming from you. Now either call me a liberal or gay. It is your fallback position. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Why not BOTH, ya lying liberal peter puffer and gloryhole guru !

Go sit in the corner and suck your thumb little boy. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Go get on YOUR knees down at the 'holes and suck some cocks and pick some dingleberries EKIM !

Justice Thomas said the stop was unconstitutional. But the evidence they discovered after the unconstitutional stop is Constitutional. Read Sotomayor's dissent for the dangerous precedent this decision establishes. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

did Thomas explain why the stop was unconsitutional?