-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Against Warrantless Police Search in Important Fourth Amendment Case
- Thread starter mikeyp
- Start date
I’m not familiar with an automobile exception in the fourth amendment. Too bad the courts don’t stick with what they are suppose to instead of creating their own made up exceptions. Then they wouldn’t even have these issues, because it’d be obviously unconstitutional already.
This guy needs to be impeached...
The sole dissent in the case was filed by Justice Samuel Alito, who insisted that the police had every right to engage in this sort of warrantless activity. "The Fourth Amendment prohibits 'unreasonable' searches," Justice Alito maintained. "What the police did in this case was entirely reasonable. The Court's decision is not."
The sole dissent in the case was filed by Justice Samuel Alito, who insisted that the police had every right to engage in this sort of warrantless activity. "The Fourth Amendment prohibits 'unreasonable' searches," Justice Alito maintained. "What the police did in this case was entirely reasonable. The Court's decision is not."
ToddDubya
NES Member
My pocket Constitution is deficient. I don't see the automobile exception in the fourth amendment. It doesn't even say "The Man can peek in your saddle bags without a warrant if your horse is parked on a public road or in your driveway."
Seriously though, what would be reasonable? If you have to walk up on someone's property to look for evidence of wrongdoing, that seems unreasonable. If the police had a report that a stolen motorcycle was being stored at that address under a tarp, I can maybe see it. Hard maybe.
#SentFromWithin1AZone
Seriously though, what would be reasonable? If you have to walk up on someone's property to look for evidence of wrongdoing, that seems unreasonable. If the police had a report that a stolen motorcycle was being stored at that address under a tarp, I can maybe see it. Hard maybe.
#SentFromWithin1AZone
That’s a hard no. It does sound like an excellent thing to apply for a warrant about. And then you can look. That’s how the fourth is suppose to work.
You have cause.
You use that cause to apply for a warrant.
You get the warrant.
You get to search for that specific thing at that specific location.
And that’s not even difficult. It’s only inconvenient. Apparently cops are lazy sacks of shit. Or worse, just don’t give a damn about laws and people’s rights.
I'm going to guess that it was laid down ages ago, and they're not going to go around flipping old decisions over on a whim, even if they're shitty, dumb decisions, like KELO or
others. If they had stayed ideologically consistent with the constitution you are right, this would not be a problem.
-Mike
Specifically, 1925.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
But very recently they’ve actually expanded police search powers.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf
Great, a bike thief is going to get off. Even before 'this' ruling, relying on the automobile exemption was a crap shoot anyway. In this case, at least the owner might get it back, or it'll be at auction soon.
The other option was sit in the driveway in plain view in a marked unit. The bike isn't going anywhere. Call a judge, swear to what you know, get warrant. Nothing to lose by knocking on the door and asking either :/. He knows the gig is up, might have played the 'I didn't know it was stolen' card.
The other option was sit in the driveway in plain view in a marked unit. The bike isn't going anywhere. Call a judge, swear to what you know, get warrant. Nothing to lose by knocking on the door and asking either :/. He knows the gig is up, might have played the 'I didn't know it was stolen' card.
My god, agreeing with you twice in the same day. What is going on here?
amm5061
NES Member
Kind of surprised that decision was so heavily weighted in the right direction. How many people think it woiwo have gone the same way if it was a 4th amendment case involving a firearm?
tuna
NES Member
I think weekendracer was agreeing with most of here - he's complaining that the thief is getting off because the cops didn't do their job, had they knocked on the door or gotten a warrant, the bike would be recovered and the bad guy goes away (or maybe pretends he didn't know).
GM-GUY
NES Member
I always did like how the cops tap on the car and then magically the dog 'alerts' - I've also seen where the dog does the same thing around the whole car and it's still an 'alert', probably why they don't like video.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,158
- Likes
- 33,100
Word to the wise - don't park your car with illegal crap in it on the street. It's a public way, not your property. Seems pretty cut-and-dried. Public parking + Probly-Cuz = Search will stand. Private parking + Probly-Cuz = Go get a warrant, copper!
I have faith that the court has turned decidedly in the last several years. While most folks here hate Kagan, her biggest fan was. . . . . .Antonin Scalia. Think on that one.
Sotty and Cryptkeeper would do well on the Salem district court bench, so their votes are no surprise.
I've ridden motorcycles since I was 8, sole source of transportation for about 10ish years. I. F-ing. Hate. Bike. Thieves. Thankfully, most of my bikes were trash, worst that ever happened to mine was the occasional 'fainting spell' from someone pushing it over, but there needs to be a blanket party for this guy. With bricks in the pillowcases.
I get where you are coming from, but I can think of about 5 or 6 reasons I'm not going to wait. They are extreme, but they have absolutely happened in the past. Oh yeah, if you think cops are lazy, try getting a judge to answer his phone at 2 am. Cops are Micheal Phelps by comparison.
Okay, name them.
Similar threads
