The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     User Benefits»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageUS Supreme Court Strikes a Blow to the Fourth Amendment

Posted May 2, 2008 by  Michael Billy (TRA) in Politics | 7 comments | 262 views
Advertising
At this point it seems like they are beating a rotten, decaying, dead horse, but the US supreme court has decided it is necessary to take another whack at the fourth amendment.
The text of the Fourth Amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The lawyers representing David Lee Moore, a Portsmouth, Virginia resident who was arrested five years ago and charged with the possession of cocaine, knew that text well and thought it would help Moore become a free man.

On that night Moore was stopped by Portsmouth officers for driving with a suspended license. Under Virginia law, he should have been issued a court summons and been allowed to leave. Instead, the officers decided, on a whim, to arrest Moore. They detained him for over an hour and the subsequent search revealed that Moore had cocaine in his possesion.

When asked why Moore was arrested, an officer replied, "Just our prerogative." Translation: We just felt like arresting him. We had no real reason.

At Moore's trial his attorney tried to suppress the evidence, but the state judge allowed it.

The US Supreme Court held up the decision with a unanimous 9-0 vote.

Justice Antonin Scalia had this to say about the decision:
When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety

Probable cause? He was driving with a suspended license. Since when was an unarrestable offence probable cause for a search?

One weird twist in the case is that if a summons would have been issued, then the incriminating evidence actually would have been dismissed. This means that if the cops would have followed the law the evidence would have been suppressed, but since they did not follow the law the evidence was allowed.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote on this absurdity:
Would you explain the logic to saying that when the police violate state law, then the evidence can come in, but when they comply with state law, it can't

Well that did not stop you from voting in favor of stomping on the Fourth Amendment, did it Mrs. Ginsburg?
article:254131:14::0

3 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #1
    One of the main problems with the legal system today is that our lawyers do not study the constitution when they are in law school, they study case precedent. Since around the 1930's our nation has stopped being a nation ruled by the rule of the Constitution and has shifted into rule of "what did they rule in the case of so and so vs so and so?"

    It's no wonder Ginsberg issued this this ruling. It isn't based upon constitutionality, it's based on "precedent."

    Does that make the perp in question any less of a knucklehead? No. What it makes him is a knucklehead who's relying on a legal system that has lost it's way, and his loophole backfired on him.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Nikki W (karateblossom)
    #2
    @ Mr Garibaldi
    One of the main problems with the legal system today is that our lawyers do not study the constitution when they are in law school, they study case precedent. Since around the 1930's our nation has stopped being a nation ruled by the rule of the Constitution and has shifted into rule of "what did they rule in the case of so and so vs so and so?"

    It's no wonder Ginsberg issued this this ruling. It isn't based upon constitutionality, it's based on "precedent."

    Does that make the perp in question any less of a knucklehead? No. What it makes him is a knucklehead who's relying on a legal system that has lost it's way, and his loophole backfired on him.


    Heck mike, in the law classes I took, the focus is strictly on case and NOTHING on constitution! In all of our cases and mock trials, we had had to spend, some times sleepless, nights making sure we used most recent case ruling because you were assured that our prof would have it!

    i will say in her defense, she did burn our buns if it were a case that clearly violated the constitution. but again, these were law classes versus an entire law degree.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #3
    @ Nikki W (karateblossom)
    Heck mike, in the law classes I took, the focus is strictly on case and NOTHING on constitution! In all of our cases and mock trials, we had had to spend, some times sleepless, nights making sure we used most recent case ruling because you were assured that our prof would have it!

    i will say in her defense, she did burn our buns if it were a case that clearly violated the constitution. but again, these were law classes versus an entire law degree.


    I took Constitutional Law as part of my Political Science accreditation, and we actually studied the Constitution. Granted, we did case studies, too, but needless to say I was outraged when I learned that the Constitution isn't part of the curriculum for attorneys.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  LewWaters
    #4
    I make no claims of being a 'legal beagle,' but find it odd that even one of the most Liberal Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, former ACLU lawyer said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law.

    Another interesting point not mentioned in the multitude of articles related to this decision, "After reading Moore his Miranda rights, they asked for and received consent to search his hotel room. Once they arrived at the room, they decided to search his person and discovered sixteen grams of crack cocaine."

    You can also read the actual opinion here

    How do we expect adequate Police Protection if we insist on hampering their every move?
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Nikki W (karateblossom)
    #5
    Lew,
    I'll admit, i'm never surprised by my own limits when it comes to ignorance of law.

    The police in our area have been using canines lately on EVERY traffic stop, searching every car the dog goes on alert to.

    I was shocked by this because it seemed like entrapment but apparently not.

    Every traffic stop on a highway.....dog on alert gets a full inside out search of vehicle.

    unconstitutional?
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  LewWaters
    #6
    @ Nikki W (karateblossom)
    Lew,
    I'll admit, i'm never surprised by my own limits when it comes to ignorance of law.

    The police in our area have been using canines lately on EVERY traffic stop, searching every car the dog goes on alert to.

    I was shocked by this because it seemed like entrapment but apparently not.

    Every traffic stop on a highway.....dog on alert gets a full inside out search of vehicle.

    unconstitutional?


    Like I said, I'm no lawyer or even well versed in the constitution as much as I would like to be, but it seems to me that if a dog alerts, the Police then have probable cause.

    Of course, an easy way to avoid any dog alerts would be to not be carrying contraband and obey traffic laws.

    Some areas are noted drug routes and Police have confiscated large hauls of illegal drugs using dogs. I cringe when I think of what they miss that gets through.
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #7
    Sounds like "probable cause" has been taken to new limits...

Add a Comment

emptyAdd a Comment or Login/Register empty