Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:16 PM Mar 2015

Holy Crap. SCOTUS hammered the 4th Amendment (Well last year anyway).

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/#tLbdkQEh0ihSx6g4.99

In another devastating blow to freedom, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police don’t need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence.

“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.” Tuesday’s ruling, she added, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”

The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate’s approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the “very core” of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, reports the LA Times.

The implications for such a Stasi-esque interpretation of the 4th Amendment are staggering. This can and will open the door to even more unscrupulous police behavior. They will only need to say that someone may be in danger, and now they are justified in ransacking your home.


But the 2nd amendment is sacred.....

Sorry folks, This is from last year....I hadn't heard about it, so I thought it was new. I didn't pay attention to the date!
93 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Holy Crap. SCOTUS hammered the 4th Amendment (Well last year anyway). (Original Post) blackspade Mar 2015 OP
syg? Romeo.lima333 Mar 2015 #1
Feb 25 - 2014 LA Times.... Historic NY Mar 2015 #2
There was a link in the OP article, but thanks. blackspade Mar 2015 #4
2014, a year ago. Try to keep up. giftedgirl77 Mar 2015 #29
Thanks for the snark..... blackspade Mar 2015 #57
Ignore the snark and thanks for reminding us that the current SC is corrupt as hell NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #76
So does that apply to Cable News personalities, Senators, Congress persons and Judges? Xyzse Mar 2015 #3
I can see where this might be good in domestic abuse cases. Other than that they have just allowed jwirr Mar 2015 #5
All the female justices are against this ruling. All male justices were for it. BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #6
What do you mean by this statement? blackspade Mar 2015 #9
she means vote for Hillary Doctor_J Mar 2015 #10
Yup. Winning argument, that one. closeupready Mar 2015 #19
It means a Vote for the Democratic nominee is infinately better than not voting at all dbackjon Mar 2015 #64
Our party's worst candidate would still be orders of magnitude better than the best GOP candidate. NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #77
Yup - a point lost on many here dbackjon Mar 2015 #93
I think they mean 2naSalit Mar 2015 #14
This is exactly what I mean. BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #21
Agreed. 2naSalit Mar 2015 #24
Not really, that's why I asked. blackspade Mar 2015 #61
I don't get this argument? CANDO Mar 2015 #26
I'm not entirely convinced 2naSalit Mar 2015 #32
Half of this country doesn't vote.... Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #34
The voting half isn't split about half and half. 43% of registered voters are unaffiliated, A Simple Game Mar 2015 #49
The box you check when you register does not indicate your politics. jeff47 Mar 2015 #70
A lot of people who call themselves "independent",......... aren't. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #84
Know what's worse? A lot of people that call themselves Democrats... aren't. n/t A Simple Game Mar 2015 #86
Know what's worse? A lot of them are in the leadership. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #87
Know what's worser? Some even want to be President. n/t A Simple Game Mar 2015 #88
Know what's worstest? Liberals wanting that. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #89
The absolute positively worstest would be be people that say they want that A Simple Game Mar 2015 #90
I wonder how long we can continue this back and forth before a Hillary supporter takes offense. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #91
We're talking about Hillary? Now it all makes sense. n/t A Simple Game Mar 2015 #92
And if it were mandatory we would have a democratic government. zeemike Mar 2015 #40
Yeah 2naSalit Mar 2015 #47
Well to rip off a current meme, exploiters will exploit. zeemike Mar 2015 #56
We have become comfortably numb. 2naSalit Mar 2015 #58
Not theoretically at all. I mean a *strong* candidate who can WIN so we won't get a Republican BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #22
That didn't address my question though. blackspade Mar 2015 #65
+1... SidDithers Mar 2015 #15
Waffles are for wafflers! BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #25
If you want a good turnout, don't nominate a Wall Street candidate. People rhett o rick Mar 2015 #39
A continuation of the police state powers. WDIM Mar 2015 #7
The 'conservatives' on the SCOTUS are statists. earthside Mar 2015 #8
A woman who looks like she has been beaten by her boyfriend wants the police to come in. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #11
Thanks for understanding what this is really about. tridim Mar 2015 #12
Maybe they should have specified it only for domestic cases. Maraya1969 Mar 2015 #13
Yeah, I worry about inevitable spillover into other cases... Orsino Mar 2015 #16
What you are describing doesn't apply to this ruling Major Nikon Mar 2015 #38
Actually it does. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #42
The police didn't attempt to search on that basis Major Nikon Mar 2015 #59
That is a damn fine example ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #55
This SC is the biggest threat to American Democracy ever. world wide wally Mar 2015 #17
Well that certainly simplifies sarisataka Mar 2015 #18
A very long time ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #53
Not according to Alito blackspade Mar 2015 #78
The Age of Privacy is Dead and Gone.........nt Cryptoad Mar 2015 #20
A devastating blow to guys who want to beat their wives in peace and quiet, for sure. Dreamer Tatum Mar 2015 #23
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Are you agreeing with the decision? nm rhett o rick Mar 2015 #46
Oh, no. This is the worst decision ever made by the SCOTUS. nt Dreamer Tatum Mar 2015 #54
I see. You think the Constitution hampers the police from doing their duties. rhett o rick Mar 2015 #68
Most corrupt SC EVER!!! SmittynMo Mar 2015 #27
We should hold to them all... 2nd and 4th... Oktober Mar 2015 #28
I see some here have no problems with a police state. Rex Mar 2015 #30
It grows more incredible by the day. Enthusiast Mar 2015 #37
It's scary. Conservatives love a strong police state. nm rhett o rick Mar 2015 #48
K & R !!! WillyT Mar 2015 #31
Historians will marvel at the number of decisions the Roberts Court made that were later overturned. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #33
... and hopefully .... "overturned by Chief Justice Obama or Feingold". Myrina Mar 2015 #45
This would too.... Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2015 #83
This is just silly......... Takket Mar 2015 #35
You see what's going on here? Enthusiast Mar 2015 #36
Right on! The founders didn't want the SCOTUS to be so powerful. And equally sad is that rhett o rick Mar 2015 #50
What is it with all this breathless faux hysteria? Android3.14 Mar 2015 #41
And you would loose that nickle..... blackspade Mar 2015 #79
Thanks for editing the title. Android3.14 Mar 2015 #81
Boy, we're sure going the WRONG direction here... PatrickforO Mar 2015 #43
Gotta love those 'constitution preservin', personal-freedom lovin'" republicans ... Myrina Mar 2015 #44
Holy shit Pooka Fey Mar 2015 #51
This is way fucked up Go Vols Mar 2015 #52
This ruling happened over a year ago. DesMoinesDem Mar 2015 #60
Yeah, I missed that. Oops! blackspade Mar 2015 #66
Terrible we need the 2nd amendment libodem Mar 2015 #62
The US Constitution is now much like that of the Soviet Union. hifiguy Mar 2015 #63
And yet the Red State idiocracy will continue to vote Republican LiberalLovinLug Mar 2015 #67
K&R...Thanks for posting, blackspade red dog 1 Mar 2015 #69
It never hurts to remind us of our pit traps Demeter Mar 2015 #71
You think this is bad? DeSwiss Mar 2015 #72
The Patriot Act invalidates awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #73
IMPEACHMENT turbinetree Mar 2015 #74
Helpful reminder of the fascism that is creeping into this country day by day. blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #75
Wait until this is use against "them" Iliyah Mar 2015 #80
It is still in force this year, so it is still relevant Wella Mar 2015 #82
The justice system is only for people that can pay. Madmiddle Mar 2015 #85

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
4. There was a link in the OP article, but thanks.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:33 PM
Mar 2015

I missed this news last week!
I guarantee that if this was a second amendment case it would still be all over the M$M.

The rest of them, not news.....

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
5. I can see where this might be good in domestic abuse cases. Other than that they have just allowed
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:38 PM
Mar 2015

one of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War back into the law.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
6. All the female justices are against this ruling. All male justices were for it.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:39 PM
Mar 2015
The voting lineup seemed to track the court's ideological divide and its gender split, with male and female justices taking opposite sides. The six men — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy and Alito — voted to uphold Rojas' consent to the search. The court's three women would have honored Fernandez's objection.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226-story.html#ixzz2uRK5qT00


Once again...how important is it to vote for a strong Democratic candidate who can actually win as opposed to sitting home making waffles when we don't get the Democrat of our preference and by default allow a Republican to win?

Remember...the next president will determine the make-up of our SCOTUS in the next decade. We can't afford to have even more of our rights eroded by Republican justices!

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
9. What do you mean by this statement?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:50 PM
Mar 2015

Once again...how important is it to vote for a strong Democratic candidate who can actually win as opposed to sitting home making waffles when we don't get the Democrat of our preference and by default allow a Republican to win?


What candidate are you speaking of, or are you speaking theoretically?
 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
64. It means a Vote for the Democratic nominee is infinately better than not voting at all
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:53 PM
Mar 2015

Or voting third party and letting Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz pick another Justice

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
93. Yup - a point lost on many here
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:58 PM
Mar 2015

Lets work to get the best possible candidate through the primaries, then unite to support that candidate in the general election

2naSalit

(86,054 posts)
14. I think they mean
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:03 PM
Mar 2015

in general overall turnout of the voting public who will sit out an election because they are upset that their candidate isn't on the ballot and, by default, allow a really bad choice to win and cause us this type of woe.

I think that voting should be mandatory for all eligible persons.

 

CANDO

(2,068 posts)
26. I don't get this argument?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:35 PM
Mar 2015

Not so much directing this at you, but I'm noticing an incorrect meme being created. Low turnout, midterm election losses(for the Ds) of the past few election cycles have not been because anyone's preferred candidate wasn't on the ballot and then they therefore refused to vote. By and large, the Democratic base always turns out. The people not turning out for the midterms are the people who are not considered the base voters. These are the people who usually vote Democratic when they do care to vote, which is during Presidential years. So this argument that it's about someone sitting at home because they're butt hurt just doesn't ring true. I know this sort of idea gets created during the very heated primary fights with people emotionally throwing it out that they're not going to vote if "ABC" is the nominee over "DEF". It just hasn't played out like that.

2naSalit

(86,054 posts)
32. I'm not entirely convinced
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:43 PM
Mar 2015

that the point made is actually the case either but it is what the post was describing. I know it's a meme that Ds didn't turn out but I don't buy the whole concept when I know that elections are stolen where gerrymandering isn't guaranteed to take the winning position.

I think that it is more an issue of election rigging that too many have accepted as "the way it is" and forget that this is a problem that still requires remedy. I vote in every election regardless of whether it's about a school board or a general election, I always vote.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
34. Half of this country doesn't vote....
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:51 PM
Mar 2015

That means elections are decided by the other half which is split about half and half so that means only about a quarter of the population decides for everyone else.

That's how you get a fake Texas cowboy who's afraid of horses and is actually from Maine and who's dumber than a bag of rocks in office.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
49. The voting half isn't split about half and half. 43% of registered voters are unaffiliated,
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:27 PM
Mar 2015

they are the plurality and the ones that decide elections. To get them to vote for a candidate they must have a better reason than a D or an R after a name. A Republican and a wanna-be Republican is not a choice. I know, I'm one of the 43% and will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. Democrats need to give me a reason to vote for them, and holding the Supreme Court over my head won't work anymore.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
70. The box you check when you register does not indicate your politics.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:17 PM
Mar 2015

There are an enormous number of "unaffiliated" voters that always vote for Republicans.

There is a smaller number of "unaffiliated" voters that always vote for Democrats.

There is a much, much, much, much smaller number of voters who will actually swing between parties.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
90. The absolute positively worstest would be be people that say they want that
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:28 PM
Mar 2015

calling themselves liberals when obviously the are not.

Because we know a true liberal would never want that to happen.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
40. And if it were mandatory we would have a democratic government.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:07 PM
Mar 2015

Which is rule by all of the people not just a few.
But what makes people not vote, and I know lots of them, is when they feel they have two choices and they can see no change in their world for the better, but lots for the worst.
And they conclude from that that there is no difference in the D and the R. and they just don't vote...which should be counted as a no confidence vote.

But this can be exploited and it is...TPTB like low turnout and close elections...it is easer to steel if if they need to and people love a horse race with lots of emotional cheering on both sides...you know, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

Sometime ago somewhere I made the suggestion of an anti-poll tax, where you were taxed if you did not show up at the polls...it got laughed at.

2naSalit

(86,054 posts)
47. Yeah
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:27 PM
Mar 2015

there are always naysayers when a good idea is presented. I know a whole bunch of folks who just can't be bothered to pay attention to politics but have endless complaints about the political results of elections whether valid or not. they love to complain about the results of bad policies yet say that they just don't have the time or interest in politics and never register to vote. Some clim it's due to lack of efficacy, which it's hard to argue with at times.

Apathy is what has helped push us to this cliff at the edge of an abyss.

Australia has compulsory voting and I think it should be practiced here. There is no real utopian dream come true in politics due to human nature... I find it ironic that many social constructions are designed to combat the affects of human nature but end up exploiting some of its worst traits instead.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
56. Well to rip off a current meme, exploiters will exploit.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:45 PM
Mar 2015

And the founding fathers knew what the risks were, that there would always be people who would exploit every thing they could including the vote.
But it seems like we don't even notice it anymore, and some tune it out and others just give up.
We have become comfortably numb.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
22. Not theoretically at all. I mean a *strong* candidate who can WIN so we won't get a Republican
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:25 PM
Mar 2015

president who'll appoint the next three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
39. If you want a good turnout, don't nominate a Wall Street candidate. People
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:05 PM
Mar 2015

want change. In 2008 they voted for the promise of change. Nominate a progressive candidate and people will vote. Nominate two candidates supported by the Oligarchy and you'll get what you get.

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
7. A continuation of the police state powers.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:43 PM
Mar 2015

At a time we need to be reining in the police state scotus gives them more power to intrude in citizens lives. Looks like the police state is here to stay.

earthside

(6,960 posts)
8. The 'conservatives' on the SCOTUS are statists.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:50 PM
Mar 2015

They may opine in favor of small government, but they want the government that is to be authoritarian.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
11. A woman who looks like she has been beaten by her boyfriend wants the police to come in.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:57 PM
Mar 2015

Should the boyfriend be able to prevent the police from coming in by yelling that he does not consent?

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
16. Yeah, I worry about inevitable spillover into other cases...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:11 PM
Mar 2015

...but this doesn't seem sinister in itself. Seems to be limited specifically to the sort of incident when someone has already been arrested?

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
38. What you are describing doesn't apply to this ruling
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:04 PM
Mar 2015

If the police see evidence of a crime in plain sight, they can come in regardless of whether anyone consents or not.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
42. Actually it does.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:10 PM
Mar 2015
He also said Rojas, who appeared to have been beaten when police first arrived, should have her own right to consent to a search. "Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence," Alito wrote for the court.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226-story.html#ixzz2uRK5qT00


Thinking about this, I do wonder why they did not rule that the entry was OK based on the fact that this appeared to be an emergency situation.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
59. The police didn't attempt to search on that basis
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:48 PM
Mar 2015

They arrested Fernandez on suspicion of domestic violence, and even the dissent had no issues with that. The question before the court was whether they could subsequently conduct a warrantless search the premises for illegal contraband if one of the residents objects.

This is from the Ginsburg dissent:

If a person’s health and safety are threatened by a domestic abuser, exigent circumstances would justify immediate removal of the abuser from the premises, as happened here.

sarisataka

(18,216 posts)
18. Well that certainly simplifies
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:13 PM
Mar 2015

Cops jobs:

PD "May we search the house?"
Occupant A "No"
Occupant B "Yes"
PD to occupant A "You are under arrest for interfering with an investigation"


How long before both saying no will police just be allowed to arrest them and search anyway?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
53. A very long time ...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:39 PM
Mar 2015

because with both Occupants under arrest, there is no one left to consent to the search!

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
78. Not according to Alito
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 07:22 PM
Mar 2015
According to the AP, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court’s 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.
“We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Alito said.


That is the slippery slope we are on.....

Dreamer Tatum

(10,926 posts)
23. A devastating blow to guys who want to beat their wives in peace and quiet, for sure.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:26 PM
Mar 2015

Also completely disrespectful of the person who wants to cook meth in the kitchen, even if someone else in the house
wants to cook dinner for the kids instead.

Man, what kind of world is this when one person can't do evil things without some busybody in the house letting the fucking cops in?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
68. I see. You think the Constitution hampers the police from doing their duties.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:03 PM
Mar 2015

That pesky ole Constitution.

SmittynMo

(3,544 posts)
27. Most corrupt SC EVER!!!
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:36 PM
Mar 2015

It is just unbelievable what the SC has done to this country with their decisions in the past several years.

The ACA is next. I am one of the 11M on the ACA. And there is no backup plan, if it is defeated. Me and my wife will both be uninsured, if that happens. What ever happened to moving forward? That's how people and economies prosper. Nope, not today.

I just can't believe the crap coming out of the SC.

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
45. ... and hopefully .... "overturned by Chief Justice Obama or Feingold".
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:19 PM
Mar 2015

The only thing that would piss the freeps off more would be "Chief Justice William Jefferson Clinton".

Takket

(21,424 posts)
35. This is just silly.........
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:54 PM
Mar 2015

There is no need for this. Even in the domestic abuse situation named the police don't need to enter the home to help the woman. The police knock on the door, the cops ask to come in.... man says no, woman says yes, then the woman just has to step outside with the cops. With her under their watch the cops can then just make the call to get a warrant to go in.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
36. You see what's going on here?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:54 PM
Mar 2015

Protect the real criminals (Wall Street fraudsters, war profiteers, torturers) but allow extra constitutional policing of the lower economic classes.

This is precisely contrary to what the founders wanted.

It would allow a politically dissenting minority to be persecuted by an authoritarian government.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
50. Right on! The founders didn't want the SCOTUS to be so powerful. And equally sad is that
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:30 PM
Mar 2015

there are people willing to give up their freedom for a promise of security.

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
41. What is it with all this breathless faux hysteria?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:08 PM
Mar 2015

"Holy Crap. SCOTUS just hammered the 4th Amendment."

Really? Friggin' seven months a go, and it just happened?

Whatever. I'd bet a nickel this is a 'bot poster.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
79. And you would loose that nickle.....
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:24 PM
Mar 2015

And it was more like 12 months ago as I corrected in the OP....

And what is hysterical about another serious blow to the 4th amendment?

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
44. Gotta love those 'constitution preservin', personal-freedom lovin'" republicans ...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:17 PM
Mar 2015

When are their knuckleheaded voters going to wake up & admit what they've unleashed on this country?

OMFG...


blackspade

(10,056 posts)
66. Yeah, I missed that. Oops!
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:59 PM
Mar 2015

By the number of recs I would say that I wasn't the only one who missed this bit of news.....

libodem

(19,288 posts)
62. Terrible we need the 2nd amendment
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:49 PM
Mar 2015

To protect ourselves from the police more than criminals. I hate this.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
63. The US Constitution is now much like that of the Soviet Union.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:51 PM
Mar 2015

Pretty words that mean less than nothing when you try and realize them.

LiberalLovinLug

(14,154 posts)
67. And yet the Red State idiocracy will continue to vote Republican
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:59 PM
Mar 2015

Even as they scream about the Democrats having plans to enact laws to be able to kick down their doors without warrants to steal their guns. Meanwhile their favorite party's SCOTUS is paving the way for exactly that possibility.

red dog 1

(27,648 posts)
69. K&R...Thanks for posting, blackspade
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:17 PM
Mar 2015

I'm surprised that Justice Breyer voted with the right-wingers on this one.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
72. You think this is bad?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 05:32 PM
Mar 2015
- Try this. Most people haven't a clue that approximately 200,000,000 American no longer have 4th Amendment rights. Insofar as the Border Patrol is concerned, anyway.



[center]ACLU - WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE
915 15th St, NW Washington, DC 20005

Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) 100-Mile Rule

For more information, contact Chris Rickerd, (202) 675-2339, crickerd@aclu.org

Background
[/center]

8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) addresses CBP officials’ authority to stop and conduct searches on vessels, trains, aircraft, or other vehicles anywhere within “a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” Without further statutory guidance, regulations alone expansively define this “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S., including coastal boundaries, unless an agency official sets a shorter distance. CBP agents can also even enter private property without a warrant (excepting dwellings) within 25 miles of any border.

In this 100-mile zone, CBP has claimed certain extra-constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol claims the authority to operate immigration checkpoints. Agents, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (more than just a "hunch&quot . Similarly, courts have determined that outside of Ports of Entry Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has occurred). In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority, violating the constitutional rights of innocent people. Although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution-free," CBP frequently acts like it is.

As a result, two-thirds of the U.S. population, or approximately 200 million people, are potentially subject to so-called investigatory detention and warrantless search by CBP agents. (Most of the ten largest U.S. cities are within 100 air miles of the boundary, and several states lie entirely within this area, including Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.)

These policies originated in a statutory change to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) passed in 19463, and a federal regulation interpreting that change issued in 1953 – in both instances with little deliberation or review.

K&R
 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
73. The Patriot Act invalidates
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 06:06 PM
Mar 2015

the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments for a certain class of people. It was only a matter of time until they started drawing back the rights for the rest of us.

turbinetree

(24,632 posts)
74. IMPEACHMENT
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 06:15 PM
Mar 2015

Why aren't these five so called justices not IMPEACHED.
Why have a CONSTITUTION to serve and protect the citizens, when these five activist judges go to parties in Aspen and Palm Springs with there buddies, or take $800,000 from two brothers to start a political pac, or get gifts from bended knees

 

Madmiddle

(459 posts)
85. The justice system is only for people that can pay.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:10 AM
Mar 2015

This is another step toward something worse coming at us all like a freight train.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Holy Crap. SCOTUS hammere...