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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)The U.S. Supreme Court Is Marching in Lockstep with the Police State [View all]
The U.S. Supreme Court Is Marching in Lockstep with the Police State
The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.
Police officers can stop cars based only on anonymous tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of reasonable suspicion, stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest youeven if youve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.
The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.
Police officers can stop cars based only on anonymous tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of reasonable suspicion, stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest youeven if youve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.
You want me to believe with all the eaves dropping surveillance equipment they have today there is such a thing as "anonymous"
Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as search warrants on leashes, justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside. In Florida v. Harris (2013), a unanimous Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received proper training. The ruling turns mans best friend into an extension of the police state.
Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if its the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King (2011), the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_us_supreme_court_is_marching_in_lockstep_with_the_police_state
Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if its the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King (2011), the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_us_supreme_court_is_marching_in_lockstep_with_the_police_state
Shredding the Constitution in the name of Security - the founders of this country must be ashamed of what we've done
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
22 replies, 2622 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (35)
ReplyReply to this post
22 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The U.S. Supreme Court Is Marching in Lockstep with the Police State [View all]
FreakinDJ
Aug 2014
OP
that's why it's important to vote for dem potus even if hillary is the nominee
leftyohiolib
Aug 2014
#6
Then we better come up with a non-corporate non-war hawk candidate that can win.
L0oniX
Aug 2014
#12
We will go through this as long as we keep thinking the Right is stronger than the Left.
Spitfire of ATJ
Aug 2014
#13
they got voted in b/c some "dems" decided the democratic nominee wasnt perfect
leftyohiolib
Aug 2014
#19