U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: The Fourth Amendment Is Dead
Source:
National Motorists Association
URL Source: http://blog.motorists.org/the-fourth-amendment-is-dead/
Published: Jan 12, 2008
Author: James Baxter
Post Date: 2015-02-14 10:23:03 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1785
Comments: 13
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution has been strangled with convoluted legal rationalizations, riddled with bullets in the form of Supreme Court decisions and drawn and quartered by “creative” law enforcement interpretations. This old and oft referred to amendment, an attempt to protect the privacy and property rights of individuals, is dead. Driving any more nails into its rotted casket is a redundant waste of time, but the US Supreme Court persists. For motorists, or anyone on a public road or sidewalk, the illusion of personal privacy is but a dim memory. Random searches, based on the flimsiest excuses, roadblocks, “frisking” and “patting down” passengers or pedestrians, because they “might have a weapon” and roadside interrogations are now all quite legal, or are carried out as if they are because no one dare argue to the contrary. The US Supreme Court is currently hearing a case dealing with a Virginia man who was “arrested” for driving with a suspended license, even though the state of Virginia does not authorize arrests for minor traffic crimes, which is what driving on a suspended license is considered. The court long ago held that once a person is arrested they are subject to being searched. If their car is within finding distance, it too can be searched. This Court ruled in 2001 that a person could be arrested for violating virtually any traffic law, including the failure to wear a seat belt. And, once arrested you have no fourth amendment protections. For all practical purposes, this gives the police the power to stop, arrest, and search anyone they feel like “checking out” or harassing. Arabs might be the flavor of the day on Monday, Tuesday it’s blacks in luxury cars and on Wednesday it’s young men driving sport compacts. The options/excuses for a stop are endless; burned out bulbs, unused seat belts, (real or imagined) failure to properly signal, touching the center line, hitting the shoulder, two MPH over the speed limit, driving too slow, rolling a stop sign, rolling a right on red, failure to yield to a pedestrian, or talking on a cell phone (inattentive driving). If the police want to stop you, they can. If they want to arrest you, they can. If they want to search you and your vehicle and your passengers, they can. That’s how the land’s highest court has ruled.
By James Baxter, NMA President
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Traffic laws are written and enforced by each state. If you don't like the laws in your state, either change them or move. Who in their right mind looks to the federal government to solve a state issue? What happened to "state's rights"? Oh, wait. I know. State's rights are good when the state favors the things we support. When they don't, then we can go running to the feds and hide behind their skirt.
So says the NMA President.. Here's the pitiful opinion of a LF statist: No, we all have a constitutional duty to insist that States comply with our constitutional rights.. States have no rights, they have powers. In this case, those powers are being exceeded. A States powers are good when they comply with our Constitution.. When they don't, it is every citizens duty to object. Why is it you don't object? Ever...?
All states are bound by the fourth amendment. So it is state and federal.
This must be based on the fact that your definition of "unreasonable" and "probable cause" is different than the USSC. Surely you realize that the definition of "unreasonable" is subjective... and "PC" can be based on a multitude of things. Who should be the decision maker for legal definitions, regarding the criminal justice systems and the constitution? You? Mr. White? ... who?
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
So says the NMA President.. Here's the pitiful opinion of a LF statist: No, we all have a constitutional duty to insist that States comply with our constitutional rights.. States have no rights, they have powers. In this case, those powers are being exceeded. A States powers are good when they comply with our Constitution.. When they don't, it is every citizens duty to object. Why is it you don't object? Ever...?
Any state can write a law more protective of 4th amendment rights.
A States powers are good when they comply with our Constitution.. When they don't, it is every citizens duty to object. Yep, and the SCOTUS has been wrestling with that definition since the founding. In the really long run, the people decide, thru the amendment process. And we're still arguing about what the 14th decided.
Surely you realize that the definition of "unreasonable" is subjective... and "PC" can be based on a multitude of things. Yep, and the SCOTUS has been wrestling with that definition since the founding. Who should be the decision maker for legal definitions, regarding the criminal justice systems and the constitution? You? Mr. White? ... who In the really long run, the people decide, thru the amendment process. And we're still arguing about what the 14th decided. After reviewing your response, (and I'm honestly not trying to be a smart ass or a trouble maker).... I get the same feeling like one would get if their sister was their prom date. How uneventful... I feel no better off after the prom then before I went. So... what do we do while we are in this limbo... as LE encounters these grey areas of subjectiveness, while trying to tackle the everchanging world of criminality?
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
In the really long run, the people decide, thru the amendment process. And we're still arguing about what the 14th decided. --And whether income taxation is constitutional. Gee, how awful for you. IMO, you're being a little bit like misterwhite, who is so sure of his own political correctness, that he expects perfection of everyone else. I sure don't have all the answers.. I'd suggest you review the principles written in defense of the Constitution, and its presumption of individual liberties, and try to honor and defend them.
On what planet? Chyeah -- Just to be overturned by a federal court or single fascist or queer judge.
Because MW worships as an altar boy for the State-Run church.
Social activits groups? The ACLU? SPLC? Sharpton, Jackson ring ab bell? Remember the Tray-Tray Martin case? Or maybe the Ferguson, MO case? Did you forget how in both cases swarms of fedgub agents stepped into each fray, shoving aside State authorities over a cliff?
misterwhite --- Any state can write a law more protective of 4th amendment rights. On what planet? --- Liberator Left unsaid by whitey is his main communitarian theory, -- that States have the power to ignore some individual rights.
#2. To: misterwhite continues to support Statist dogma (#1)
If the police want to stop you, they can. If they want to arrest you, they can. If they want to search you and your vehicle and your passengers, they can. -- That’s how the land’s highest court has ruled.
Traffic laws are written and enforced by each state. If you don't like the laws in your state, either change them or move.
Who in their right mind looks to the federal government to solve a state issue? What happened to "state's rights"?
Oh, wait. I know. State's rights are good when the state favors the things we support. When they don't, then we can go running to the feds and hide behind their skirt.
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
#4. To: tpaine (#2)
A States powers are good when they comply with our Constitution.. When they don't, it is every citizens duty to object.
#5. To: misterwhite continues to support Statist dogma (#1)
If the police want to stop you, they can. If they want to arrest you, they can. If they want to search you and your vehicle and your passengers, they can. -- That’s how the land’s highest court has ruled.
Traffic laws are written and enforced by each state. If you don't like the laws in your state, either change them or move.
Who in their right mind looks to the federal government to solve a state issue? What happened to "state's rights"?
Oh, wait. I know. State's rights are good when the state favors the things we support. When they don't, then we can go running to the feds and hide behind their skirt.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)
"All states are bound by the fourth amendment. So it is state and federal."
#7. To: GrandIsland (#4)
misterwhite --- State's rights are good when the state favors the things we support. When they don't, then we can go running to the feds and hide behind their skirt.
Surely you realize that the definition of "unreasonable" is subjective... and "PC" can be based on a multitude of things.
Who should be the decision maker for legal definitions, regarding the criminal justice systems and the constitution? You? Mr. White? ... who
#8. To: tpaine (#7)
To: GrandIsland misterwhite --- State's rights are good when the state favors the things we support. When they don't, then we can go running to the feds and hide behind their skirt. A States powers are good when they comply with our Constitution.. When they don't, it is every citizens duty to object.
#9. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#8)
Who should be the decision maker for legal definitions, regarding the criminal justice systems and the constitution? You? Mr. White? ... who
After reviewing your response, (and I'm honestly not trying to be a smart ass or a trouble maker).... I get the same feeling like one would get if their sister was their prom date. How uneventful... I feel no better off after the prom then before I went.
So... what do we do while we are in this limbo... as LE encounters these grey areas of subjectiveness, while trying to tackle the everchanging world of criminality?
#10. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#6)
Any state can write a law more protective of 4th amendment rights.
#11. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#5)
Why is it you don't object? Ever...?
#12. To: misterwhite (#1)
Who in their right mind looks to the federal government to solve a state issue?
#13. To: Liberator, AKA Stone, Y'ALL (#10)
A K A Stone (#3) --- "All states are bound by the fourth amendment. So it is state and federal."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]