[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked WASHINGTON --The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so. The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter. The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana. The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous. The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Frankly, I find this one a tad more disturbing than Pelosi misspeaking. Pittsburgh has 6...how many have you got? #2. To: war (#0) Should we ignore the supreme court as they obviously couldn't pass constitution 101 class.
#3. To: war (#1) Frankly, I find this one a tad more disturbing than Pelosi misspeaking. I would have to agree.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2) I believe that any candidate who cannot properly overweight rights versus power should not be appointed to the bench. Pittsburgh has 6...how many have you got? #5. To: war (#4) I believe that any candidate who cannot properly overweight rights versus power should not be appointed to the bench. That sounds reasonable enough. Problem is how do we get rid of 9 supreme court justices. Then how do we know they aren't lying when being confirmed. How about like detectors being used regularly for all congresses business. Then a lie detector used in the presidential and other candidates debates. Google can sponsor it.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5) That sounds reasonable enough. Problem is how do we get rid of 9 supreme court justices. Then how do we know they aren't lying when being confirmed. Roberts' work on the exclusionary rule alone when he worked in the Reagan Adminstration was more than enough to disaqualify him, IMHO. The rule came about as a counterweight to police overreach as nearly 200 years of 4th amendment case law devolved "probable cause" into "just because". It was also apparent that as the wholly unwinnable drug war was ramping up, that police were planting evidence. So, while we've punished police for planting, we've eviscerated the 4th that ONLY planting evidence is excluded. Hell, thanks to this decision we're no longer debating whether or not random acts are "reasonable" when the plain language of the 4th say that they are. With the proliferation of written versus per curiam decisions, you really don't have to publically vet a candidate in the theoretical any more - not that they ever answered any way - but should be questioned on their previous body of work. Pittsburgh has 6...how many have you got? Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|