US growers take note of this Supreme Court ruling!
- Thread starter ItsGrowTime
- Start date
"The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants."
How is one to gauge what exactly is simple police mistakes?
Gives LEO a huge gray area to work with.
After all some of them are inept insecure idiots who couldn't get a job else where. Now they have a badge, and a gun.
How is one to gauge what exactly is simple police mistakes?
Gives LEO a huge gray area to work with.
After all some of them are inept insecure idiots who couldn't get a job else where. Now they have a badge, and a gun.
The flush started 15 years ago or so.
I'm not really sure if we, as a cannabis culture, are strong enough to pull the country out of total mess it has created for itself.
Sorry I wasn't paying attention everyone..... I just found out last year that I have Asperger's Syndrome so the first 37 years I wasn't really paying attention to what our govt. was doing.
I'm working on that now.
Million man march on washington..... 4/20/09
dwtc
Active member
Million man march on washington..... 4/20/09
i'm there.
we need to all go out and buy handguns(got one or two) and protect OURSELVES. when enough popo get shot over there mistakes maybe they will rethink bustin in someones house. i for one can't grow at this time so if my door gets busted down,,,,,,,,well you get the picture.
it's funny how RON PAUL was shunned by the media and he was the only one looking out for THE PEOPLE. you could bet the farm if he was prez this kinda shit wouldn't be happening, and the war on drugs(the people) wouldn't even be an issue anymore. ONLY IN A PERFECT WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A SOCIETY OF SHEEP MUST INTIME BEGET A GOVERNMENT OF WOLVES
stay safe and free or die tryin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,dwtc
S
ShoeboxSherman
Ron Paul made too much sense, too scary for the cabal to consider giving a chance.
The last election, probably like most or all I've voted in, was decided long before November. Obama was handpicked before the primary. How anyone can think he'll do anything significantly different than his predecessors just blows my mind.
OldBastard
Member
That was Alex Jones.
OldBastard
Member
It's still unconstitutional, even though for all extents and purposes, that won't matter.
I've been telling people about shit for a few years now.
Ever hear of operation Falcon?
The Military commisions act?
They've been able to designate you as a "terrorist" for a long time now,
legally take you away, without charge, without counsel, and even have the provision that if ANYONE who witnessed this action spoke about it to ANYONE
(family member, judge, lawyer, anyone) they face 5 years locked up.
Animal rights people have been mentioned in regard to the MCA,
so I think they can be pretty arbitrary in the way they define "terrorist".
They've been rounding up people at the local level (sheriff, city police, state)
using DHS as a centralized command. In each of these operations there always turn out to be hundreds of people who were taken, that are not reflected in warrants served count.
I've been telling people about shit for a few years now.
Ever hear of operation Falcon?
The Military commisions act?
They've been able to designate you as a "terrorist" for a long time now,
legally take you away, without charge, without counsel, and even have the provision that if ANYONE who witnessed this action spoke about it to ANYONE
(family member, judge, lawyer, anyone) they face 5 years locked up.
Animal rights people have been mentioned in regard to the MCA,
so I think they can be pretty arbitrary in the way they define "terrorist".
They've been rounding up people at the local level (sheriff, city police, state)
using DHS as a centralized command. In each of these operations there always turn out to be hundreds of people who were taken, that are not reflected in warrants served count.
I'd like to point out that this ruling is based on a clerical error. The simple mistake was not the officers acting improperly, but a failure of record keeping. The police officers were acting in good faith, based on the information they had available.
I don't like it any better than anyone else, but this is hardly the invalidation of the Fourth Amendment. A cop performing a search that is illegal is still going to be chucked out, because it is based on the Gross Misconduct the justices addressed.
I still feel the evidence should have been tossed, since the officers, for whatever the reason, still had no right to access that evidence. Just like the cops, the guy in question had no reason to believe there was a warrant out.
I wish one of these conservative dipshit justices would just die already. The issue of an appointment for life is a whole 'nother issue, though.
I don't like it any better than anyone else, but this is hardly the invalidation of the Fourth Amendment. A cop performing a search that is illegal is still going to be chucked out, because it is based on the Gross Misconduct the justices addressed.
I still feel the evidence should have been tossed, since the officers, for whatever the reason, still had no right to access that evidence. Just like the cops, the guy in question had no reason to believe there was a warrant out.
I wish one of these conservative dipshit justices would just die already. The issue of an appointment for life is a whole 'nother issue, though.
NT, the problem with this ruling is the bigger picture it "condones". That one case is a clerical error but how many 'simple police mistakes" will be pled by prosecutors in court now? We are all well aware that the cops can and do lie their asses off when it suits their purposes. This ruling opens up a huge area that was previously *somewhat* off limits. Like the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine I mentioned before. They will pull this ruling for EVERY police mistake (simple or not) they make and hope a judge sides with them. It's just another big step toward full police state control. Think of the "boiling frog" analogy for reference.
ETA: Ask any cop and he'll tell you that 75% of his job is "clerical". If we start allowing "clerical" errors to be overlooked as "simple police mistakes" (which is now a brand new legal doctrine that prosecutors are drooling over) then cops could fudge 75% of their job and still be cops! How about when they start making "clerical" errors on the search warrant for your house then claim "simple police mistake" about their probable cause? Its a very slippery slope. Or when Detective Flattop decides to enter a fake warrant into their database to facilitate a raid on your home in absence of proper probable cause? They'll claim "clerical" error there too. Etc etc.
ETA: Ask any cop and he'll tell you that 75% of his job is "clerical". If we start allowing "clerical" errors to be overlooked as "simple police mistakes" (which is now a brand new legal doctrine that prosecutors are drooling over) then cops could fudge 75% of their job and still be cops! How about when they start making "clerical" errors on the search warrant for your house then claim "simple police mistake" about their probable cause? Its a very slippery slope. Or when Detective Flattop decides to enter a fake warrant into their database to facilitate a raid on your home in absence of proper probable cause? They'll claim "clerical" error there too. Etc etc.
Last edited:
Oh, I agree IGT, like I said, it pisses me off too, but it's not the complete stripping of the 4th Amendment.
Any further in this direction, and I think things are going to get hectic, and real fucking quick.
For fun, have you read about John Titor? A fun read, and the parallels are spooky, to say the least. I could see it happening just as described. Although, I'm doubting a 70s computer will save the world
Any further in this direction, and I think things are going to get hectic, and real fucking quick.
For fun, have you read about John Titor? A fun read, and the parallels are spooky, to say the least. I could see it happening just as described. Although, I'm doubting a 70s computer will save the world
GeneticHeirloom
Member
I know it was said by another guy but... how do you know this? I'm curious on where you found out because I watch that movie at least once a month and would love to read the backstory on some of these scenes.
Also about that waking Life one, can anyone throw backstory on that too?
Sorry for derailment, just throw me a PM
BTW I've never met more like minded individuals on a topic like this anywhere before in the time i've been looking into "the state of things"
Respect to all those in the states I throw my luck to all of you.
eenymeenygreeny
New member
Court says evidence is valid despite police error
Court says evidence is valid despite police error
Court says evidence is valid despite police error
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 14, 3:15 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants.
The justices split 5-4 along ideological lines to apply new limits to the court's so-called exclusionary rule, which generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizure.
The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges.
Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's deputies found amphetamines in Herring's pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff's computers had not been updated.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."
Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with Roberts.
In a dissent for the other four justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "leaves Herring, and others like him, with no remedy for violations of their constitutional rights."
Ginsburg said accurate police record-keeping is of paramount importance, particularly with the widespread use of electronic databases. Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens also dissented.
Herring was arrested after a Coffee sheriff's employee asked her counterpart in Dale County whether Herring, called "no stranger to law enforcement" by Roberts, was wanted in Dale. An arrest warrant had been issued in Dale, but it had been recalled by July 2004.
The sheriff's electronic records, however, showed it was still a valid warrant.
Acting on that information, Coffee County deputies arrested and searched Herring.
The Dale employee meanwhile discovered the warrant was no longer valid and called Coffee County to say so. But it was too late for Herring.
Some courts have ruled that as a deterrent to police misconduct, the fruits of a similar search may be excluded from evidence.
But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in Herring's case would be unlikely to deter sloppy record keeping.
The case is Herring v. U.S., 07-513.
Court says evidence is valid despite police error
Court says evidence is valid despite police error
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 14, 3:15 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants.
The justices split 5-4 along ideological lines to apply new limits to the court's so-called exclusionary rule, which generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizure.
The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges.
Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's deputies found amphetamines in Herring's pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff's computers had not been updated.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."
Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with Roberts.
In a dissent for the other four justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "leaves Herring, and others like him, with no remedy for violations of their constitutional rights."
Ginsburg said accurate police record-keeping is of paramount importance, particularly with the widespread use of electronic databases. Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens also dissented.
Herring was arrested after a Coffee sheriff's employee asked her counterpart in Dale County whether Herring, called "no stranger to law enforcement" by Roberts, was wanted in Dale. An arrest warrant had been issued in Dale, but it had been recalled by July 2004.
The sheriff's electronic records, however, showed it was still a valid warrant.
Acting on that information, Coffee County deputies arrested and searched Herring.
The Dale employee meanwhile discovered the warrant was no longer valid and called Coffee County to say so. But it was too late for Herring.
Some courts have ruled that as a deterrent to police misconduct, the fruits of a similar search may be excluded from evidence.
But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in Herring's case would be unlikely to deter sloppy record keeping.
The case is Herring v. U.S., 07-513.
i think paranoia will kill us all...
with ALL the information we ALL have at our fingertips... all the different bits of technology...
-big wig gov. officials hear some classified news (true or false), then go and act upon it...
-the public hears of supposed classified news (true or false), then acts upon it...
before you know it, everyone will be living in the state of paranoia us pot smoker/growers know OH SO WELL... its not healthy.. its good to stay informed, but don't alter your lifestle... before you know it, youll be locked up behind bars... if you talk to most people who have been locked up, they can usually attest for their hatred of the government...
If I die from a nuke attack, oh well, I die... big fucking deal...what will it matter?
this ruling IS horse shit though, I won't Lie. ive always been up for a life in the forests of canada...
sorry about the stoner ramble, just had to say my bit..
peace, LW
with ALL the information we ALL have at our fingertips... all the different bits of technology...
-big wig gov. officials hear some classified news (true or false), then go and act upon it...
-the public hears of supposed classified news (true or false), then acts upon it...
before you know it, everyone will be living in the state of paranoia us pot smoker/growers know OH SO WELL... its not healthy.. its good to stay informed, but don't alter your lifestle... before you know it, youll be locked up behind bars... if you talk to most people who have been locked up, they can usually attest for their hatred of the government...
If I die from a nuke attack, oh well, I die... big fucking deal...what will it matter?
this ruling IS horse shit though, I won't Lie. ive always been up for a life in the forests of canada...
sorry about the stoner ramble, just had to say my bit..
peace, LW
eenymeenygreeny
New member
insane
insane
this is crazy im posting this everywhere i can
insane
this is crazy im posting this everywhere i can
Tyranny.
"Trained as a lawyer, Jefferson was a great writer but never a good speaker or advocate and never comfortable in court. He believed that judges should be technical specialists but should not set policy. He denounced the 1801 Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison as a violation of democracy, but he did not have enough support in Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment to overturn it."
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison
"Trained as a lawyer, Jefferson was a great writer but never a good speaker or advocate and never comfortable in court. He believed that judges should be technical specialists but should not set policy. He denounced the 1801 Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison as a violation of democracy, but he did not have enough support in Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment to overturn it."
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison
S
ShoeboxSherman
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
-- Thomas Jefferson
Its interesting that modern day judges can simply read what the people that WROTE the Constitution have said in the past if they want to know how to abide by it. Then these judges wouldn't feel to need to "interpret" it. It is all available, easy to find, and even easier to understand. TJ's quote above explains exactly why the SCOTUS ruling is WRONG and is contary to the intent of the 4th Amendment. Why judges feel they can rule in exactly the opposite manner as the Founders intended is beyond me.
Last edited:
Makes me so mad I wanna start a riot! This is ridiculous! I never thought we would loose this right. Now the police can make up whatever they want to get a warrant. If they violate your rights and illegally search you, your house, your property, or your car and find anything illegal, it doesn't matter, your screwed now. Whether they were right or wrong, or if they violated your rights MEANS NOTHING! When you point out in court that they falsified info, they say "oh well, now how about those plants we found in your house."
