US growers take note of this Supreme Court ruling!

[facelift]

When you point out in court that they falsified info, they say "oh well, now how about those plants we found in your house."

Not true. I have a copy of an affidavit filed by the police where I live that was used to make me look like the person that was wanted on a warrant, and I was given $40,000.00 just this past summer. The fact that I could prove that the police with acted intent to violate my right was what made the police wrong and the court to aware a large check. Even my records were cleared esponged and removed.

The article said that the database was not cleared, this has nothing to do with information being falsified. I am so sure that if a person can prove that information was falsified all charges will be dropped and if you served time in jail, you would be paid.

I'm not taking the cops' side, I still can't trust them and doubt that I ever will. Not because they boo-booed, but because they intentionally were out to cause me great bodily and emotional harm. I'm still trying to figure out why.

 

[Hindu Killer]

bastards....

 

[yamaha_1fan]

This belongs in the legal section


What a crock of shit. Unbelieveable.. Cops are going to run wild with this. Ooops honest mistake

 

[cellardweller]

great. just fucking great. I really wish I hadn't read about this as my defense lies in the fact that the cops fucked up search and seizure in my case..maybe my trial will be heard before my judge hears..lol..not..

 

[Paco]

the last gasp of a dying beast. ihope.

 

[Kush09]

I understand what your saying. Maybe falsified wasn't a good word to use. What if they now "accidentally" make a mistake, but it was really intentional, in order to get to search someone's house, car, property whenever they felt the need. It's awesome you were able to prove those bastards wrong in court, but most of the time they get away with murder. This ruling opens up the doors for all evidence to be used now, whether things were done properly or not. So, if they "thought" you were someone else, busted in your house, but you really weren't, they still would be able to charge and arrest you and use anything they found against you in court.

 

[GOONie]

That right there is why pigs get murked. I honestly just got so pissed off when reading that and starting thinking of how EXACTLY this same situation happened to me over a year ago. I dont want to start elaborating on the thoughts going through my mind right now cause im trying to stay in a good mood for work today, but lets just say that id be going Charles Manson on some mother fuckers

 

[SouthernGuerila]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


-- Thomas Jefferson

This quote is most often used to justify acts of lunacy when not properly understood and used out of context.

 

[NiteTiger]

This quote is most often used to justify acts of lunacy when not properly understood and used out of context.

Are you saying it's being used out of context here? Because when I go back and read the entire letter (From Thomas Jefferson to William Smith, November 13th 1787), I find that in context, it is calling for even more 'lunatic' action than most of us have really considered.

We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

 

[Dr. Smokepuma]

thats fuck up

 

[Dr. Smokepuma]

fuck that sucks

 

[CLDBD]

Seen this info in a few places lately. Makes me sick. I know there are other drugs involved but it seems to me at times like there is this massive crusade against weed that seems so overblown that it is like we live in bizzaro world. The fact that I could server jail time for what I do that harms nobody is just incredibly ass backwards and fucked up.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

The ruling involves a clerical mistake, and actions that were taken in good faith by LEO.
Although the dissents contain many of the same thoughts and feelings I am reading here, there was no gross violation of the constitution as written.
Any lawyer worth his salt is not going to let his client be locked up for a cop saying he simply made a mistake. In fact, it will probably be the key to many people being released.
With such a SC ruling, it is going to have to be crystal clear that an actual mistake has been made. Not simply a mistake of the mind, but a mistake that can be validated, such as a computer still holding an invalid warrant action.

Many of you who throw stones at the US Constitution and the SCOTUS already hold these ill feelings, and it wouldn't matter what decision we were talking about here, you are ready to throw them to the wolves no matter what. Don't try to deny that, because y'all know it's true.

But I see very few on the bandwagon when the SCOTUS actually DOES violate constitutional writing, or even make up what the constitution says or doesn't say.
I wonder just how many of you that are thinking that we just had our constitution eroded by this decision, but totally and completely back up the ROE VS WADE decision?
If you in fact are one of those who feel this is a gross violation of our constitution, and you also back up RvW, please explain to me how this decision is a violation of rights, and RvW is not?

Also, does a convicted felon, or any living person for that matter, have more or less rights than an unborn child? How about the rights of it's mother? Or maybe the rights of it's father?

Many of you are quick to jump, and really have no clue as to what is at the bottom of the pit. Just my 2 pfennigs.

 

[ShoeboxSherman]

The ruling involves a clerical mistake, and actions that were taken in good faith by LEO.
Although the dissents contain many of the same thoughts and feelings I am reading here, there was no gross violation of the constitution as written.
Any lawyer worth his salt is not going to let his client be locked up for a cop saying he simply made a mistake. In fact, it will probably be the key to many people being released.
With such a SC ruling, it is going to have to be crystal clear that an actual mistake has been made. Not simply a mistake of the mind, but a mistake that can be validated, such as a computer still holding an invalid warrant action.

Many of you who throw stones at the US Constitution and the SCOTUS already hold these ill feelings, and it wouldn't matter what decision we were talking about here, you are ready to throw them to the wolves no matter what. Don't try to deny that, because y'all know it's true.

But I see very few on the bandwagon when the SCOTUS actually DOES violate constitutional writing, or even make up what the constitution says or doesn't say.
I wonder just how many of you that are thinking that we just had our constitution eroded by this decision, but totally and completely back up the ROE VS WADE decision?
If you in fact are one of those who feel this is a gross violation of our constitution, and you also back up RvW, please explain to me how this decision is a violation of rights, and RvW is not?

Also, does a convicted felon, or any living person for that matter, have more or less rights than an unborn child? How about the rights of it's mother? Or maybe the rights of it's father?

Many of you are quick to jump, and really have no clue as to what is at the bottom of the pit. Just my 2 pfennigs.

Erosion begins with the first drop of water, the first puff of wind. While I don't in any way believe that this decision voids or completely erodes the 4th Amendment, I recognize the very real potential for the abuse of this decision by law enforcement agencies. While you seem very secure in your belief that this will not be the case, or at least in the belief that such abuses will not stand in a court of law, I do not. Call me paranoid, but I don't trust any authority to look out for my rights and well-being.

As for the rights of the unborn, in my opinion that's a moral and personal matter, not a legal one.

Just my one Rupee. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Shcrews]

SCOTUS?

SCOTUS?

we might as well go back to the stone age. I say DISBAND the supreme court. The whole judicial system actually.

the Public Will, held so dear by the theoretical founders of modern democracy is being trampled by the ruling elite

only two options remain: SUBMIT and build, or RESIST and destroy

Man is a tribal animal by nature, and perhaps it is time to relinquish our globalized society's grip on itself and return to a simpler time.

Can we, in our position of privelege, sacrifice our comfort and security in order to rid the world of corruption, greed, and ignorance?

....Or should we just pass more laws? and amendments? and sub-clauses? regulations? resolutions? bills? taxes?

We are all struggling against the rule of law, but cannot see any other way.

Jah help us

 

[ItsGrowTime]

As if the Supreme Court hasn't done enough damage to the 4th Amendment lately, here is their ruling yesterday that *passengers* in cars can be searched even if they display no illegal behavior or suspicious activity whatsoever.

Will we even have a 4th Amendment left once the SCOTUS is done with it??

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/breakingnews/108614.php

US Supreme Court rules in Tucson case...
January 26, 2009, 9:45 a.m.
The Associated Press

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 man in Tucson 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.

So expect to be frisked everytime you get stopped for a traffic violation since you might have a weapon. What I don't get is where is the "reasonable suspicion" part? Does speeding 8mph over the speed limit mean you are likely armed? I don't see the connection.

 

[NiteTiger]

Nothing new here. Supreme Court always leans toward the side of officer safety. In fact, I'm surprised the Court heard this, as there are already similar decisions.

Officers are pretty much allowed to check for weapons whenever there is official contact, meaning a traffic stop or in response to a call. They can't just stop you on the street and pat you down for no reason, but if there is a valid reason for contact, then yeah, a pat down is allowed.

I think the key here is the gun. As I said, the officers right to check someone for a weapon has been ruled on many times before. He did a pat down, felt a weapon, and proceeded with the search.

Technically, police can only pat the outer layers of clothes (hence 'pat-down') to determine the likely presence of a weapon, or other contraband reasonably identifiable by touch, but does not include reaching into pockets. Of course, we know how often cops stop at that The key is though, it's one of those little things most people don't know, and accidentally give away their rights on.

You'll notice most cops ask you to empty out your pockets, because they're going to pat you down. When they put it on the hood, and ask you do you have anything else, they're setting you up. You say no, nothing else. They say 'I'm just going to make sure you don't have any weapons or anything else, okay?"

There's the hook. You say yes, and you've just given them permission to check you for anything. You just gave them consent to search your person.

Otherwise, if they pat you down, and just go through your pockets without 'tricking' you, then technically, that's an illegal search.

But it doesn't matter in this case. The officer, per other Rulings, is allowed to check for weapons when contacting a person in an investigatory capacity. This guy had a gun, got arrested, and had pot in his pocket.

He didn't get fucked by the Supreme Court, he got fucked because he was running around with a gun. The Supreme Court was maybe clarifying the language from previous decisions, but the meat of the decision is nothing new.

 

[sow da seeds]

When its too late and thinking the wrong thing gets you put in jail, I wonder if Americans will even realize that the present (NOW) was the time they should have seen the BIG PICTURE?

 

[ItsGrowTime]

He didn't get fucked by the Supreme Court, he got fucked because he was running around with a gun. The Supreme Court was maybe clarifying the language from previous decisions, but the meat of the decision is nothing new.

I agree with most of what you are saying NT and you're right that this has been commonly practiced by police for a while, but what this ruling does is sanction a police officer pulling everyone out of the car for anything as simple as stopping for a speeding ticket, broken taillight, or other minor infraction. IOW, it condones a "fishing expedition" by the police in absence of any true probable cause such as a passenger reaching under the seat, fidgeting, etc. It removes the onus on the police of justifying their actions. That was clearly not the intent of the 4th Amendment. Sure, if the guy didnt have a gun and weed there wouldnt have ever been the case to be heard. But at issue is that the cop got lucky by just patting down everyone in the car without probable cause to do so. The blanket "police safety" now appears to trump a person's right to be free from unreasonable (read: without cause) search of his person, papers, or effects. The next step is "Let me zee your paperz pleeze" checkpoints while driving absent of any probable cause...oh wait....they already have those. They're called DUI Checkpoints.

How about "police safety" patdowns on sidewalk Terry stops? Same principle. Coming soon, I assure you. There is a concerted effort to erode the 4th Amendment into nothing but slick talking points by cops and prosecutors. These new legal doctrines that SCOTUS is coining lately only help the police, not the citizens.

ETA: Just a quick scenario to put these things into perspective. According to the US Supreme Court, you can be a passenger in a car being driven by a legal, licensed driver doing the exact speed limit, with all of the equipment functioning, then be forced into a DUI Checkpoint, be ordered out of the car by a cop, be patted down for "safety" (which is a search, don't let the semantics fool you), have the driver's ID run through the computer, come up with a bogus warrant that is 2 years old that the cops don't even need to verify as active, then because the driver is arrested the car is searched and your 1/8oz is found under the passenger seat, and you both are arrested and you are convicted of possession of narcotics without a legal leg to stand on in court. And not one part of this entire scenario violates the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure!?

 

[Blue Dot]

NiteTiger, ItsGrowTime makes a good point about DUI checkpoints.

The citizen in that case has done nothing illegal, but by entering the checkpoint, the cops "set up (or initiate) the contact". Like IGT says, they can now pat you for safety even though you have done nothing illegal to warrant it.

At least if you are pulled over for an infraction, the presumption is that the driver has done something illegal, so in that sense the passenger pays the price by being subject to the pat but by being a passenger and merely entering a dui checkpoint, the passenger is paying the price for this "contact" when neither the passenger nor the driver have committed an infraction.

In other words, if they can't randomly pat you down on the sidewalk, they shouldn't be allowed to set up a checkpoint that suddenly allows them to pat you down.

Don't forget, Innocent until proven guilty.