Capital offense probably isn’t the right word. But your second point I agree with. Your first point is right, if they have something in plain sight, then even if it was a BS reason to pull them over, they clearly can act on it.
I agree they shouldn’t be searching trunks and shit because their first name is Mohammed (like my Dr).
If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about.
/dickhead
rip
Amendment IV
Search and arrest
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Because she’s not an Objectivist, you mean. 
(shudder)
“Help, help, I’m being repressed!”
Sounds like the supreme court needs a couple of nominees far more liberal than Clinton is likely to select 
And that is currently their prerogative thanks to this case:
From the majority opinion:
After the unlawful stop, his conduct was lawful, and there is no indication that the stop was
part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct.
I just can’t head → desk hard enough for this one: C’mon, guys, let’s think for a minute. What would be the best possible way to ensure that this does become systemic and recurrent police misconduct? Oh, right, let them use the evidence gathered through that misconduct. Obviously, a favorable supreme court ruling will have zero effect whatsoever on the future behavior of officers in these situations.
This is basically Scalia’s pet “New professionalism” all over again: “Well, thanks to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine cops have developed something vaguely resembling a respect for the 4th amendment, which clearly suggests that we can safely let them get away with violations now, since changes to incentives never change behavior.”
If the question were whether to discipline the officer in question, and how hard, the matter of how habitually he did this sort of thing would be relevant; but here there is no better way to ensure that it becomes systemic and recurrent than to allow it because it isn’t currently systemic and recurrent(itself a questionable proposition; but facts have always been somewhat optional).
ooooooHHH…You thought we lived in a democracy… no, no, no… I think you’re mistaken! This is AMERICA!!! /S
The Supreme Court of the USA is in desperate need of an Islamic jurist.
I say this as a strong atheist.
Representative government isn’t a terrible idea
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
