The U.S. Supreme Court Created a Stasi Police State Today
Apr 23, 2014 6:46:02 GMT -5
Post by southwind on Apr 23, 2014 6:46:02 GMT -5
Last week, Simon Black pointed out how the attorney-client privilege was essentially suspended by the United States Tax Court which by extension, its ruling can be transferred across various jurisdictions at the Federal and State levels as each judicial district so desires. While alone, that ruling might impede the ability to obtain a fair hearing or trial where the presentation of evidence to prove a defendant’s innocence, could result in the suspension of said confidentiality and force an attorney to testify against his or hers client. This was not the intent of the founders nor was the decision handed down today by the United States Supreme Court, which indeed empowers the Government, at any level, to impose a Stasi like police state whenever it is so desired.
The so-called conservatives on the court decided in favor of allowing “anonymous tips” to suffice for the detention of and search of a vehicle even though in the past this was considered insufficient cause to impair one’s 4th Amendment rights. The case, Prado Navarette v. California was a stunning reversal of decades of case law where the standard for justifying a search of a vehicle and detention of an individual put the onus on verification of the source for such a tip and on the actions of the law enforcement officer before executing a formerly illegal stop and search.
In his dissent against the majority, Justice Scalia said the following:
The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness. All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police. If the driver turns out not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the caller need fear no consequences, even if 911 knows his identity. After all, he never alleged drunkenness, but merely called in a traffic violation—and on that point his word is as good as his victim’s.
Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference. To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving. I respectfully dissent.
johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2014/04/22/the-united-states-supreme-court-created-a-stasi-police-state-today/
The so-called conservatives on the court decided in favor of allowing “anonymous tips” to suffice for the detention of and search of a vehicle even though in the past this was considered insufficient cause to impair one’s 4th Amendment rights. The case, Prado Navarette v. California was a stunning reversal of decades of case law where the standard for justifying a search of a vehicle and detention of an individual put the onus on verification of the source for such a tip and on the actions of the law enforcement officer before executing a formerly illegal stop and search.
In his dissent against the majority, Justice Scalia said the following:
The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness. All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police. If the driver turns out not to be drunk (which will almost always be the case), the caller need fear no consequences, even if 911 knows his identity. After all, he never alleged drunkenness, but merely called in a traffic violation—and on that point his word is as good as his victim’s.
Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference. To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving. I respectfully dissent.
johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2014/04/22/the-united-states-supreme-court-created-a-stasi-police-state-today/