Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court rules for police in search case [View all]NoMoreRepugs
(9,412 posts)17. am I incorrect for assuming ANYONE can now be stopped because the law is now "What IF"...
there's an outstanding warrant, something illegal in that person's possession or inside their car... etc.???
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Justices aren't required to explain fully, but: Have you read the decision for the rationale?
JonLeibowitz
Jun 2016
#5
I suspect what swayed them was that there was already a warrant for the guy.
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#35
We are moving closer to an "Ends justify the means" legal process. That's gonna be fun. n/t
CincyDem
Jun 2016
#10
It'd be nice to know the name of the case, so we could see which it actually says
treestar
Jun 2016
#12
am I incorrect for assuming ANYONE can now be stopped because the law is now "What IF"...
NoMoreRepugs
Jun 2016
#17
Yeah, the War on Certain Drugs, and the invention of flushable toilets, killed it off.
arcane1
Jun 2016
#30
Thats merely her opinion though the court if presented with such a case down the road could
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#34