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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
21. Hahaha, that's a good one!
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:54 PM
Jun 2016

A cop, getting "charged with and prosecuted" for an "illegality" that infringes on the rights of a regular, poor, probably-criminal-anyway citizen? Quit with the jokes; you're killing me!

This decision...

k&r,

-app

Well, that will make the police happy. malthaussen Jun 2016 #1
Justices aren't required to explain fully, but: Have you read the decision for the rationale? JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #5
Actuallly, reading it now. malthaussen Jun 2016 #6
I suspect what swayed them was that there was already a warrant for the guy. cstanleytech Jun 2016 #35
Obvious....What if the police plant the evidence.... Tikki Jun 2016 #2
What an important question... midnight Jun 2016 #16
Yessirreee - asiliveandbreathe Jun 2016 #3
Agreed! This is a terrible ruling. NWCorona Jun 2016 #4
Yeah, I get the feeling she's a little pissed. malthaussen Jun 2016 #11
Sotomayor is so right. ananda Jun 2016 #26
5-3? Which one of the liberals jumped ship? vdogg Jun 2016 #7
Mr Justice Breyer malthaussen Jun 2016 #9
The Clinton-nominated one n/t arcane1 Jun 2016 #27
Cute... vdogg Jun 2016 #28
And true. arcane1 Jun 2016 #29
But Old Codger Jun 2016 #8
Hahaha, that's a good one! appal_jack Jun 2016 #21
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
from the summary treestar Jun 2016 #14
Here's the decision: malthaussen Jun 2016 #15
thanks! treestar Jun 2016 #18
When I saw his name on it... malthaussen Jun 2016 #39
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-1373 treestar Jun 2016 #13
Yes, I think so. That slope is definitely too slippery. NWCorona Jun 2016 #19
By that description, it doesnt sound like an illegal stop to me. 7962 Jun 2016 #20
Yeah, But RobinA Jun 2016 #43
am I incorrect for assuming ANYONE can now be stopped because the law is now "What IF"... NoMoreRepugs Jun 2016 #17
Not the way I see it. 7962 Jun 2016 #22
7962 - didn't the policeman assume he might find something amiss NoMoreRepugs Jun 2016 #25
But he had reason to assume it based on watching the house 7962 Jun 2016 #37
guess I am looking at this from a slightly different angle/perspective... NoMoreRepugs Jun 2016 #45
well, it's not like we have a 4th amendment anymore anyway. nt Javaman Jun 2016 #23
Yeah, the War on Certain Drugs, and the invention of flushable toilets, killed it off. arcane1 Jun 2016 #30
How much do they think you can actually flush in these new toilets anyway.... 7962 Jun 2016 #38
um okay... Javaman Jun 2016 #42
The presence of a toilet allows police to enter your home without warning arcane1 Jun 2016 #44
Ahh thanks for clarifying. :) nt Javaman Jun 2016 #46
The wording of the decision sarisataka Jun 2016 #24
Welcome to the Police States of Amerika! RoccoR5955 Jun 2016 #31
Unpaid Parking Ticket? JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #32
Thats merely her opinion though the court if presented with such a case down the road could cstanleytech Jun 2016 #34
It's just the 4th Amendment. Cassiopeia Jun 2016 #33
the final paragraph of Sotomayor's dissent is incredibly powerful JustinL Jun 2016 #36
Might as well just take the Fourth Amendment off life support and institute full police powers tabasco Jun 2016 #40
Sounding more and more like we the people are screwed. In_The_Wind Jun 2016 #41
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court rules for p...»Reply #21