Latest Breaking News

NoMoreRepugs

(9,412 posts)

25. 7962 - didn't the policeman assume he might find something amiss

Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:09 PM

Jun 2016

when he made the stop? Because he sure didn't know for 100% positive that he would find something wrong - to me that's a 'what if' scenario - I understand in this case it happened to be a correct assumption. Isn't it similar to the NYC 'stop and frisk'
fiasco? Or is my memory really getting worse with age

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rules for police in search case [View all] NWCorona Jun 2016 OP

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