Now a future search warrant is OK? Ohio is going down the tubes

sudden valley gunner · Feb 2, 2015

Primus said:
Well the constitution lays this out for everyone. If you don't like it take it up with that my friend...

Yes cops have lied of affidavit and done all this evil horrible heinous things. Ok. So what's your answer? Don't have guys get warrants anymore? Or don't let them seize any property to get a warrant (as laid out by constitution)?

By getting a warrant said officers are on paper for their reasons. Of they are lying (since they are evil blah blah blah) then you'll see it on paper.

Cite.

I didn't read anywhere were property can be seized because of cops hunches.

And please use the constitution not a statist judges tortured rendition.

Primus · Feb 2, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
Cite.

I didn't read anywhere were property can be seized because of cops hunches.

And please use the constitution not a statist judges tortured rendition.

Sure.

"Unreasonable searches".

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4.html

Doesn't say ANY seizures. Or NO seizures. Just says UNREASONABLE seizures.

Now go ahead say it... "I don't find that reasonable". That's ok. You don't have to. Why? Because the same dudes who wrote that AMENDMENT (meaning wasn't originally there) also set up the process for determining what is REASONABLE. Guess what that is? A court.

Notice it mentions warrants being issued? Know who issues the warrant? Not Walmart...... Your court.

[emoji14]

davidmcbeth · Feb 2, 2015

Primus said:
<snip>

Notice it mentions warrants being issued? Know who issues the warrant? Not Walmart...... Your court.

[emoji14]

May as well be Walmart .... how do you get stuff surpressed? Just look at the lack of PC for a warrant ... not hard to find.

Many warrants are found to be lacking; what happens to the judge? Nothing. They should immediately be disbarred.

Jeff. State · Feb 2, 2015

SovereigntyOrDeath said:
Suicide. Both personal and for the country.

You should consider a screen name change as it is contrary to the opinions in quite a few of your posts. Especially this one.

OC for ME · Feb 2, 2015

Amendment IV
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.

A reasonableness test, after the fact, is not reasonable. When a cop is found to not have acted reasonably, that fact is lost on the next cop who is found to have acted unreasonably, it is also lost on the courts. All cops rely upon this paradigm...a sort of legal system crap game.

Primus · Feb 2, 2015

OC for ME said:
A reasonableness test, after the fact, is not reasonable. When a cop is found to not have acted reasonably, that fact is lost on the next cop who is found to have acted unreasonably, it is also lost on the courts. All cops rely upon this paradigm...a sort of legal system crap game.

That'd a valid opinion.

But doesn't change his question or my answer.

Also it doesn't say WHEN the reasonable mess must he decided or who decides it initially.

By default the initial reasonableness test is conducted by the po po for better or worse. He's not going to call a judge to ask if the facts he has in front if him meets the requirement to stop you. He's not going to call the judge every 3 minutes to ask if it's still reasonable to hold you or when to release you. The po po does his thing based on knowledge of PAST encounters challenged by citizens then settled by courts.

Terry v. Ohio comes to mind. The cop thought it was reasonable to stop (seizure) and frisk (search). The citizens clearly did not. Well it went to court and was decided what parts were reasonable and what parts were. That case is now taught and relied upon for further conduct.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 2, 2015

OC for ME said:
A reasonableness test, after the fact, is not reasonable. When a cop is found to not have acted reasonably, that fact is lost on the next cop who is found to have acted unreasonably, it is also lost on the courts. All cops rely upon this paradigm...a sort of legal system crap game.

Bingo.

He erases due process. A vital component.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 2, 2015

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.

Did that happen? Or did they ask permission after seizing.

Primus · Feb 2, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

Did that happen? Or did they ask permission after seizing.

Might want to bold the first part of that sentence. It refers to warrants.... Notice the "shall not be violated , AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE......"

Your bolstering my point and their actions.

They made a reasonable seizure in order to apply a warrant based upon probable cause.

Your better then the whole bold half the sentence to make a point but leave out the other portions. So knock it off.

OC for ME · Feb 2, 2015

Primus said:
That'd a valid opinion.

But doesn't change his question or my answer.

Also it doesn't say WHEN the reasonable mess must he decided or who decides it initially.

By default the initial reasonableness test is conducted by the po po for better or worse. He's not going to call a judge to ask if the facts he has in front if him meets the requirement to stop you. He's not going to call the judge every 3 minutes to ask if it's still reasonable to hold you or when to release you. The po po does his thing based on knowledge of PAST encounters challenged by citizens then settled by courts.

Terry v. Ohio comes to mind. The cop thought it was reasonable to stop (seizure) and frisk (search). The citizens clearly did not. Well it went to court and was decided what parts were reasonable and what parts were. That case is now taught and relied upon for further conduct.

Terry is horrendously bad jurisprudence. RS is nothing but a cop taking a guess, connecting dots that may or may not be present before him. Cops must not be permitted to make reasonableness tests. He must only act on facts that a crime is occurring right before his own eyes.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...

A cop's view of this is completely bassakwards from what is explicitly written. Terry effectively removes the "shall not be violated" clause. Redress for a violation is not addressing the command "shall not be violated."

But, this point is moot, Terry exists and cops use it to their advantage. Couple Terry with the cop does not need to know the law decision (reasonable misunderstanding of the law) and unreasonable becomes a even higher bar for a citizen to reach when seeking a redress of wrongs. A legal defense that citizens do not enjoy.

Primus · Feb 2, 2015

OC for ME said:
Terry is horrendously bad jurisprudence. RS is nothing but a cop taking a guess, connecting dots that may or may not be present before him. Cops must not be permitted to make reasonableness tests. He must only act on facts that a crime is occurring right before his own eyes.A cop's view of this is completely bassakwards from what is explicitly written. Terry effectively removes the "shall not be violated" clause. Redress for a violation is not addressing the command "shall not be violated."

But, this point is moot, Terry exists and cops use it to their advantage. Couple Terry with the cop does not need to know the law decision (reasonable misunderstanding of the law) and unreasonable becomes a even higher bar for a citizen to reach when seeking a redress of wrongs. A legal defense that citizens do not enjoy.

Another well spoken and fair opinion. But opinion still.

The constitution (especially 4th which we speak of) doesn't say who decides reasonableness or when.

Your entitled to a well thought out opinion. But at the close of the shift its still an opinion.

OC for ME · Feb 2, 2015

Primus said:
Another well spoken and fair opinion. But opinion still.

The constitution (especially 4th which we speak of) doesn't say who decides reasonableness or when.

Your entitled to a well thought out opinion. But at the close of the shift its still an opinion.

Sure it does. You not recognizing it does not make it not in there.

Primus · Feb 2, 2015

OC for ME said:
Sure it does. You not recognizing it does not make it not in there.

Care to point it out for me?

OC for ME · Feb 2, 2015

...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.

There was, before Terry, a requirement to get a warrant for alleged crimes that was not witnessed by a cop. Of course there were a few exceptions (called exigent circumstances these days, and thoroughly overused by LE these days), namely alleged ongoing crime that endangers life/limb. Today a anonymous tip is enough to investigate a citizen via detainment or unfounded arrest, which is a infringement of a citizen's rights in and of itself my view. Cops will investigate on nothing but a unsubstantiated allegation simply cuz they can.

Jeff. State · Feb 2, 2015

Primus said:
The constitution (especially 4th which we speak of) doesn't say who decides reasonableness or when.
.

So of course default will be with The STATES definition/interpretation of "reasonableness" over the Indivduals, wont it?

SovereigntyOrDeath · Feb 2, 2015

Jeff. State said:
You should consider a screen name change as it is contrary to the opinions in quite a few of your posts. Especially this one.

I believe the people are the Sovereign as did the Founding Fathers. Please cite where I say anything contrary to that.

I do not believe in Anarchy or not having standing armed forces to defend our country.

Law enforcement such as the US Marshall's Service would suffice and Sheriffs at the state level.

I would agree to get rid of all other law enforcement agencies. Local & state.

The anarchy experiment failed. It was called The Wild West.

"As our young nation expanded westward, U.S. Marshals embodied the civilian power of the Federal Government to bring law and justice to the frontier. For every new territory, marshals were appointed to impose the law on the untamed wilderness. And, at virtually every significant point over the years where Constitutional principles or the force of law have been challenged, the marshals were there - and they prevailed."

http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/index.html

utbagpiper · Feb 2, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
Not according to the constitution.

4th amendment:

"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."

The constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Comma, pause, next clause.

Warrants, when issued, shall be issued only upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and describing the place to be searched or the persons or things to be seized.

Some searches are reasonable without a warrant due to personal observations of the officer, exigent circumstances, etc.

So says a clear reading of the 4th amendment. So has ruled the supreme court for a couple of hundred years.

Charles

Ironside · Feb 2, 2015

utbagpiper said:
4th amendment:

"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."

The constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Comma, pause, next clause.

Warrants, when issued, shall be issued only upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and describing the place to be searched or the persons or things to be seized.

Some searches are reasonable without a warrant due to personal observations of the officer, exigent circumstances, etc.

So says a clear reading of the 4th amendment. So has ruled the supreme court for a couple of hundred years.

Charles

Fixed it for you ...

Primus · Feb 2, 2015

OC for ME said:
There was, before Terry, a requirement to get a warrant for alleged crimes that was not witnessed by a cop. Of course there were a few exceptions (called exigent circumstances these days, and thoroughly overused by LE these days), namely alleged ongoing crime that endangers life/limb. Today a anonymous tip is enough to investigate a citizen via detainment or unfounded arrest, which is a infringement of a citizen's rights in and of itself my view. Cops will investigate on nothing but a unsubstantiated allegation simply cuz they can.

Ok so your opinion on how stuff used yo work and your opinion on how it works now.

So you don't have anything else in the 4th to show me that we haven't seen yet?

Nothing you've said changes anything. Like I said a fair opinion. But just opinion.

utbagpiper · Feb 2, 2015

Ironside said:
Fixed it for you ...

Thank you. Fixing my post. Fat fingers.

Charles

Now a future search warrant is OK? Ohio is going down the tubes

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned