Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Utah v Streiff wounds the exclusionary rule, allows after-the-fact probable cause.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Utah v Streiff wounds the exclusionary rule, allows after-the-fact probable cause.

    https://verdict.justia.com/2016/06/2...utah-v-strieff

    Verdict: A Potential Landmine in Waiting in Utah v. Strieff
    H/T John Wesley Hall FourthAmendment.com
    http://fourthamendment.com/?p=22768
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Wowwie!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    https://verdict.justia.com/2016/06/2...utah-v-strieff

    Verdict: A Potential Landmine in Waiting in Utah v. Strieff
    H/T John Wesley Hall FourthAmendment.com
    http://fourthamendment.com/?p=22768
    Thanks for the truly terrible heads up!............................................... ......................................... Friend

    Just shows the proof that the Supreme Court, and others dont give a shlt for the Constitution!

    Also,,, be Sterile,, and KYBMS!!! Dont talk to Police!!!
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 06-29-2016 at 07:04 AM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    You are right. Thank you for recognizing.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    Thanks for the link. Now look what I wrote. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post2194098

    The article post by the OP was written by an attorney,
    Sherry F. Colb, a Justia columnist, is Professor of Law and Charles Evans Hughes Scholar at Cornell Law School.
    This woman, for being an attorney, missed the whole point.

    The supreme court in the last few years has made it clear that the government has NO obligation to protect your rights. That your job. In other words, the only rights you have are the ones you defend. Strieff turned over his identification upon request.

    I just had this happen to me. I was open carrying in a local park, perfectly legal, and the cops approach me wanting identification because there was a complaint. I told him no I'm not giving ID. Then he wanted my name for his report. He got a big fat NO again. Then he started his BS about how the world will come to an end if I didn't cooperate. He finally walked away. And yes I have in recorded; BB62 can verify it.

    The point is the burden is legally on you to defend your rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •