wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
Does it disgust anyone else that this was ever an issue?
Does it disgust anyone else that this was ever an issue?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Va. Supreme Court: Traffic stop based on hunch illegal
- Thread starter Repeater
- Start date
Repeater
Regular Member
imported post
wylde007 wrote:
Here is the problem: too many Republicans equate upholding the Fourth Amendment with siding with criminals.
That's a poor attitude, but apparently a common one among GOP circles.
wylde007 wrote:
Good question.
Here is the problem: too many Republicans equate upholding the Fourth Amendment with siding with criminals.
That's a poor attitude, but apparently a common one among GOP circles.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Repeater wrote:
Repeater wrote:
+1
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
The Bill of Rights doesn't "side" with anyone in spirit or in principle.
It is intended to protect the articles, effects, person, abode and business from spurious investigation or from "random" searches which amount to no more than fishing expeditions.
It is paramount to the concept of being guilty until proven innocent. Officers who follow the mindset of "Arrest him now, we'll find something to charge him with later" are the greatest violators of such sacred trust of law.
Of course, anyone with even a third-grade education (obviously most lawyers, politicians and law enforcement are exempt) understands that rights do not come with caveats. They are or they are not.
The Bill of Rights doesn't "side" with anyone in spirit or in principle.
It is intended to protect the articles, effects, person, abode and business from spurious investigation or from "random" searches which amount to no more than fishing expeditions.
It is paramount to the concept of being guilty until proven innocent. Officers who follow the mindset of "Arrest him now, we'll find something to charge him with later" are the greatest violators of such sacred trust of law.
Of course, anyone with even a third-grade education (obviously most lawyers, politicians and law enforcement are exempt) understands that rights do not come with caveats. They are or they are not.
imported post
Repeater wrote:
Yata hey
Repeater wrote:
:lol: :celebrate :lol:darthmord wrote:That is correct. And that means our Supreme Court has a green light to continue upholding the Fourth Amendment.Repeater wrote:So that means themost recent judgment between Virginia v. Rudolph stands, correct?Well, good news!
SCOTUS has released its official ORDERS list, which includes a large CERTIORARI DENIED section. Included in that list is:
09-102 VIRGINIA V. RUDOLPH, DEMETRES J.
So, take that, Mims!
Yata hey
Repeater
Regular Member
imported post
wylde007 wrote:
wylde007 wrote:
Marla Decker, who pushed hard for the appeal of Rudolph to SCOTUS, has been named the new Secretary of Public Safety by Bob McDonnell. This means she will be a powerful voice for FOR law enforcement Chiefs of police and officers who want as much authority as possible to do as they please.