If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   News: SCOTUS rules in favor of the little guy. Fark: In a drug case. UltraFark: With Scalia writing the majority opinion. WTFark: And Thomas joining him   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 358
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court, UltraFark, detection dog, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, majority opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen Breyer  
•       •       •

16300 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



358 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 02:12:50 PM

weiserfireman: Scalia and Thomas don't care what the result is, as long as the logic feels sound to them.


If only this were true in all cases.
 
2013-03-26 02:12:58 PM

PsyLord: Says he has probable cause now to search your car.


Saying it and having it are not the same thing.  In the example you gave, he would not have it.
 
2013-03-26 02:13:26 PM

nekom: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

That's what I'm wondering. TFA makes no mention of that. Drug dogs are VERY misused in this country, it would be nice to see them thrown out altogether except for those trained to sniff bombs at airports.


Typical lib. Wants higher canine unemployment so all the poor puppies are sucking at the government teat and eating taxpayer funded kibble and become the new rabid dogs of the demoncratic party.

I bet you support those welfare biatches that drop litters of 9 pups at a time, too. No need to get a job, little Rufus, just have puppies and the government will take care of everything!

/I keed I keed
 
2013-03-26 02:14:35 PM
This does not seem particularly shocking or suprising to me. There is an established precedent around curtelage, and if peering through a window is out of bounds for gathering evidence for a warrant search, having a dog sniff around outside the house and then trying to use that for a warrant search should be equally out of bounds.

I know it is fashionable to assume that all Supreme Court Judges are either redteam or blueteam, but more often than not, that's not the case. This seems to be a good decision arrived at by good law.
 
2013-03-26 02:15:04 PM

Lando Lincoln: AverageAmericanGuy: Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.

Which is another way of saying, "Look, I'm not going to admit that I screwed up, so I'm going to continue to assert that the dumb words I said are too high-falutin' for you simpletons to understand, and I will be leaving this thread shortly."


Well, it is 3 in the morning and I ought to get some shut eye.

But no, that's not my intent at all in saying "read what I wrote". If you think that I said that 1) a Democrat appointed Alito or 2) Obama appointed Alito, you're mistaken.

We all stand around and shout and point fingers, but it's pretty clear no one's actually listening to what people are saying. It's pretty sad. I'd expect this kind of behavior from Freepers, not Farkers.
 
2013-03-26 02:15:26 PM

vernonFL: It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.


Theres an implied agreement that by having a mail box on your porch, youre allowing a postal worker onto your property for a brief period in the course of their duties. If you have a mailbox at the end of your drive and a postal worker is hanging out on your porch, then yes, they are probably trespassing.
 
2013-03-26 02:17:43 PM

Civil Discourse: muck4doo: Magorn: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

very unlikely.  the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings.  All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton  th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Cop: Can I search your car?
You: No.
Cop: Sounds suspicious. Probable cause.

Some cold comfort:
I'm not going to claim that probable cause is a standard with a high threshold, but courts have generally found that denial of consent alone is insufficient grounds to find probable cause.  There needs to be some other specific, articulable facts that give rise to a belief that a search will reveal evidence of a crime.  Certainly, LEOs can and do lie about those facts, but getting to a "reasonable" search is not as simple as claiming something is suspicious.


Oh, but it is. One simple sentence, six words to start, and you're golden, as an LEO:

"Based on my training and experience..._______________"

... I searched the bathroom cupboards for contraband items
... I entered the house upon smelling a strong odor of marijuana
...the individual seemed nervous and jumpy
...I searched the individual


/etc
 
2013-03-26 02:20:40 PM
I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:01 PM

Mercutio74: I'm shocked!  Shocked I say!

Not just that Scalia got it right, which is definitely surprising...  but that one marijuana plant can generate about 3900 dollars worth of street value.  That's pretty close to 1800 oz of product off of one plant (judging by southern Ontario prices per oz).  I didn't know that one plant could support 112 lbs of bud.


Where do you get $34/lb weed?
 
2013-03-26 02:21:02 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Lando Lincoln: AverageAmericanGuy: Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.

Which is another way of saying, "Look, I'm not going to admit that I screwed up, so I'm going to continue to assert that the dumb words I said are too high-falutin' for you simpletons to understand, and I will be leaving this thread shortly."

Well, it is 3 in the morning and I ought to get some shut eye.

But no, that's not my intent at all in saying "read what I wrote". If you think that I said that 1) a Democrat appointed Alito or 2) Obama appointed Alito, you're mistaken.

We all stand around and shout and point fingers, but it's pretty clear no one's actually listening to what people are saying. It's pretty sad. I'd expect this kind of behavior from Freepers, not Farkers.


Dude. You've been quoted. Your post, your words. Own it, and get some rest. We'll see you tomorrow
ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2013-03-26 02:21:18 PM
*ctrl f drone

Interesting, not a single one of you realizes the potential positive impact this could have as police forces around the nation start to utilize drones in surveillance.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:18 PM

vernonFL: It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.


The real surprise here is that Antonin (criminals don't deserve the 4th amendment) Scalia disagreed with that argument.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:41 PM
Anthony Kennedy you disappoint  me
 
2013-03-26 02:22:24 PM

Kittypie070: elvindeath: Newsflash, folks ... both Scalia and Thomas are generally very critical of the government attempting to expand it's powers, especially when it comes to property rights and infringing on individual freedoms.  The alignment of the Justices is not surprising at all.  All the same hacks expressing shock at "conservative" justices supporting the rights of the individual ought to be in total outrage at the "liberal" administration's position that they can drone strike an American citizen A PROVEN TRAITOR AND TERRORIST without warrant, search or trial.

Fixed, for the pro-terrorist Islam-licker.


Oh really ? Proven in what context ? You mean the Admin just saying it ? Because unless they have something like proof that can be challenged in a court of law they can stuff it. And Advocating violence against the US is protected free speech. And I'll throw you a curve ball. Perhaps they had proof, what say you about the 16 year old son who was murdered in a separate incident weeks later ? Or how about the fact that these same people you so easily trust to carry out these assassinations are the very same people who gave the guy an award, invited him to the Pentagon and told everyone he was a moderate ? Or how about all the guys in GITMO who have been cleared of charges but they just keep in cages because they don't know what to do with them. I don't know about you but I don't trust their judgement at all. They do what is convenient and not what is lawful and moral.
 
2013-03-26 02:22:46 PM

Brainsick: AverageAmericanGuy: Lando Lincoln: AverageAmericanGuy: Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.

Which is another way of saying, "Look, I'm not going to admit that I screwed up, so I'm going to continue to assert that the dumb words I said are too high-falutin' for you simpletons to understand, and I will be leaving this thread shortly."

Well, it is 3 in the morning and I ought to get some shut eye.

But no, that's not my intent at all in saying "read what I wrote". If you think that I said that 1) a Democrat appointed Alito or 2) Obama appointed Alito, you're mistaken.

We all stand around and shout and point fingers, but it's pretty clear no one's actually listening to what people are saying. It's pretty sad. I'd expect this kind of behavior from Freepers, not Farkers.

Dude. You've been quoted. Your post, your words. Own it, and get some rest. We'll see you tomorrow
[ts2.mm.bing.net image 300x228]


The quote doesn't say what you or he implies it says.

It certainly doesn't say what Mad Radhu said.

And yes, I will sleep now. Thank you.
 
2013-03-26 02:23:58 PM

jigger: Where do you get $34/lb weed?


Perhaps my math is wrong.  I can get an oz for $200.

I'm saying that according to the article, the 179 plants had a street value of $700,000.  That means that each plant would be worth about $3910 each.  Since I pay $200 for a oz, that's
 
2013-03-26 02:24:07 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: The quote doesn't say what you or he implies it says.


Me no good subject verb agreement? That's unpossible.
 
2013-03-26 02:24:51 PM
yeah, I did the math wrong... and i'm not even high right now.
 
2013-03-26 02:25:07 PM

Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.


If the dog is an officer, and not just a tool or piece of equipment of law enforcement, then the dog can come testify at the trial under oath.  "Did you smell weed?  One bark for yes, two for no..." "bark bark"  "Double yes!!!"
 
2013-03-26 02:26:48 PM

Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location


Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.
 
2013-03-26 02:27:11 PM
JustGetItRight: A car would be sitting on a public roadway or in a public place like a parking lot, so the same level of privacy isn't going to apply.

If your car was sitting in your driveway, this ruling would apply. Also, cars are mobile and that has a lot to do with cops being able to search without a warrant. In the time it would take to get a warrant the car could be driven away.
 
2013-03-26 02:28:39 PM

Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."


Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.
 
2013-03-26 02:29:21 PM

Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.


The dog isn't saying anything.  The dog's handler is interpreting the dog's signals and claiming that he/she knows what the dog meant.

The dog is then just a tool like a vapor sniffing device or infrared scanner.
 
2013-03-26 02:29:46 PM
Really? Now we are supposed to trust in officer dog? My tortoise wants to bust a few people too.
 
2013-03-26 02:30:07 PM
No, this is actually pretty consistent.
 
2013-03-26 02:30:43 PM

Profedius: Corvus: Profedius: I completely agree with the ruling and I am happy they came to rule as they did. Any search of a person, vehicle or private home should require the consent of the person or warrant granted only with strong evidence supporting the need for such a search. I know this hinders law enforcement, but I am will to give up a little safety in order to keep my freedom.

So no probably cause? If you here someone scream "Help me I am being kidnapped" in the back of trunk he has to get a court warrant first? I think that's a bit extreme.

The law does not consider the event you described a search, however if the officer heard a knocking sound coming from the trunk without a voice declaring a crime in progress then an investigation of the trunk would be considered a search. Sighting an extreme event in order to support illegal searches does not account for the great many searches that should not have been allowed even more so when the event does not pertain to the topic at hand.


I didn't say it did. But thank you for play strawman theater. It had to do with the comment I was responding to. If you don't want to be part of that conversation then why not do us all a favor and just shut up.
 
2013-03-26 02:30:45 PM
Mr. Toitle and Kitty Cash say freeze! Put your hands in the air!
 
2013-03-26 02:32:09 PM

Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.


The ruling doesn't say that at all. It says that the police cannot use enhanced techniques without a search warrant. A cop coming to your door viewing contraband in plain sight is fair game. A cop coming up to your door with a device that lets him see through walls as an example is not allowed without a warrant. . Taking a device (dog or whatever) on to someones property constitutes a search and requires a warrant.
 
2013-03-26 02:33:03 PM

Kittypie070: muck4doo: Liberal or Conservative, this should be what you want. Less liberties for the police to go messing with people over stupid things.

/cracks a beer, passes it to muck


Cheers!

/I should have listened last week
 
2013-03-26 02:34:20 PM

Silly Jesus: but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.


Actually the opinion of the court is that the dog is not legally allowed to be there without a warrant, period. If the cops want to use a dog to sniff for the presence of drugs inside of a house they first have to get a warrant to do so.
 
2013-03-26 02:35:15 PM

Profedius: Sighting an extreme event in order to support illegal searches

...

I wasn't. Next time before responding read what the person was responding to instead of just jumping in and being an ass.
 
2013-03-26 02:36:29 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.

Actually the opinion of the court is that the dog is not legally allowed to be there without a warrant, period. If the cops want to use a dog to sniff for the presence of drugs inside of a house they first have to get a warrant to do so.


And another nails it.
 
2013-03-26 02:37:27 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Thomas agreeing with Scalia is a WTF? WTF? Is it Opposite Day already?


No shiat!  Thomas is like Scalia's hand puppet, but the string that makes the mouth move is broken.
 
2013-03-26 02:37:35 PM

kindms: A cop coming to your door viewing contraband in plain sight is fair game


Actually it would have to be in plain sight from some public space or you would have to open your door to the cop. If you don't open the door, then unless they can see it from the sidewalk, no dice. Scalia is pretty clear that peering through windows is not acceptable as it is not something a person expects as a normal occurrence. If you see someone snooping around your windows, you call the cops. If a cop wants to snoop around your windows, per Scalia's opinion, they need a warrant first.
 
2013-03-26 02:42:54 PM
I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.
 
2013-03-26 02:46:33 PM
24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com
24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-26 02:52:05 PM

muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.


Conservatives are authoritarian about other people's lives, libertarians for their own.
 
2013-03-26 02:55:16 PM

muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.


Today's 'Conservative' is more liberal than he/she thinks, but only when something affects them or their immediate family/community. When the issue is something they can knee-jerk to, that they have no personal stake in, it's 'those people' who need to be controlled by the government. That's the key
 
2013-03-26 02:56:11 PM

jaytkay: muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.

Conservatives are authoritarian about other people's lives, libertarians for their own.


Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.
 
2013-03-26 02:56:15 PM

jaytkay: muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.

Conservatives are authoritarian about other people's lives, libertarians for their own.


Damn you and your succinct, accurate summation of my post. Before I posted it!

;)
 
2013-03-26 02:59:29 PM

muck4doo: riverwalk barfly: muck4doo: Liberal or Conservative, this should be what you want. Less liberties for the police to go messing with people over stupid things.

Never allow the police into your house.    They will always find something.   Power grabs not social servants.

/not to mention the bud in the closet.

Whether you know it or not, you probably broke a bunch of laws today you never even heard of. Yes, they will always find something.


Don't get me wrong.   I'm 48 years old.   I won't lie - I've been in trouble with the law.   no felonies, nothing that actually hurt someone else.    In fact, probably the opposite.   I've had peace officers put the cuffs on me and apologize.   I've also been physically abused by police that felt it necessary to show that they were in control.    Hence my distrust in the police.   And if you have never had your hands cuffed behind your back and spent a night in jail, Don't tell me about your respect for the law.
 
2013-03-26 03:19:19 PM

Corvus: Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."

Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.


Someone calling for help from a locked trunk nearly perfectly describes the "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment where a search can be conducted without a warrant
 
2013-03-26 03:21:30 PM

Magorn: Corvus: Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."

Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.

Someone calling for help from a locked trunk nearly perfectly describes the "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment where a search can be conducted without a warrant


Yep and couple of people in here think that police shouldn't be able to do that. That's my point.
 
2013-03-26 03:22:39 PM

muck4doo: I really don't get how anyone can call themselves conservative, but support draconian drug laws. It goes against everything I thought conservative stood for.


You're thinking of libertarianism, not conservatism. Conservatives want to make sure EVERYONE is miserable.
 
2013-03-26 03:24:34 PM

pedrop357: Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.


Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!
 
2013-03-26 03:27:58 PM

Corvus: Magorn: Corvus: Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."

Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.

Someone calling for help from a locked trunk nearly perfectly describes the "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment where a search can be conducted without a warrant

Yep and couple of people in here think that police shouldn't be able to do that. That's my point.


Straw man?    How about when your neighbor thinks he hears screams from your house?   Or maybe your dog is barking too much?    Does that give them the right?    I guess it does when you are one of the people that believes in submission.
 
2013-03-26 03:31:13 PM
Finally a decent decision from SCOTUS!
 
2013-03-26 03:31:29 PM

riverwalk barfly: Corvus: Magorn: Corvus: Theaetetus: And if there's someone locked in a trunk that you just pulled over, screaming to get out, a 10 minute phone call to an on-duty judge won't really make much difference. It's not like you have to say "gosh, no warrant, I guess we'll let you drive off."

Are you kidding me? You think they still need a warrant if someone is screaming that they need help? Yes in 10 minutes you could be dead so that is a difference.

Oh and you are saying all they need as a "verbal warrant"? It doesn't need to actually be written out and official like.

Your answers to these point seem pretty glib and not thought out.

Someone calling for help from a locked trunk nearly perfectly describes the "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th amendment where a search can be conducted without a warrant

Yep and couple of people in here think that police shouldn't be able to do that. That's my point.

Straw man?    How about when your neighbor thinks he hears screams from your house?   Or maybe your dog is barking too much?    Does that give them the right?    I guess it does when you are one of the people that believes in submission.


Yes those are Strawmans of what I was saying very good.
 
2013-03-26 03:35:13 PM

Onkel Buck: He pisses you off, thats enough for me


Conservative Politics in a nutshell, folks.  Nothing but willful ignorance and spite.

Hell of a way to run a railroad...
 
2013-03-26 03:36:19 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.


Oh, for Fark's sake.

Into the box with you.
 
Displayed 50 of 358 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report