|
|
|
|
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
On 28 Sep 2003 04:15:55 GMT, reg (Gfretwell) wrote:
The most recent SCOTUS case on point is probably UNITED STATES v. ARVIZU
and they firmly established that in the case of a vehicle "probable cause" has
been watered down to "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is being committed and
we all can only guess what a cop thinks is "reasonable". They are always a
little suspicious.
This is from the 2002 opinion, citing a 1975 case
"United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975), tilts in favor of
a standard less than probable cause in such cases, the Fourth Amendment is
satisfied if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to
believe that criminal activity "
It is always true that they can search, they have the gun. The only thing a
citizen can hope for is that a court tosses out any evidence they find. That
doesn't do anything for your privacy, inconvenience or damage to property.
Soverign immunity really makes it hard to sue them.
Greg- thanks for the case info.
I don't object to law enforcement. Generally, it's there to protect
"us". What does puzzle me, 'fer instance, is why a fish-and-game
officer would have powers exceeding those of State and Local police?
Particularly involving search without a warrant.
Additionally, since 9/11, the Bill of Rights has taken a serious hit.
It doesn't have to be so, and I am wary of anyone telling me that they
are removing or "modifying" civil liberties in order to "protect me".
Protect me from who? Fanatics or politicians with an agenda?
....carry on.
noah
To email me, please remove the "FISH" from the net.
|