"Police can suspend your rights"

[65fastback2+2]

Should the police officer then turn up a firearm or other weapon in the car, the driver "would be guilty or potentially guilty of even a more severe offense" than whatever he had allegedly done to precipitate the traffic stop, according to Mayor Glover. Police officers, according to Glover, are invested with "a power that the President of the United States does not have ... and that is the ability to be able to suspend your rights."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w99.1.html

its sinking quick

[oxfordmach]

what happened to innocent till proven guilty and the second amendment!

[Thunderbolt]

Originally Posted by oxfordmach

what happened to innocent till proven guilty and the second amendment!

One more word out of you sir and I'll take away your right to speak. (gets duct tape out of trunk)

[Mach351]

my $.02

if LEO performs traffic stop for anything such as failure to use turn signal (or rolling through stop sign or whatever), they have probable cause to do anything else they want. ie search your vehicle, drunk test etc.
probable cause vs suspension of rights could just be semantics

CHL or not, if you know the law enough to know you can carry a concealed weapon in your vehicle you better know the law enough to know LEO can seize it from you if either you say you have a weapon and turn it over to them (which usually they will give it back to you after the stop if you are not a ****) or decide to search the vehicle and find one (in this case your probably in deep doodoo).

and the president can suspend any persons rights without cause. it's in written in the Patriot Act.
LEO needs probable cause.

[acreature]

The Mayor, is an idiot for being quoted as saying such stupid, uneducated, ignorant statements.

The "blog" is one-sided, and paints a picture based on a few encounters out of thousands to tens of thousands.

[acreature]

Originally Posted by Mach351

my $.02

if LEO performs traffic stop for anything such as failure to use turn signal (or rolling through stop sign or whatever), they have probable cause to do anything else they want. ie search your vehicle, drunk test etc.

Officers stopping a car only need a Reasonable Suspicion. To ARREST or SEARCH they need Probable Cause.

Just because you are stopped by LE, does not mean you lose any rights. You only temporarily lose the privilege to drive at that moment.

[un gm]

^ correct

[shadowmaker]

Its spreading fast, I ll ask again WHEN is ENOUGH ENOUGH??? The American people better get their heads into what our govt is doing and stop listening to simple the media.

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that people cannot keep police from entering their homes, even if the entry is "unlawful."

http://www.chicagotribune...110513,0,2225708.story

[bmeeks]

Originally Posted by shadowmaker

Its spreading fast, I ll ask again WHEN is ENOUGH ENOUGH??? The American people better get their heads into what our govt is doing and stop listening to simple the media.

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that people cannot keep police from entering their homes, even if the entry is "unlawful."

http://www.chicagotribune...110513,0,2225708.story

it's a little more complicated than that....

it used to be that police could enter under exigent circumstances, as long as those exigent circumstance weren't created by the police.
the way it is now after the ruling is that police can enter under exigent circumstances even if the police create those exigent circumstances. this is only as long as the exigent circumstances arent a violation of the 4th amendament

for example....

if the police come to a house to serve a drug search warrant, and when they knock and announce "POLICE!" they start to hear drawers slamming and toilets flushing, the LEOs were not able to enter under the old ruling because their presence created those exigent circumstances. under the new ruling, as long as the LEO doesnt say "open the door or else i'm coming in" (threatening to violate the 4th amendment), then they can enter when the exigent circumstances present themselves, no matter who created them.

[65fastback2+2]

^^^ heres where it gets "complicated"

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html

[24kmach]

Originally Posted by 65fastback2+2

^^^ heres where it gets "complicated"



http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html

You can stop them but they have this group called a SWAT team that would visit you next.

[281mustang]

Originally Posted by Mach351

my $.02

if LEO performs traffic stop for anything such as failure to use turn signal (or rolling through stop sign or whatever), they have probable cause to do anything else they want. ie search your vehicle, drunk test etc.
probable cause vs suspension of rights could just be semantics

Traffic stops gives LEOs probable cause to search a vechile...? lol. LEOs can indeed pull you over for technicalities(going 46 in a 45, not coming to a COMPLETE stop at a stop sign, etc.) but that is where it ends.

Do some research on case studies in regards to the fourth amendment. "Probable cause" is an extreme gray area as it was intended to cover an endless amount of possibilities but there are still only four ways a cop can search your car:

Giving an LEO consent to seach your vechile or leaving your car door open when exiting your vechile(as it is considered to "imply" consent.) The majority of Americans are unaware of their 4th amendment and will surrounder it when intimidated by the police.

An LEO ordering a K9 to sniff your car that results in a positive "hit."

Having something illegal in plain sight when the officer approachs your window.

The large grey area of the endless other possibilities, but jurys generally want to see some pretty conclusive evidence before granting an unconsented search constitutional.

It's very common for an LEO to stop a car for a traffic stop, search a vechile based on a "hunch", find illegal items and/or drugs, and then have the entire case completely thrown out. It really doesn't matter what they find. There are plenty of people that have been busted trafficing entire cars worth of cocaine, heroin, etc. and were looking at a couple decades of prision yet got off completely scott free because the LEO didn't have any rational other than "he looked very suspicious."

[bmeeks]

Originally Posted by 65fastback2+2

^^^ heres where it gets "complicated"



http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html

my previous comment was in reference to a US Supreme Court ruling last week. I should have read the article and seen it was referring to just Indiana instead "assuming" lol.

but in reference to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling, it seems like what they're referring to is physically stopping an LEO from unlawfully entering your house; they haven't touched the constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure. They made the ruling to prevent the unnecessary escalation of events to violence. Instead, they say you have to let the LEO in if he's coming in, but nothing is stopping you from suing their pants off for violating your rights.

not as big of a deal as i thought it was going to be, being that they dont want massive brawls between homeowners and police occurring on the daily. Basically, let them in, let them find whatever they want, get everything thrown out in court, and then sue their pants off.



on a side note, this is pretty crazy....
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/...-shooting-cops

[StangFever2846]

I smell a revolution brewing!