Supreme Court Positioned To Repeal 4th Amendment





SupremeCourt building flag SC

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Navarette v California, a case in which a wrong decision will effectively repeal the 4th Amendment rights of the American people.

The text of the 4th Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that “…law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest.” This reasonable suspicion standard created by the court has provided police the necessary “legal” authority to perform searches in violation of 4th Amendment language. In fact, thanks to the Court, the overwhelming majority of searches conducted in the U.S. today are warrantless searches. Obtaining a warrant has become an annoyance, a bothersome anachronism that is said to interfere with the timely administration of justice.

In Navarette, an anonymous tipster telephoned police, informing them that the driver of a silver Ford truck, license number 8D94925, had just run him off of the road. Upon locating the truck, “…[police] officers verified the non-criminal details of the tip before pulling over the truck (i.e. color, plate number, etc.), [but] they did not witness any illegal behavior or reckless driving before stopping the truck.” Officers searched the truck and found 4 large bags of marijuana. The driver was charged with “…transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale.”

The defendant’s attorney asked that the evidence of the marijuana be suppressed, stating that “…the original stop was an illegal stop because the anonymous tip was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Both the trial court and a California Appeals Court denied the motion to suppress, each stating that police were not required to verify the claim that the truck was being driven recklessly. Officers were only required to verify the “non-criminal” details–in this case, the type and color of the vehicle and its license number–prior to stopping the truck and conducting a search.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in order to decide “…whether the Fourth Amendment requires a police officer, who receives an anonymous tip about a drunken or reckless driver, to corroborate the dangerous driving before stopping a vehicle.”

In a 2000 case, the Supreme Court ruled that an anonymous tip did not allow police the luxury of ignoring either 4th Amendment rights or even the necessity of meeting the far less stringent legal standard of reasonable suspicion.

But in Navarette, the State of California will argue before the Court that even the weak standard of reasonable suspicion may be ignored IF the alleged criminal activity is serious enough. In other words, “the more serious the crime, the less suspicion is needed.” Or more properly, the more serious the ALLEGED crime, the less suspicion is needed to stop and search the alleged suspect. Reckless driving, for example, may indicate drunk driving, which represents such a potential danger to the public that the rights of an alleged suspect may be completely ignored. Therefore, an anonymous tip may be acted upon just as though the tipster were known to be reliable and correct, and the driver known to be guilty!

If the Court permits law enforcement to ignore constitutional rights based upon an anonymous tip and permits police to increase the aggressive nature of their response according to nothing more substantial than the seriousness of the alleged crime, how long will it be until Democrat operatives make anonymous claims about alleged criminal activity on the part of Republican candidates? How often will former girlfriends or wives lodge anonymous charges against former boyfriends or husbands? The possibilities for the destruction of reputations are endless. And the necessity of probable cause, or proof, will for practical purposes no longer exist.





Do you have $25,000 in your IRA or 401(k)? This "Loophole" in IRS Code lets you move your savings to gold ... get this NO-COST Info Guide >

3 comments to Supreme Court Positioned To Repeal 4th Amendment

  • Elaine

    Proposed Constitution for​ the Newstates of America
    The Proposed Constitution Articles of the New States of America

    This New States Constitution denies most of the freedoms that you now enjoy
    This Awareness wishes to inform entities that this New States Constitution denies most of the freedoms that you now enjoy, and while it is worded in legal terminology to give it the appearance of creating something that will diminish crime and so forth, it is also creating a police state such as the reserving of all powers now given in the New States Constitution to the police.

    Continue Reading:
    Some Scary Parts of the New States Constitution ​

    Continue Reading:
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/master_file/newstatesconstitution.htm

  • wildbill446

    I told a lot of people that if Obama was reelected this Country was done! Well I think my words are coming true. Look at all the traitorous people we have in House, the Senate, the Congress is infiltrated by these people. It appears to reside in the Democratic party, for example who were the ones pushing and voting for the Healthcare (Obamacare) Law? It darn sure as hell wasn’t any Republicans.

    • Elaine

      Something is going on in D.C. why they are NOT stopping him; and it ain’t good.
      I have one incident that left me scared. My daughter moved home 2 or e of years ago. I didn’t have enough food in the house so I gathered up my good silver and gold flatware and headed out to my local pawnshop.

      I was standing in line talking to the owner (known him for years)…teasing him about “the gun sales” (Texas); and before he could answer, this man standing in front of me in a business suit whipped around. I found a man wearing a suit on Saturday strange.

      He was only about 5’3 or 5′.) We were eyeball to eyeball. He turned sheet white when he said, “You don’t know who this man is! I QUIT!! HE LITERALLY, RAN OUT THE FRONT DOOR!

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>