What would Obama’s Supreme Court look like?

[txradioguy]

Where does the Constitution permit the police to set up checkpoints? Can you imagine any of the Founding Fathers being OK with checkpoints other than in time of war?

It's tucked in there right next to abortion "rights" gay "rights" and Obamacare.

[Novaheart]

It's tucked in there right next to abortion "rights" gay "rights" and Obamacare.

The definition of optimism was me thinking I would get an intelligent response from you and NJ.

[m00]

Where does the Constitution permit the police to set up checkpoints? Can you imagine any of the Founding Fathers being OK with checkpoints other than in time of war?

Is your point that Republican-nominated justices supported the constitutionality of interior "checkpoints" (under Bush)?

[Novaheart]

Is your point that Republican-nominated justices supported the constitutionality of interior "checkpoints" (under Bush)?

No, my point was that Justices of the Supreme Court supported the violation of the Fourth Amendment and my fear that regardless of political identity, these people will find compelling reasons to trample the Bill Of Rights. Meanwhile, we have the peanut gallery doing banana dances and demanding to see literal language covering situations that even a person with a high school education and passing understanding of the Constitution ought to be able to see the underlying legal principles. There is no underlying legal principle for stopping and searching US citizens within this country, in lawful transit on a hunch or on the mathematics which support the idea that if you stop and question enough people then you will eventually catch a criminal. The same logic could be applied to a house to house search, and probably will.

[Zeus]

No, my point was that Justices of the Supreme Court supported the violation of the Fourth Amendment and my fear that regardless of political identity, these people will find compelling reasons to trample the Bill Of Rights. Meanwhile, we have the peanut gallery doing banana dances and demanding to see literal language covering situations that even a person with a high school education and passing understanding of the Constitution ought to be able to see the underlying legal principles. There is no underlying legal principle for stopping and searching US citizens within this country, in lawful transit on a hunch or on the mathematics which support the idea that if you stop and question enough people then you will eventually catch a criminal. The same logic could be applied to a house to house search, and probably will.

The Expectation of privacy or causing harm to others sitting in ones home is a wee bit higher threshold bar than the one of using a publicly funded roadway. Not to mention Rights v privileges.

[txradioguy]

The definition of optimism was me thinking I would get an intelligent response from you and NJ.

My definition of optimism is thinking that one day you can be an honest participant in these debtates.

[Novaheart]

The Expectation of privacy or causing harm to others sitting in ones home is a wee bit higher threshold bar than the one of using a publicly funded roadway. Not to mention Rights v privileges.

So are you saying that the police can (or should be able to) just pull anyone over at any time without probable cause for questioning and searches? Because that's what a roadblock is- it's a warrantless search.

[Molon Labe]

Based on the fact that it was a Bush nominee that gave us Obamacare for life.....supposedly a conservative....... not to mention the fact that the most conservative courts haven't reversed Roe V Wade nor reduced the scope of executive power...........I would argue that the SCOTUS appointments are overrated.

[Zeus]

So are you saying that the police can (or should be able to) just pull anyone over at any time without probable cause for questioning and searches? Because that's what a roadblock is- it's a warrantless search.

There are times when police can justify searching your vehicle without your consent or a warrant. One such circumstance is when the officer can see something illegal in your car that is clearly visible; this is the “plain view” rule. Another time the police can search your car without permission or a warrant is if they have probable cause. If you are being arrested for any reason, whether for DUI, driving while suspended or other cause, you have no choice but to let the officer search your car.

If you have been pulled over in a traffic stop but none of the above circumstances applies, you have every right to refuse an officer’s request to search your vehicle. Even if you are confident there is nothing illegal to be found, you do not need to allow a search. When the officer asks permission, politely refuse his request. However, be aware that the officer doesn’t have to just let you drive away. He is now suspicious that you are trying to conceal something. If the officer decides she has reason to search the car despite your lack of permission, allow her to do so. While the search is underway, however, state, “I did not give you permission to search my vehicle”, clearly and calmly several times. If anything is being recorded, you will officially be on record as having refused the search request.

Another option the officer has is to hold you there until a search warrant can be delivered. This can be quite time consuming and when the warrant does arrive, chances are you vehicle will be searched extensively. If you are e confident you have nothing to hide and do not want to be delayed for an indeterminate amount of time, it may be simpler just to let the officer take a quick look. The choice is up to you.

The Probable cause claim is a wide ranging litany of justifiable reasons for a search. If nothing discovered one is out nothing but some time. on the other hand if something illegal is determined to be happening or found then the probable cause claim is extremely hard to overcome in a court of law. Again one has choices.