Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
The SCOTUS ruled today, that a wholly illegal stop by police does not bar evidence obtained from that stop from being used against the citizen even if the evidence obtained is unrelated to the reason police stopped the citizen.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/sonia-sotomayor-opposition-evidence-unlawful-stops-police-crime-law?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook
In other words, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, "“The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your fourth amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: this case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants – even if you are doing nothing wrong."
This is going to be particularly useful for police wanting to conduct illegal search and seizures of those who are merely suspected of committing a sex crime.
For example, police stop a citizen and deliberately lie to him or her about an alleged crime being committed as a pretext excuse to conduct a search of their property and seize any evidence, or police contact the citizen for an unpaid parking ticket, and then enter their home and conduct searches of the citizens property to seize evidence knowing full well that while the conduct of the police stop or contact is wholly illegal and based entirely on pretext excuses, any evidence police obtain as a result of their illegal conduct will still be admissible against the citizen in a criminal charge unrelated to the reason the police stopped or contacted the citizen in the first place.
More and more we are fast becoming a police state, as courts tear apart -- no shred - our constitutional rights for the sake of not only benefiting but guaranteeing the police can do as they damn well please to citizens and of particular vulnerability is people of color, RSO's, and people with mental illness or developmental disabilities. The result is one that we should simply give police swastika's to wear instead of badges and run our country by a King or Dictator instead of on the Rule of Law, and our federal Constitution.
So, kiss your rights good bye. Oh, and just in case you think you can sue the police who do such things for the violations of your rights, forget it, because with the SCOTUS ruling comes immunity from being sued.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/sonia-sotomayor-opposition-evidence-unlawful-stops-police-crime-law?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook
In other words, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, "“The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your fourth amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: this case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants – even if you are doing nothing wrong."
This is going to be particularly useful for police wanting to conduct illegal search and seizures of those who are merely suspected of committing a sex crime.
For example, police stop a citizen and deliberately lie to him or her about an alleged crime being committed as a pretext excuse to conduct a search of their property and seize any evidence, or police contact the citizen for an unpaid parking ticket, and then enter their home and conduct searches of the citizens property to seize evidence knowing full well that while the conduct of the police stop or contact is wholly illegal and based entirely on pretext excuses, any evidence police obtain as a result of their illegal conduct will still be admissible against the citizen in a criminal charge unrelated to the reason the police stopped or contacted the citizen in the first place.
More and more we are fast becoming a police state, as courts tear apart -- no shred - our constitutional rights for the sake of not only benefiting but guaranteeing the police can do as they damn well please to citizens and of particular vulnerability is people of color, RSO's, and people with mental illness or developmental disabilities. The result is one that we should simply give police swastika's to wear instead of badges and run our country by a King or Dictator instead of on the Rule of Law, and our federal Constitution.
So, kiss your rights good bye. Oh, and just in case you think you can sue the police who do such things for the violations of your rights, forget it, because with the SCOTUS ruling comes immunity from being sued.
Notice what Justice Clarence Thomas said-----
" Justice Clarence Thomas said the officer’s actions did not represent “flagrant police misconduct”.
So now only "flagrant" police misconduct will be punished by the courts. I don't know the Court's definition of "flagrant" but you can bet that in certain cases the word flagrant will be loosely applied.
This reminds me so much of the "harmless error" doctrine appellate courts have been using for years to affirm sentences even though the government---the police, LE (law enforcement), the prosecutor, etc.---made errors during the trial, but the errors were not deemed serious enough to overturn the conviction. In other words, in the court's opinion the harmless error made no difference in the outcome of the trial.
The government is killing us with a thousand slashes. Most Police States or totalitarian type regimes do not implement oppression all at once, but they do it subtlety so the people will not be fully aware of the changes until it is too late. I guess you could compare it with the proverbial sticking a frog in cool water and slowly heating the water. By the time the frog realizes the water is too hot, it is too late and he is boiled alive.
God Bless America, Land of the Free, Home of the brave. Geez.
rewdiazepam
Insofar as the word "flagrant" you can bet that those in law enforcement are going to apply a very narrow interpretation of the word so that only the absolutely most extreme and outrageous conduct qualifies as "flagrant." For example, a cop pulls his gun and says, hey (racial words) and then shoots the person in their back and then walks over searches him for drugs. Other than this sort of police action, the courts will not deem anything else to rise to and constitute "flagrant" so as to violate our 4th Amendment rights.
What??!!! How could you make such an accusation? The police? LYING?!! I don't believe it!! No way!!!!
Testilying. Sounds like a disgusting word, and it actually is.
This is a horrible ruling. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine sounds like it's gone. If they don't need a reason to initiate an encounter, then there is no fruit. Only a poisonous outcome.
SO TRUE, SO TRUE!!!!!! Think about an individual with autism. Is he going to have the communication skills, or the theory of mind, to understand a police technique that is being used on him to elicit information? Not a chance. Some of these citizens are among the most vulnerable among us and were unfortunately processed by the criminal justice system and end up on the registry, my son included. I know a lot about this topic, all too well.
When we think of a man abusing a child or an older person, we are aghast that someone would take advantage of another human being who is defenseless. People are sent to prison for such acts.
It has been said, ""The measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens." I suppose that is true also of individuals who mistreat the helpless in their presence.
We see people who mistreat the weaker folks as thugs, monsters, and basically evil people.
But law enforcement has made a habit of doing this. Not all law enforcement, but enough so that any rational man would never trust anyone in LE. There are kind and decent people in LE, as I have seen them, but they are few and far between.
LE has no problem browbeating a confession out of a younger man who knows nothing about his Fifth Amendment rights. LE uses the young man's vulnerability and naivety against him to extract a confession of sorts, which may or may not be true.
In a police interview, LE always has the advantage and holds the upper hand just by virtue of the fact that the badge and uniform intimidates people. Like the animal abuser or those that abuse other human beings, LE knows they have the upper hand and they exploit it to the fullest.
What kind of a person would do that? A bully? A man with a God complex? An evil person? Or a cop??
LE has a nasty habit of preying on the weak at times, especially in an interrogation. By "weak" I mean the disabled, the young, and those who have no idea of their civil rights.
I find it rather pitiful that a person has to assert his Fifth Amendment rights to protect himself from another person who claims "to protect and serve" society.
Let's not forget that these people being emotionally abused by LE have not been convicted of a crime as of yet, and some are totally innocent.
I don't think anyone can argue that law enforcement cannot be trusted.
rewdiazepam
If anyone disbelieves Rew, watch the Netflix doc, Making of a Murderer. Watch the way LE extracted a false confession out of developmentally disabled teenager, Brendan Dassey. Dassey didn't know why the hell he was even talking to the police. He was answering to please them and would say anything he had to, so that he could "go back to class". It ended up in a false conviction.
Did anyone in the system sweat the fact that they were committing one of the most atrocious acts they could upon one of the most vulnerable human beings they could find? Not for a second.
In about two weeks my wards will celebrate his second anniversary of being home; of living a completely crime free life, of staying out of psychiatric units, and no longer using emergency rooms to get attention. In achieving these successes, my ward has saved taxpayers an estimated minimum of $60,000.00 these past two years. So far, I have yet to find even two people in government to join us at my wards party and celebrate him for his successes -- but who are overzealous to severely pounce on people like my ward when they do something wrong. Suddenly these same people in government disappear to avoid celebrating their successes when they do what everyone demands of them -- to live a crime free life.