9th circuit eliminates 4th Amendment for poor people

You guys can ignore me. But your "concern" for freedom is rendered a joke when you still condone racial discrimination with your idiot silence on the issue.
 
The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that new technology does not invalidate the 4th Amendment, like the case where the government used IR technology to confirm that a suspect had heat lights concentrated in an area of his house that would most likely be used for growing marijuana. They used that to get a warrant, but the SCOTUS ruled the IR obtained knowledge was unlawful, and declared the warrant and everything subsequent to be fruit of the poisonous tree.

If this case were to go to the SCOTUS, there are plenty of precedents to strike down the 9th's decision.
 
Threedee said:
The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that new technology does not invalidate the 4th Amendment, like the case where the government used IR technology to confirm that a suspect had heat lights concentrated in an area of his house that would most likely be used for growing marijuana. They used that to get a warrant, but the SCOTUS ruled the IR obtained knowledge was unlawful, and declared the warrant and everything subsequent to be fruit of the poisonous tree.

If this case were to go to the SCOTUS, there are plenty of precedents to strike down the 9th's decision.
Click to expand...

this is a good point and it is also another split between circuits. Even though the 9th went with the direction of 'open spaces' available to the public, I think SCOTUS will either overturn this or send it back with valid precedent.
 
pretty scary. just a couple years ago people were laughing when Alex Jones told us this shit was coming soon. Now it's here. Who's still laughing?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is a good point and it is also another split between circuits. Even though the 9th went with the direction of 'open spaces' available to the public, I think SCOTUS will either overturn this or send it back with valid precedent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, one of the SCOTUS rulings concerning open spaces was to strike down a wire tap that the Feds had set up for an investigation on a public payphone, because everyone expects a certain amount of privacy while talking on one.
 
The use of Forward Looking Infrared cameras requires a warrant, IF they are used to "look" into your house. This is not the same. The problem is, we have allowed a blanket prohibition of searching persons, houses, papers, and effects, to devolve into "reasonable expectation of privacy". What is wrong with 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? That should be the alpha and the omega of police searches. This is one of the places where conservatives, like Scalia don't believe in the plain language. They want extenuating circumstances and exceptions to the warrant requirement and they don't believe that evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment should be excluded from trial, rendering the fourth amendment toothless.
 
Socrtease said:
The use of Forward Looking Infrared cameras requires a warrant, IF they are used to "look" into your house. This is not the same. The problem is, we have allowed a blanket prohibition of searching persons, houses, papers, and effects, to devolve into "reasonable expectation of privacy". What is wrong with 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? That should be the alpha and the omega of police searches. This is one of the places where conservatives, like Scalia don't believe in the plain language. They want extenuating circumstances and exceptions to the warrant requirement and they don't believe that evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment should be excluded from trial, rendering the fourth amendment toothless.
Click to expand...

this isn't just conservatives though. This is decades of USSC precedent that started with 'no right is absolute' and 'reasonable regulations'.
 
Damn Yankee said:
You can't draw a gun on someone for trespassing on your property.
Click to expand...

In some places you can. In Florida the "Castle Law" extends to any place you can legally carry a firearm. If you feel threatened (and seeing someone sneaking up to your house is a threat) you can shoot them.
 
Will be interesting to see how the court comes down on this if they do at all. Scalia wrote the opinion on FLIR technology, but this is not "intrusive" in the way Scalia talked about it in Kyllo.
 
Socrtease, don't you think EVOLVED is a better word for how the fourth amendment became a reasonable expectation of privacy?

It's seems like a nazi would call that a devolution. Are you a nazi?
 
Threedee said:
Why should you want it to, when the 9th are your kind of ideologues?

Onceler, what do conservative justices have to do with the insane rulings of the 9th?
Click to expand...

The 9th isn't necessarily a liberal court. It's so large that they can't all review it at once, so sometimes you get off-kilter decisions.
 
Socrtease said:
Here in NM we actually have case law that says we can repel illegal force by police officers with deadly force. A cop here in las cruces several years ago pulled a gun on a man that was in a verbal altercation with another civilian. There voices were raised but not to the point of disorderly conduct. The cop told the guy to get in his car and leave, he said not until I straighten this out, the cop pulled a gun, pointed it at the gentleman who pulled his own gun and fired. Not guilty, self defense.
Click to expand...
Here in NC we've had a child molester called out and shot by his neighbor. The jury found the shooter not guilty, because they all knew the molester and "he needed killin'".
 
Hey, I wonder if I can walk up to and place advertisements on cars in driveways since it's a public place and they can't expect any privacy?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Here in NC we've had a child molester called out and shot by his neighbor. The jury found the shooter not guilty, because they all knew the molester and "he needed killin'".
Click to expand...

The jury and the shooter should be hung on public television to show society what we do to vigilante animals.
 
what if your driveway is guarded by a gate/fence?

still i hope this one goes to scotus and get overturned
 
Just wait until the liberal pinheads get on this thread and re-educate you guys....
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal morons in the country, can't be wrong....
The defense is coming....
Come on Onceler, Jarod, Cypress, Apple.... maybe RStringfield or Mott...they go both ways and always the wrong way....
 
DonQuixote said:
what if your driveway is guarded by a gate/fence?

still i hope this one goes to scotus and get overturned
Click to expand...

From the article

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top