9th circuit eliminates 4th Amendment for poor people

FAGGOT OF DEBATE said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do realize that only 3 justices rule on decisions in circuit courts, right? They are comprised of rotating panels of 3 justices to help keep up with their caseloads.
 
this case is disturbing....it effectively allows the state to trespass onto your property (curtilage as the majority calls it) and attach a tracking device. now, there are other cases that allow tracking devices if the device was place on the vehicle while the vehicle is in a public place. however, a dc circuit just struck that down. so now there is a split in the courts and i believe this will go to the scotus.

this case and its trespassing is simply unbelievable and dangerous. the dissent (rehearing dissent so you had the full panel which explains why there are more judges) absolutely rips the majority a new asshole. that doesn't happen very happen.

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100812145

a good read
 
bravo said:
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....
Click to expand...

Of course, I oppose this ruling. It's a horrible decision.
 
Judge Kozinski was a guest lecturer when I was in law school. He is a conservative of libertarian bend. I don't agree with him on everything but he is a really sharp legal mind and should have been nominated to the Supreme Court when Bush was in office. He missed a great opportunity. Now for those who have not taken the time, here is a great portion of Kozinski's dissent.

There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist: No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter. Judges, regardless of race, ethnicity or sex, are selected from the class of people who don't live in trailers or urban ghettos. The everyday problems of people who live in poverty are not close to our hearts and minds because that's not how we and our friends live. Yet poor people are entitled to privacy, even if they can't afford all the gadgets of the wealthy for ensuring it. Whatever else one may say about Pineda-Moreno, it's perfectly clear that he did not expect— and certainly did not consent—to have strangers prowl his property in the middle of the night and attach electronic tracking devices to the underside of his car. No one does.

When you glide your BMW into your underground garage or behind an electric gate, you don't need to worry that somebody might attach a tracking device to it while you sleep. But the Constitution doesn't prefer the rich over the poor; the man who parks his car next to his trailer is entitled to the same privacy and peace of mind as the man whose urban fortress is guarded by the Bel Air Patrol. The panel's breezy opinion is troubling on a number of grounds, not least among them its unselfconscious cultural elitism
Click to expand...
 
20100827.gif
 
Kozinski was born in Bucharest, Romania. In 1962, when he was 12, his parents, both Holocaust survivors, brought him to the United States. The family settled in Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California, where his father, Moses, ran a small grocery store.

Kozinski graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles, receiving an A.B. degree in 1972, and from the UCLA School of Law, receiving a J.D. degree in 1975. Kozinski clerked for future Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Ninth Circuit from 1975 to 1976, and then for Justice Warren Burger from 1976 to 1977. From June 5, 1981 to August 1982, Kozinski served as the first U.S. Special Counsel appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

[edit] Judicial career
Kozinski's first judicial appointment was as chief judge at the newly formed United States Court of Federal Claims in 1982.

In 1985, at the age of 35, Kozinski was appointed to a new seat at the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan, making him the youngest federal appeals court judge in the country. Defending the court against criticism because of a controversial decision, Kozinski went on record emphasizing judicial independence: "It seems to me that this is what makes this country truly great -- that we can have a judiciary where the person who appoints you doesn't own you."[2] He also took a stand against the charge that the Ninth Circuit Court is overly liberal, which led some to call it "The Notorious Ninth": "And yet I can say with some confidence that cries that the Ninth Circuit is so liberal are just simply misplaced."[3] On November 30, 2007, Judge Kozinski received the gavel as the tenth chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[4]

In 2008, according to The Los Angeles Times, Kozinski "maintained a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos." [5]. In response, Judge Kozinski called for an ethics investigation of himself. [6] In July 2009, Kozinski was admonished by a panel headed by Judge Anthony Scirica.[7][8]
 
The proper reaction to a bad ruling is to dissect the thinking of the idiot judge and show the abstractions he references as invalid and stupid.
 
bravo said:
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....
Click to expand...

I'm against the ruling.

One has to realize, Bravo, that just because it's so rare for Liberals to err that does not mean it's impossible. :cof1:
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
i'm sure that they didn't consider (or maybe they did and don't care) that if law enforcement sneaks on to your property in the open and are caught by property owner, are they there legally and lawfully without a warrant and can they be detained at gunpoint? and then when they draw their own weapons, does the shootout commence with no crime being committed by the homeowner defending themselves?
Click to expand...

Uhh, ya, see if you get away with that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top