How can the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agree on anything? It has come to be a sign of the coming of the Apocalypse.

 

Apparently, it's been a more common thing with Roberts as CJ than before. Some, like NPR, allege it has more to do with narrowing the scope of rulings rather than true partisan harmony, however.

Meaning cops use that to get unsuspecting rubes to tell on themselves. But you knew that already.

 

And how do you feel about that?

And how do you feel about that?

 

Me personally? Doesn't matter. I've got a very good grasp of my rights, plus my work puts me in constant contact with law enforcement officers, and as a result I know how to talk to them a lot better than John Q. Public.

 

From a general welfare standpoint, I'm not sure. I'd rather police not be disingenuous to average citizens, but at the same time, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Saw this on a Law Enforcement page...

 

Observation #1: In exigent circumstances such as immediate officer safety or the safety of innocent persons (per SCOTUS, child abduction, bomb threat), officers can conduct a search and be prepared explain those actions later in court

 

Observations #2: Taking the time to get a search warrant for a cell phone not only protects personal privacy, but ultimately also serves to ensure that an officer’s search of a subject’s phone is not tossed out on a ‘technicality’

 

Observation # 3: In the 21st Century, the legal system will not treat cell phones as merely phones, but as Chief Justice Roberts said, they are “a digital record of nearly every aspect of [a person’s life] — from the mundane to the intimate” that can also make phone calls

A DUI checkpoint is not the same as a search warrant. It allows an officer to stop a driver to verify drivers' licenses & vehicles' registrations. A driver does not forfeit any 4th Amendment rights, nor are the police given permission to perform unreasonable searches or seizures.

 

Sobriety checkpoints are also used to remove drunk drivers from the highways. As we all recognize, drunk driving is a significant threat to highway safety.

 

The bottom line is that a sobriety checkpoint promotes a very strong public policy: highway safety.

 

Searching somebody's cell phone is way too invasive without any benefit to the general public.

 

I assume we agree that removing illegal guns would benefit society, correct? You OK with a)checkpoints that require you to open your trunk or allow the police in your car or b)allow police to enter your home without a warrant in the name of safety and reduced crime?

 

I see your argument as "end justifying the means."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

 

Home owners more than half the time give consent because they feel they have too. Lack of education from the public on their rights.

 

This ruling is a different topic & gives the citizens more privacy as obviously you know.

 

I am a proponent of our rights and privacy.

Home owners more than half the time give consent because they feel they have too. Lack of education from the public on their rights.

 

This ruling is a different topic & gives the citizens more privacy as obviously you know.

 

I am a proponent of our rights and privacy.

 

If someone doesn't know or take the time to learn and understand their rights, who's fault is that?

Police don't need a warrant.....

 

 

If they have consent from the owner.

 

The only reason this is news to me is because I thought this was the case already. Apparently I was wrong.

 

If someone doesn't know or take the time to learn and understand their rights, who's fault is that?

 

I get what you mean and I go back and forth on this topic. On one hand I don't like the idea of law enforcement tricking people out of civil liberties and on the other hand I don't think it breaks any laws. I just think when your job is to protect and serve protecting peoples rights is part of that .

I assume we agree that removing illegal guns would benefit society' date=' correct? You OK with a)checkpoints that require you to open your trunk or allow the police in your car or b)allow police to enter your home without a warrant in the name of safety and reduced crime? I see your argument as "end justifying the means."[/quote']

 

That's not the purpose of DUI checkpoints. A checkpoint that engaged in the behavior in your first argument ('A') would clearly be unconstitutional.

 

To your 2nd point, the police are allowed into one's home under certain circumstances, most of which are exceptional.

I get what you mean and I go back and forth on this topic. On one hand I don't like the idea of law enforcement tricking people out of civil liberties and on the other hand I don't think it breaks any laws. I just think when your job is to protect and serve protecting peoples rights is part of that .

 

Asking someone to search something and them saying yes isn't violating anyone's rights. If they give consent it's on them. I realize many of you are only thinking about drug searches here, but sometimes police are searching and asking for consent looking for stolen property. Do they not owe their victims a service also? Shouldn't they use all their options (within the law) to serve the victims of crimes as well?

Asking someone to search something and them saying yes isn't violating anyone's rights. If they give consent it's on them. I realize many of you are only thinking about drug searches here' date=' but sometimes police are searching and asking for consent looking for stolen property. Do they not owe their victims a service also? Shouldn't they use all their options (within the law) to serve the victims of crimes as well?[/quote']

 

I think the issue he's talking about is police using the threat of arrest/punishment to coerce 'consent'.

 

I think the issue he's talking about is police using the threat of arrest/punishment to coerce 'consent'.

 

Pretty sure any threat made would nullify any evidence that would be found. Police officers aren't big on losing cases due to a technicality, if they want to look and you say no...they just ask a judge for a warrant if they have PC.

I think the issue he's talking about is police using the threat of arrest/punishment to coerce 'consent'.

 

That's not how I understood it but if that's the case, my bad.

 

I don't think that's necessary in most cases considering like we've already said, most people don't know that sometimes they can just say no.

Asking someone to search something and them saying yes isn't violating anyone's rights. If they give consent it's on them. I realize many of you are only thinking about drug searches here' date=' but sometimes police are searching and asking for consent looking for stolen property. Do they not owe their victims a service also? Shouldn't they use all their options (within the law) to serve the victims of crimes as well?[/quote']

 

They uneducated people who allow them to prowl deserve what they get. However, with media and social media I think the tide is slightly turning and people are becoming more aware of their rights. Additionally, with the use of cell phones during encounters the police they police are limited in their approach and tactics now.

They uneducated people who allow them to prowl deserve what they get. However, with media and social media I think the tide is slightly turning and people are becoming more aware of their rights. Additionally, with the use of cell phones during encounters the police they police are limited in their approach and tactics now.

 

 

The problem with media and social media is it's confusing some people about their rights.