Supreme Court Says Police May Use Evidence Found After Illegal Stops
Not sure how I feel about this Holla Forums. On the one hand, it bugs me, but on the other hand, it triggers liberals because it'll mainly affect dindus and spics.
So:
Also:
My fucking sides.
Perhaps People of Crime should commit less goddamn fucking crimes.
The two worst Justices are Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. I don't think this is debatable. What is debatable is which one them is worse.
Could someone clear this up for me? How can a stop be "illegal" if it is conducted AFTER the authorities learned that the defendants had outstanding arrest warrants? In other words, how is it illegal to stop someone who you know has an outstanding warrant?
That's her argument? Was everyone fucking high when they confirmed her?
Has the "critical theory" crap really made it's way to the Supreme Court?
That's what I'm not clear on. How are they determining that the stop was "illegal" in the first place? It can never be illegal to arrest someone who's already wanted by the law!
The initial stop was illegal. So for example the police stop someone for speeding who was following the speed limit, in that case the initial stop would be illegal. However, after they make the stop the police find out the guy has a warrant, then they can search him legally.
They mean the traffic stop is illegal, IE, conducted with no Probable Cause (PC). For example, pulling someone over "just because" or "because they're a nigger" You can't legally do that.
Thing is, cops, unless they are truly inept, can invent ANYTHING to be PC for a stop. Didn't signal a lane change or turn is common as fuck and there is no way to fight it, since it's your word against the cop. Seatbelts now being a primary offense is also easy-mode, (IE, they can stop you for not wearing a seatbelt, where before, when it was a "secondary offense", they needed to stop you for something else THEN they could write the seatbelt ticket.) Inspection and registration stickers are also easy-mode.
Also, every cop runs plates at every stoplight and in traffic, so if they get a hit, BAM! But that's not an "illegal stop."
The issue at hand was an "illegal" stop, one without probable cause, such as normal traffic violation, or matching the description of a suspect.
After such a stop, the officer may check the license plate or driver license and discover outstanding warrant for arrest, at this point, the officer has probable cause to search the suspect and vehicle and evidence found is then admissible.
It should be noted, that unless placed under arrest, you may refuse consent to be searched.
Reminder: Almost half the Supreme Court is Jewish
Sotomayor is a Sephardic Jewish name. She's a crypto.
Seem like Sotomayor doesn't even care, she just votes for whatever is the most anti-white and degenerate.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
Additionally Garland, Obama's SCOTUS recent nominee is Jewish.
That would be 4 confirmed Jews and 1 crypto in the court. 2% of the population and over half the Supreme Court. This is a BIG problem.
The late Justice Scalia commented on that very thing in his dissent on the faggot marriage ruling.
Something about how SCOTUS is like 3 jews and 6 catholics, both of which are tiny percentages of the population, no protestants, and all members are from coastal states and educated in Ivy League elite schools, unlike the vast majority of the nation. He said it in such a way that he was totally calling out "elites" who do not resemble the "Average American" forcing mandates and decisions down the country's throat and that something needed to be done to make the Court truly represent the majority of the country.
He was so based.
Reminder that this is not law and no one has to follow it.
Also, what was it Trump said about judges potentially being biased based on race, ethnicity or national origin?
Oh, but when Obama's SCOTUS picks do it, it's OK.
I'm surprised Thomas is turning out to be a such a credit to his people. I figured he just and AA hire yes massa nigger who'd fall in line under the jew cunts as soon as Scalia was dead.
One day the Supreme Court will be more Jewish than KISS, and not too far in the future at that.
Then what's the point?
The liberals and the left really tried to fuck him in the ass during his confirmation hearings, and he is still pissed.
en.wikipedia.org
...
This actually makes a lot of legal sense, even though I disagree with illegal stops. If they can arrest someone after an illegal stop, and if they can search after an arrest, then one follows from the other.
Holy shit, are you fucking kidding me? How the fuck does that happen? Do the police just not give a shit?
Liberal control of that town is total.
So they're let go, at least until they get mo money for dem programs.
en.wikipedia.org
On December 1, 2014 President Barack Obama announced that the federal government will spend US$75 million on body cameras for law enforcement officers, as one of the measures taken in response to the shooting in Ferguson.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Arresting niggers at higher rates than whites is also out of the question right now because Obongo's Justice Department will sue on grounds of disparate impact.
It's going to take forever for these hippies to die.
Also, the old "travelling in more than one lane"
Just don't have drugs in your car. If you can't do that, guess what? There is another option. That's right – Africa. If somebody pulls you over in Africa, you can blow their brains out. It's nigger paradise.
So we just need to get a Republican in the White House and the crack-down can commence? You think Trump would do it, or is he a patsy?
That makes you a perpetrator, not a victim, asshole. Arresting criminals is racist now?
What the everloving shit? How? How can that be possible? No wonder they chimped out over the law being enforced, they're all fucking criminals.
four jews and a bunch of catholic cucks declare jew world order.
Catholics make up 22% of the population. That's hardly a "tiny percentage".
Fair enough, but at the time of writing, the court had 3 (open) jews on it and 6 catholics.
So 3% make up 33% of the highest court in the land, and 22% make up the remaining 66%.
So peoples who total 25% of the US population make up the entirety of SCOTUS. That's fucked.
Since pillow on head happened, they are going to have to move fast if they want to make it through all 10 before November.
Lel you've got to be shitting us OP.
:D
Can't wait for our Trumpswaffe forces to abuse these powers once He gets into office.
So basically, if a police officer stops you illegally, but then realizes you have a warrant out for arrest, the fact that they stopped you illegally is irrelevant, and they can proceed to make an arrest and such…
I don't see too much wrong with this decision.
Couldnt they just say "random" or "routine" traffic stop and just run licence and id?
I mean they can just do that right. Idk how they can illegally pull you over.
You can't legally be detained if they don't have probable cause that you committed a crime. I don't suppose you think all of those people on youtube asking cops, "am I being detained? Am I free to go?" are just saying this to be assholes, do you? They are trying to force cops to either say they suspect them of a crime (which they do not have probable cause for), or else let them go instead of taking up precious seconds of their time.
People have used this bullshit to get through checkpoints set up by states to make sure certain goods don't get into or out of a state.
Like it was said earlier, if they wanna pull you, they can. Any decent cop can come up with a reason. Only the shitty cops fail at that. Admittedly dashcams and bodycams make this tougher, (such as the dashcams that start the tape 30 seconds to 1 minute BEFORE they hit the lights, so it's harder to say the perp made an illegal turn or something), but it's still not impossible.
Basically, if a cops picks you at random, and decides he wants to stop you and fuck your whole day up, he can, and there's nothing you can do about it. This is not "anti-cop", but a sober assessment of police power in the US. All he needs is a barely-acceptable excuse for PC and he can pull you. And with what passes for PC these days, it's not that hard.
So, technically no, they can't "just do that". Illegal stops are very real. Real world? They can and they do.
Like what? This is intriguing to me. I'm only familiar with DUI checkpoints.
Apparently they have these "immigration checkpoints" down in the south. Here we see an American being a total troll about it.
So they can respond with
"Routine traffic stop" and be fine like that or do they need to come up with some other retarded bullshit.
Im all for people being stopped. Most of the time that they do this they bust people on something.
Oh, I'm in Texas, and I knew about those, so I guess my statement was incorrect regarding only being familiar with DUI checkpoints.
I'm curious about state checkpoints for smuggled goods, I'm assuming cigarettes and booze bought out of state and the checkpoints are run by "revenuers" and not ICE or locals on DUI duty.
God video tho.
They have to have a reason, no matter how flimsy or weak.
I've been through several of those
Americans RARELY, if ever, treat spics like shit unless they ask for it
I heard only one case, in which the victim was being a cunt about, that in his own words. That's saying something because the lad always tones down his own shit
Also cops here do it too, once an american claimed a cop harassed him and made him open all the places of his car because the cop reeeeally liked his ride. It's only fair for Murricans to troll the shit out of some massive cunts too
but wouldnt that work "routine traffic stop"?
I recall seeing at least one video with someone managing to get into California without letting cops check his vehicle for fruits/veggies from out of state. I cannot remember where it was though.
Forgot: That's part of the "freedom" thing. Random stops for no reason are NOT "routine" and shouldn't be. There HAS to be a reason besides, "I felt like it" or "he looked suspicious".
Now, the second reason IS often why these people are stopped 90% of the time, so yes, de facto "routine stops" occur. However, being dirtbags, it's EASY to come up with a reason.
>failure to stay in a single lane weaving
>not speeding impeding traffic
>"defective" cracked windscreen
I'm not even a cop and there's a dozen things I could use.
It HAS to have a reason. See
You can't just pull someone "because"
Arresting suspected criminals isn't a violation of freedom
Wait. Isn't Clarence the nog and Sotomayor one of the kikesses?
Clarence is the token magical negro and Sotomayor is the wise latina. Both are Catholic.
Kagan is the kikess
Not news, OP. This has basically always been the case… only now it's official because the Supreme Court says so.
I mean, really, what are the officers supposed to do in that kind of situation?
It should be illegal for niggers to be alive in the first place.
Yes sir!
Search Incident to Arrest or Chimel v. California (1969) Says if you're being arrested they police are allowed to search you. A valid arrest warrant is a valid reason for arrest. How one can be a supreme court justice and not know this is mind boggling.
I motion for dismissal.
I remember that shit. They were pulling up ANYTHING they could to ruin him. The left are truly scum. If Thomas was a regular democrat coon, he would've been fast tracked in.
Or "improper lane usage"
Appointing Justice Thomas to the USSC is literally the only lasting good GHW Bush accomplished during his presidency.
What is the context of this scene?