Can cops violate amendment rights?

[hell ya]

is having hemp wrong

 

[ilkhan]

Yeah at the border they are allowed to search you right, I got no problem with that. But one hundred miles from the border including the coastline thats 2/3rds of the population living in a constitution free zone. WTF.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Your right med and that damn dog is being used to justify anything. The dog isn't gonna be under oath in court how the Fuck is that workable. I can see a dog at a border crossing, airport or in prison where you have no 4th amendment rights (sorta) but in real life they should only be able to use a dog if they already have a warrent. Otherwise the dog handler can say "my dog thinks your smuggling facehugers (aliens) in your trunk."

While I worked in a prison we were not allowed to bring in a drug dog to search visitors. They said it was because it "scared them."

Actually, thinking about the dog, as we have a right to confront any witnesses against us how would it be possible to confront a dog in court?

Is not the dog a witness against you?

Thus as the Dog can not testify should not any "evidence" obtained from the dog be treated as hearsay and circumstantial?

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

is having hemp wrong

Do you mean Morally (No)
Ethically (No)
or according to the State (Yes)?

 

[docd187]

This just in. The two reasons cops can search your car, without your consent, after they arrest you.

1. access evidence because the arrested person may destroy it
2. weapon in arms reach where the cop could be in danger

So if you get pulled over and you have a warrant for a traffic ticket, they can arrest you, but they cannot search your car.

The Supreme Court of the US upheld a previous decision by the Supreme Court of Arizona finding that the seizure of Gants property did violate his 4th Amendment Rights. Gant was arrested on an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license in 1999. After he was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car officers searched his vehicle and seized a gun and cocaine. Gant held that there was no reasonable expectation that he could access either the evidence or weapon and therefore the officers had no probable cause to search his vehicle.

Im not asking about a search after an arrest. lets say hypothetically, you get pulled over for a tailight being out. the cop is giving you the ticket and decides he doesn't like you or is having a bad day. he randomly asks you to search your car. you tell him no many times. he gets angry then searches your car anyway. I know this is illegal because he has no probable cause for anything: no smell of drugs, no idication that your using drugs, no open alcohol containers, no visible weapons, nothing. but he searches your car anyway. then you take him to court over an illegal search or whatever. if he testifies in court that you gave him permission to search your car whose not gonna believe him. juries and judges take their words and opinions a lot more seriously because they are cops. In that situation your going to have a tough time trying to get everyone to believe you instead of the cop.

 

[old pothead]

This is the same as a DUI checkpoint. In advance of every DUI check point, a sign is placed in the roadway warning of a checkpoint ahead. If you proceed into the checkpoint, the courts have ruled that by passing the sign (constructive notice), you have given permission to the DUI investigation and any subsequent search that may ensue.
Vi

In my state they put out DWI check point signs.If you turn around and try to leave,they will chase you down and search you anyway.I cannot remember what the ticket is they give you for leaving,so we are screwed one way or another.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

is having hemp wrong

is having ________ wrong?

sex, alcohol, tobacco, a tv, a car, an icecream cone,

Ultimately, a Libertarian can not see how it can be wrong to have anything. The government of course will tell you that having certain freedoms (including the freedom to get high) is wrong.

For instance the entire campaign against MJ was a massive collaboration between DOW, Hearst and the Federal Government to make it seem as if users of MJ were some how insane. Never mind that just 40 years earlier the United States was essentially a "do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't interfere in the rights of others" type country with minimal government interference (no income tax, no social security, no Gestapo, err FBI)

It wasn't until prohibition (f* crazy Protestant Bitches) that the government some how got the crazy ass idea that it'd be okay (because the people wouldn't object to strenously) to make substances illegal.

Of course, the other reason why the government could not endorse the usage of MJ is because of the impression that it received that drugs some how made people lazy.

If anything can be seen from the last 50 years, its that people are going to be themselves regardless of what they are on. A naturally lazy person is just going to get lazier, while a naturally active person or creative person might end up being more creative or more industrious when using drugs (depending on what they are using.)

Then there's the existence of the Welfare State, as long as people are "endangering" themselves the government would not have support for a welfare state. A Welfare State and Freedom do not go hand in hand. The government must restrict your freedoms to ensure your well-being in a welfare state, where as in a state of Freedom the government allows you to do whatever you want as long as you are not violating another person's rights to do whatever they want.

"Government is essentially the negation of liberty" - Mises

Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be, that I do not expect the government to protect me from myself, or my voluntary decisions. I expect the government to protect me from people that will initiate force against me either to steal my property, murder me or enslave me, all of which are in general equivalent.

To steal my property would be to steal my past
To kill me would be to steal my present
To enslave me would be to steal my future

the end summation of each action is equivalent to death, that is, non-existence.