That it was 5-4, is Scary!

[Good Luck]

I have not stated otherwise, I understand the law. I am merely stating the obvious here, if a search (lawful or not) produced evidence, isn't the evidence proof of 'probable cause' in a purely logical sense? Doesn't the evidence found in the search affirm the original suspicion? I know it doesn't legally justify the unlawful search, that is not what I am saying. We must maintain reasonable cause for search and seizure, pursuant to the 4th Amendment, no argument from me on that.

No, results are NOT proof of probable cause, neither logically nor legally. Probable cause means the law enforcement officials had reason to believe that a search is justifiable (where justifiable means they could most likley get a warrant if they had the time to apply for one) BEFORE the search takes place. Probable cause must be established BEFORE the search, not during.

Finding evidence as justifying probable cause is using the "ends justify the means" argument.

Let's put it this way:
Ignore probable cause for a minute, and concentrate on warrants.

Obviously if a warrant is issued, the judge thinks there is adequate reason to believe evidence of a crime will be found. But let's say the judge does NOT think there is adequate reason to think evidence will be found, and refuses to issue the warrant. So the police officer disagrees with the judge, searches anyway, and finds evidence. Was THAT search justifiable? Should such evidence be allowed in the trial?

Now probable cause is, admittedly a much grayer area than having been specifically denied a warrant. As such, most courts allow a greater latitude when probable cause must be resorted to due to circumstances. But when probable cause is found to be lacking, then functionally it is no different than if a warrant had been denied.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You're pretty much a retard who wants to hurl false charges of racism at conservatives because you are a closet racist yourself.

Well that logically follows.

Up until the days of Jimmy Carter, we had a fairly conservative, orginalist court, which supported Brown v. BoE. The term "orginalist" was not even used until 40 years after Brown, and wasn't an issue. Yet, you want to try and tie racism to conservatives, so you can feel good about your own racist views, I guess. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and anyone without mental retardation should be able to recognize that.

Roe v. Wade?

The death penalty cases?

The court in the 60's and 70's was more liberal than the court of today.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Striking down a law that is in violation of our 2nd Amendment is NOT legislating from the bench, you have a retarded view of what the term means. It has nothing to do with "republican ideology" or what conservatives believe, it has to do with the US Constitution and what it means and says our rights are.

The 2nd Amendment clearly gives us the right to bear arms, and any reading of documents of the time from our founding fathers will support this in total, without ambiguity, without question. They NEVER intended anything other than what the 2nd Amendment has always meant, and always will mean, and you and the liberal cabal who are trying to take over America through judicial fiat, are not going to make it mean something different.

Then the first ammendment never ever meant that you could speak by burning a flag? It was in fact only referring to the literal act of opening up your mouth and flapping it? I'm sorry, that's just moronic.

You can act like there's only one possible way to interpret everything, but it doesn't make it any more logical. You call anything the court does that you disagree with "judicial activism", and there's no other meaning behind the words when you use them.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think if you study the text, you will realize the framers intent, and it wasn't to allow people to avoid prosecution of the law. If it is not reasonable for someone to be searched without warrant, I agree with you, but there are instances where such searches are certainly reasonable and justified. If the search reveals evidence, it is obvious the search was justified, isn't it?

No law that requires the state to do unreasonable searches to be enforceable is a reasonable law. The framers did want a lot of protections, not to protect you from whenever other people were wrong, but from whenever the government was wrong.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, results are NOT proof of probable cause, neither logically nor legally. Probable cause means the law enforcement officials had reason to believe that a search is justifiable

Then you agree with me. Sorry. Results ARE proof of probable cause, they can't logically not be! The law enforcement officer "had reason to believe" and the finding of the evidence confirms his reasonable beliefs. You are trying to twist what I am saying into something I haven't said, and I understand you desperately want to find a point of disagreement with me, but you are not getting there from here.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Finding evidence as justifying probable cause is using the "ends justify the means" argument.

Again, I never said this, what are you smoking in your crack pipe tonight? I never stated that evidence "justified" probable cause, it does, however, "confirm" or "reaffirm" probable cause and justifies any search based on that probable cause.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Then the first ammendment never ever meant that you could speak by burning a flag? It was in fact only referring to the literal act of opening up your mouth and flapping it? I'm sorry, that's just moronic.

You can act like there's only one possible way to interpret everything, but it doesn't make it any more logical. You call anything the court does that you disagree with "judicial activism", and there's no other meaning behind the words when you use them.

I have never stated there is only one possible interpretation of everything. I have not called anything the court does that I don't like "judicial activism", that is a flat out lie. I've explained clearly what judicial activism is, and it has absolutely nothing to do with republicans or conservatives, or what I think or want.

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on constitutionality, not try to manipulate the original intent of the framers to fit some modern-day liberal agenda. This stuff they are doing is NOT what the framers EVER intended, or how our system is supposed to work. THE PEOPLE are supposed to decide issues of law, if something needs changing, we have the guidelines for that through amending the Constitution. This is NOT supposed to be "ruled" by the SCOTUS.

The Constitution was very carefully worded and composed, and it takes into account, unusual circumstance. No one has unlimited Constitutional rights of ANY kind! Free speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a theater, Freedom of Religion doesn't mean I can sacrifice virgins, Freedom to bear arms does not apply to convicts and mentally disturbed people, Freedom from unreasonable searches does not mean you can't ever 'reasonably' search someone without a warrant. This doesn't mean the SCOTUS has the authority or right to modify and change the meanings in the Constitution because they think they need to be changed.

I understand why you pinheads like the activist judges, why you support this absolute subversion of our Constitution and denial of our rights as Americans, it's because you realize most of this crap would never pass at the ballot box. It's just easier to implement your pinheaded liberal eurotrash agenda by forcing it down our throats through judicial fiat.

 

[Good Luck]

No, results are NOT proof of probable cause, neither logically nor legally. Probable cause means the law enforcement officials had reason to believe that a search is justifiable"

Then you agree with me. Sorry. Results ARE proof of probable cause, they can't logically not be! The law enforcement officer "had reason to believe" and the finding of the evidence confirms his reasonable beliefs. You are trying to twist what I am saying into something I haven't said, and I understand you desperately want to find a point of disagreement with me, but you are not getting there from here.

When you deliberately leave out a qualifying clause to a statement, you can make it mean anything you want. That is a dishonest way to debate, in case you have not heard. Nor do I have to "desperately" seek a point of disagreement. You use the word "reasonable" from the 4th amendment in the same way the anti-gun crowd uses the word "militia". And you are every bit as wrong as they are.

No, results are NOT proof of probable cause, neither logically nor legally. Probable cause means the law enforcement officials had reason to believe that a search is justifiable BEFORE the search takes place "

That is the complete statement I made, and its is much different than the truncated version you mislead with. In which case I do NOT agree with you. Whether a search is the result of a warrant or whether it is the result of probable cause, the justification for the search must occur BEFORE the search take place. Since the requirement for justification is in ADVANCE of the search, it is logical fallacy to claim the RESULTS of the search provide the justification.

The simple belief of a law enforcement officer is NOT probable cause. If the suspicion of a law officer were all that is required for probable cause, no law officer would ever need a warrant, and the 4th amendment would be useless.

The very definition of "reasonable" search in the 4th amendment is a search which has been justified by a warrant. It is the issuance of the warrant, under the limitations defined by the 4th amendment, that establishes that the search is a reasonable search.

Just as the 2nd amendment precedes the right of the people to bear arms with the reasoning that the security of a free state depends on a well regulated militia, the 4th amendment also uses a similar structure of the reason for the amendment, followed by the limitation placed on government.

The reasoning is that the people should be secure from unreasonable search. The limit placed on government is that a reasonable search shall be defined as one requiring a warrant which shall not be issued unless certain criteria are met.

Probable cause allows for a very narrow set of instances wherein a warrant is justified, but time and circumstances prevent the law from going through the needed procedures. But the end criteria for evidence gathered under probable cause is the same as if a warrant had been requested. And the standard for a warrant is whether the information available PRIOR TO THE SEARCH justifies a warrant being issued. If the information available BEFORE the search takes place does NOT meet the criteria for a warrant, then the standards of probable cause have not been met, and it is considered an unconstitutional search.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I have never stated there is only one possible interpretation of everything. I have not called anything the court does that I don't like "judicial activism", that is a flat out lie. I've explained clearly what judicial activism is, and it has absolutely nothing to do with republicans or conservatives, or what I think or want.

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on constitutionality, not try to manipulate the original intent of the framers to fit some modern-day liberal agenda. This stuff they are doing is NOT what the framers EVER intended, or how our system is supposed to work. THE PEOPLE are supposed to decide issues of law, if something needs changing, we have the guidelines for that through amending the Constitution. This is NOT supposed to be "ruled" by the SCOTUS.

The Constitution was very carefully worded and composed, and it takes into account, unusual circumstance. No one has unlimited Constitutional rights of ANY kind! Free speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a theater, Freedom of Religion doesn't mean I can sacrifice virgins, Freedom to bear arms does not apply to convicts and mentally disturbed people, Freedom from unreasonable searches does not mean you can't ever 'reasonably' search someone without a warrant. This doesn't mean the SCOTUS has the authority or right to modify and change the meanings in the Constitution because they think they need to be changed.

I understand why you pinheads like the activist judges, why you support this absolute subversion of our Constitution and denial of our rights as Americans, it's because you realize most of this crap would never pass at the ballot box. It's just easier to implement your pinheaded liberal eurotrash agenda by forcing it down our throats through judicial fiat.

Sorry I'm forcing freedom down your throat. The freedom must hurt.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When you deliberately leave out a qualifying clause to a statement, you can make it mean anything you want. That is a dishonest way to debate, in case you have not heard. Nor do I have to "desperately" seek a point of disagreement. You use the word "reasonable" from the 4th amendment in the same way the anti-gun crowd uses the word "militia". And you are every bit as wrong as they are.

No, "unreasonable" is an adjective and militia is a noun. Therefore, there is no comparison. The 4th Amendment clearly states you are protected from searches which are unreasonable, and I agree with that. It does not state that you are protected from "reasonable" searches and seizures, and if you wish for it to say that, you should start a petition to amend the Constitution, that is how it is supposed to work.

I don't frankly understand your argument about probable cause. IF I have "probable cause" that in itself, justifies the search, and evidence found confirms the probable cause which justified the search. You keep trying to make me say something I haven't said, and I don't get it, are you just that caught up in the Dixie-bashing hoopla here? I have never ever ever EVER NEVER NEVER said, "the ends justifies the means" or "you don't need probable cause beforehand" or any of the other idiotic things you apparently think I said. I merely stated that evidence found as the result of a search, regardless of the 'legality' of the search, confirms any and all probable cause, and it certainly does. To deny that it does, is to deny reality and logic.

 

[a11n]

When he reaches the gates of Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell, 'One more soldier reporting, sir... I've served my time in hell

 

[Minister of Truth]

I've pretty much only ever heard it from Republicans post Brown v. Board of Education.

Actually, its been since Dred Scott v. Sanford...

 

[Good Luck]

No, "unreasonable" is an adjective and militia is a noun. Therefore, there is no comparison. The 4th Amendment clearly states you are protected from searches which are unreasonable, and I agree with that. It does not state that you are protected from "reasonable" searches and seizures, and if you wish for it to say that, you should start a petition to amend the Constitution, that is how it is supposed to work.

The part of speech makes no difference. The anti-gun crown focuses on the word militia in order to justify their interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and thereby justify their idea of reasonable limits on the right to keep and bear arms.

You are focusing on the word "unreasonable" to justify your interpretation of the 4th amendment, thereby justifying placing your limits on the protection from unreasonable searches.

I don't frankly understand your argument about probable cause. IF I have "probable cause" that in itself, justifies the search, and evidence found confirms the probable cause which justified the search. You keep trying to make me say something I haven't said, and I don't get it, are you just that caught up in the Dixie-bashing hoopla here? I have never ever ever EVER NEVER NEVER said, "the ends justifies the means" or "you don't need probable cause beforehand" or any of the other idiotic things you apparently think I said. I merely stated that evidence found as the result of a search, regardless of the 'legality' of the search, confirms any and all probable cause, and it certainly does. To deny that it does, is to deny reality and logic.

You use "probable cause" as a synonym for "suspicion". Logically finding evidence justifies the suspicion that evidence is to be found, in which case you would be correct, IF suspicion were the same as probable cause.

However, the problem with your argument is probable cause is NOT synonymous with suspicion. Probable cause is a set of circumstances which would justify a warrant, but proceeds without one because constraints of the situation make the procedure of obtaining a warrant unrealistic. But the standard for probable cause is the same as the standard for issuing a warrant. The requirement, again, is that the justification for the search precede the search, and as such, is not based on any result of the search.

A comparison in point:
Case 1: A law officer pulls a car over for a traffic violation, and based on probable cause from the circumstances of the violation, searches a person's car and finds nothing. The person sues. The court finds that the officer had sufficient probable cause, based on the circumstances, and the search, though it found nothing, is still justified.

Case 2: A law officer, based on suspicion, pulls a car over and searches it, and finds a pound of crack. Since the officer had no reason other than suspicion to pull the car over, his search was NOT justified, even though it turned up evidence.

In both cases, the end is NOT what justifies the search, it is the set of circumstances PRIOR to the search that leads to the justification, or lack thereof.

Again, I never said this, what are you smoking in your crack pipe tonight? I never stated that evidence "justified" probable cause, it does, however, "confirm" or "reaffirm" probable cause and justifies any search based on that probable cause.

Right there, you said it. The end (finding evidence) JUSTIFIES the search.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Actually, its been since Dred Scott v. Sanford...

Dred Scott was an example of judicial restraint.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The part of speech makes no difference. The anti-gun crown focuses on the word militia in order to justify their interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and thereby justify their idea of reasonable limits on the right to keep and bear arms.

You are focusing on the word "unreasonable" to justify your interpretation of the 4th amendment, thereby justifying placing your limits on the protection from unreasonable searches.

The part of speech makes all the difference. The anti-gun crowd focuses on the word "militia" because it is a noun which seems to contradict individuality. In context, with the other words used in the amendment, it is clear the noun is used in addition to the individual right. This nullifies their argument, but that is why they remain focused on a single word. I have not focused on a single word, I merely pointed out the adjective which describes the condition for search and seizure. This was stated in response to the argument that any and all searches and seizures are unconstitutional without a warrant, which is incorrect. I didn't place a limit on protection from unreasonable searches, I don't know how you got that from anything I said. I did indeed point out, there is a limit on your freedoms, in every instance. As well there should be.

You use "probable cause" as a synonym for "suspicion". Logically finding evidence justifies the suspicion that evidence is to be found, in which case you would be correct, IF suspicion were the same as probable cause.

Well now, here you just outright say what you think without any rationalization. I have not used "probable cause" as a synonym for anything! I fully understand what probable cause is. Again, you seem to want me to be saying things I haven't said, just for the sake of making yourself right. I am sorry, but I can't oblige. Finding evidence does indeed confirm the probable cause which justified the search to begin with. It is illogical to conclude anything else. If I have reason to believe you are hiding a dead body in your basement, and I get a warrant to search and do find a dead body in your basement, my original reason to believe this is confirmed.

However, the problem with your argument is probable cause is NOT synonymous with suspicion. Probable cause is a set of circumstances which would justify a warrant, but proceeds without one because constraints of the situation make the procedure of obtaining a warrant unrealistic.

Again, for the last time, please stop claiming I have made statements I haven't made and trying to argue against a point I have not made! You are really starting to piss me off and you sound retarded. I understand what the law says, and I understand what the Constitution says, it doesn't say that any of us have protection against any and all searches reasonable or not, without a warrant first being obtained, it just doesn't say that, mean that, or intend to mean that, and never has. You explained it here very precisely, so I know you understand this, which is why it's puzzling me that you want to argue about this.

But the standard for probable cause is the same as the standard for issuing a warrant. The requirement, again, is that the justification for the search precede the search, and as such, is not based on any result of the search.

Once again, for the slow minded... I have never stated that probable cause could be established retroactively, or that justification doesn't have to precede the search, or that the standards are not the same. These are things I think you wish I had said, and would like to believe I said, so that you can win your argument, but I have not argued these points. Frankly, they are ignorant of the law, and utterly stupid.

Right there, you said it. The end (finding evidence) JUSTIFIES the search.

If you want to read things into what I said, that is fine. I never made such a statement. The end (finding evidence) confirms the probable cause, which justifies the search. What you are trying to distill from my comments is; We don't need to have probable cause at all, we can search and seize whatever we want and if we find something, there is no violation of constitutional rights. That IS NOT WHAT I HAVE EVER SAID! I am really really sorry I can't make my words mean what you want them to mean, or turn my argument into some extremist unreasonable view you can bash on here, I hate it for you!

 

[Epicurus]

Then you agree with me. Sorry. Results ARE proof of probable cause, they can't logically not be! The law enforcement officer "had reason to believe" and the finding of the evidence confirms his reasonable beliefs.

You're clearly no lawyer, Dix.

That's simply not true.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think Scalia said it best in his supporting opinion, our Constitution never grants unconditional and unlimited rights. With every right, comes some restriction or condition. This is measured and reasonable, but should never infringe upon our fundamental rights as individuals. In other words, freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a theater. The right to bear arms doesn't mean that every American is entitled to have a gun regardless of the circumstance. And the protection of the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures, doesn't apply to reasonable circumstances, such as having a probable cause.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think Scalia said it best in his supporting opinion, our Constitution never grants unconditional and unlimited rights. With every right, comes some restriction or condition. This is measured and reasonable, but should never infringe upon our fundamental rights as individuals. In other words, freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a theater. The right to bear arms doesn't mean that every American is entitled to have a gun regardless of the circumstance. And the protection of the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures, doesn't apply to reasonable circumstances, such as having a probable cause.

You can't scream fire in a crowded theater because the action causes direct physical victimization.

A criminal can't wield a gun because he has been stripped of that right via due process.

None of that applies to searches and seizures. Every right is unconditional and absolute.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're clearly no lawyer, Dix.

That's simply not true.

No, it's true, you are just having a hard time comprehending me. Think slowly about it for a moment, don't try to read things into what I post, and let it sink in, it's really quite simple.

IF I have probable cause, which leads me to search you for drugs, and I do find drugs, it confirms my belief in the probability of the cause. The cause is no longer probable, it has been established and validated, you did indeed have drugs as my once 'probable' cause led me to believe. You simply can't provide a logical argument to the contrary, because it would defy reason. You may argue that I never had probable cause, and I have never opposed such an argument, but if I had probable cause, and it turns up the evidence expected, it confirms the cause to believe and it is no longer a probability.

I don't understand why this is such a hard point to make with you guys, it seems fairly easy to me. It also seems you want to argue against rational logic. The very word "evidence" comes from "evident" as in... it is EVIDENT the suspicions based on probable cause were accurate and the search was justified. I think you are misinterpreting something I've said, or think I meant something else, and if that is the case, I am sorry you misunderstood me.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You can't scream fire in a crowded theater because the action causes direct physical victimization.

A criminal can't wield a gun because he has been stripped of that right via due process.

None of that applies to searches and seizures. Every right is unconditional and absolute.

Well, no it's not, you just gave two examples of that!

EVERY right has conditions and is never absolute in all cases. I have Freedom of Religion, I can't sacrifice virgins, even though it may be part of my religious belief! I am not being denied my Religious Freedoms because I can't sacrifice virgins? Well, yes, I am, but there is a reasonable justification for it.

The 4th Amendment protects us from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. We have no Constitutional right to be protected from search and seizures where there is reasonable cause! Most every Amendment has limitations for reasonable circumstances.