phinsup

Dude can i at least have some fun and speak african clicking or something LOL

amp

wash up on the shore with no id and claim amnesia....

TYSON

That would move you ahead in the line

defprun

You might even get a job in parliament.

cymfc3s

"Herring v. U.S., 07-513"



Herring, eh? Isn't that a type of floppy, smelly fish??

mazdaspeed7

Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring".



The term red herring comes from the time when criminals would use fish to lead sniffer dogs off the trail.



Yeah, its also a fish...

Lynn E. Hanover

Before everyone runs off to Canada...........



You may not have read the entire brief. The aggreaved party seems to have been a pernnial bad actor, who had many contacts with law enforcement. And in almost every case it was people like you calling in the cops to take care of a

problem with this person rather than confront him yourselves, or on the third offense just beating the dog **** out of

him on your own.



So on the 15th visit to to the aggreaved parties residence, the cops as usual and as required, ask for a warrant check from radio.

Persons at department "A" contact persons at department "B" about outstanding warrants on the ever popular aggreaved party, and person at department "B" informs person at department"A" that there is an outstanding warrant on aggreaved party for Mopery with intent to Gauk, and possesion of a rape tool. The cops arrest aggreaved party on the probable cause provided by the warrant check.



As is usual and proper, the cops frisk Mr. Aggreaved for weapons and contriban, and are free to search the area under his control. As in, did he pitch the just a stolen Rolex into the bushes or the hand gun, dagger, or the screw driver he just gouged the **** out of your Mazda with. In this case they added drugs found on his person at the time of his legal arrest, to his very long list of accomplishments.



The cops did not conspire to illegally arrest the Aggreaved. Nor did they conspire with their records section or dispatcher, or the records section at department "B" or anyone else in order to "under color of law" capture Mr. Aggreaved for any reason known only to themselves.



It is also unlikely that anyone at department "B" conspired with anyone to leave a warrant in the system when it was discovered (after the arrest) that the warrant was no longer in force.

The cops were placed in contact with Mr. Aggreaved (again) through happenstance, and nothing more.

The cops did not place drugs on the person of Mr. Aggreaved, in order to affect a false arrest, nor were they so charged.



So now comes Mr. Aggreaved saying to the court that: "Even though I constantly act up and have been a constant giant pain in the *** to my fellow man over these many Years, and as a result I have been locked up many times, and have learned nothing from this, and have continued to sell dope all over this town, without regret, and without one thought to the damage to others that my dope selling and constant dope use may have caused, I, on this occasion want to get out of jail free, and have the record of this arrest expunged from my record, (leaving only the first 27 arrests) so that my good name may be cleared, and that my lowlife scumbag lawyer my get a once in a lifetime chance to stand before the Supreme Court just one time in his life, and argue that a paperwork error, is actually a constitutional question.



And so he did. And as a normal person would expect, he lost.



This case is not your problem. Mr Obama and his ilk are your problem. Hide your guns. Stock up and hide your ammo. Unless good men do something there will be no guns. Ask the British, who said it can never happen here.

It did.



Lynn E. Hanover

Columbus Ohio

Police patrolman

1968-1978

phinsup

I read through your post and cannot see where it states they actually had a valid warrant at the time of the search, because if they did not, which is what I read that is IT, no valid warrant they violated the 4th amendment. The bill of right does not allow "honest mistakes" it's very clear, no warrrant = illegal research.



I've read the constituion to extent that I basically have it memorized, the bill of rights as well I don't recall where it says that any part of the constitution can be ignored in order to put "repeat offenders" or "real bad guys" away? i guess i missed that section? i have been laboring under the impression that the constitution protected all American citizens regardless of prior acts.



See this statement is where I think our difference in opinion really begin. You assume that because they are cops they in no way "conspired" to put this deserving "really bad guy" behind bars. I find it not only possible, but likely if for no other reason then your own belief that it's ok to "do what it takes" to put "really bad guys behind bars" I don't subscribe to that logic and nor does the constitution IMO Once we say it's ok to ignore the constitution for "really bad guys" then all that has to be expanded on is the definition of "really bad guys" now it's a drug dealer and multiple offender, tomorrow it's a guy who drives too fast or who's car gets too low a MPG.



We could really stream line the legal system with more rulings like this. pretty soon we'll just have have the officer sign an affidavit that says he's seen or heard or thinks and or believes that the citizen has done something illegal and has therefor sentanced him to 2 years in jail (of course no trial necessary).



The slow eriosion of our rights is NOT OK WITH ME and you guys may be more then happy about it when it puts a career criminal away, but I am not, when I see his rights violated I wonder when I'll be the bad guy in the news.



Supreme court rulings set precidents, then distrcit judges expand on those precidents. You being former law enforcement are obviously more comfortable with the police departments ever expanding reach and that's fine, I can't fault you for that. I have friends that are cops, doesn't mean I trust their friends. Mark my words, this ruling will be expanded, today the local drug dealer, the neighbor with a fully auto weapon, the friendly guy accross the street smoking a j.



Roe vs. Wade was an abortion for a woman who had been raped, it made abortion legal. Do we go into the specifics of that case when establishing future abortion rulings? No, even though the case was for a raped woman it made abortion legal under EVERY set of circumstances and this ruling will too.





Man thank god it wasn't me you say to yourself..... and then one day it is.





The constitution is CLEAR, it should not be bent to put even the worst criminal behind bars you bend it to put the bad guy in jail and it's next bent to put you and I in jail.



Let me remind you all the 4th Amendment is:



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



There was no VALID, no matter a confusion from dispatch, etc, etc... the fact remains THERE WAS NO VALID WARRANT, that is the beginning and the end of the story.



I see **** this BART cops first reaction after a fellow officer shoots a man in cold blood is to confiscate all teh cameras in the area and I am ******* scared! Their reaction was NOT to call an ambulance, not help the kid but "Hurry get all the cameras, get the proof" its disgusting.



Are all cops bad? No I am no saying that, I'm not even saying the majority are, but I am saying that the constitution is there to keep them honest or rather WAS there to keep the bad one's honest.

phinsup

I feel that EVERY erosion of the constitution however slight is in fact my problem because it doesn't end. 1 day we widdle a little off the 4th amendment and tomorrow we no longer have the right to Habius Corpus (oh **** I forgot the Patriot Act got rid of that one already).





How can I do that without the 4th amendment? The 2nd gives me the right to buy them, the 4th gives me the right to expect to be able to keep them from illegal siezure. you think yer going to Ann Frank from the SS in this age of night vision and heat signatures, phone taps, etc, etc?

TYSON

That's what's funny, people in the USA think somehow that the Democratic Party is the source of too much government intrusion in their lives, which anyone can see from the last few years is not a fact.



We have the same problem come out of our Liberal Party, which is in fact our left of centre default government.