IIRC, fingerprints are determined by random chance events in the womb, not genetics. So identical twins have different fingerprints.
-
DPMC Moderators: tryptakid
Supreme Court decision gives cops less power to search your car
- Thread starter tom80
- Start date
IIRC, fingerprints are determined by random chance events in the womb, not genetics. So identical twins have different fingerprints.
phr
Bluelighter
^
Yup.
Yup.
theWorldWithin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,298
Ultimately it will probably not make a difference since the lower courts will not enforce this new ruling for a significant period of time. Unless you want to bring those charges about a cut of bud to the supreme court I doubt it will help you much. IE it will be cost prohibitive to gain the benefits of this ruling for quite a long time.
In reality this will likely just lead to more prevalent use of k-9 units which do not constitute a search since according to the courts a dog does not reveal what your personal possessions are, they simply indicate the presence of illegal drugs. This is clearly bullshit since dogs are trained to false positive but that is the law.
Also lets not forget how many times you 'failed' a field sobriety test that was designed for people to fail, or the cops 'smelled' weed when you opened the door. Don't expect this to make a very positive difference despite it being a step in the right direction.
captainballs
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,954
Cops will do whatever they want if they like a guy for something. That means the car, the house, the pets' digestive systems is free for grabs. For people like you and me, this is okay, except for the thousands of dollars and year of proving that they were wrong in their techniques, but supreme court decisions like this don't mean anything for the people who actually populate the prison system, and the police know this.
Search and Seizure: Supreme Court Limits Police Car Search Powers
Search and Seizure: Supreme Court Limits Police Car Search Powers
Drug War Chronicle, Issue #582, 4/24/09
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/582/supreme_court_limits_car_searches
A narrowly divided US Supreme Court Tuesday refused to expand police search powers at the expense of privacy rights, ruling that police cannot search a suspect's vehicle after the suspect has been detained and arrested absent probable cause. The 5-4 decision came in Arizona v. Gant.
In that case, Rodney Gant was a suspect in a drug investigation. As Tucson police surveilled a suspected drug house where they had come into contact with Gant earlier, Gant drove up and exited his vehicle. Having checked Gant's record after the earlier encounter, police knew he had an outstanding arrest warrant for driving with a suspended license. Police arrested and handcuffed Gant, then placed him in the back of a patrol car. Police then searched his vehicle, finding a gun and some cocaine. Gant was charged with and convicted of drug possession and sentenced to three years in state prison.
Before trial, Gant had sought to suppress the evidence against him, arguing it was the result of an unlawful search, but the trial judge denied that motion. Gant appealed the verdict, winning in the Arizona Supreme Court. The state of Arizona then appealed to the US Supreme Court.
To no avail. While the Supreme Court acknowledged police powers to make a search incident to arrest, the justices noted that the purposes of such searches were to ensure officer safety and the preservation of evidence. With the suspect cuffed in the back seat of a patrol car and with no reason to preserve any "evidence" of Gant's offense -- driving with a suspended license -- the court held that police needed a search warrant to conduct a search of his vehicle.
"Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority. "When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies."
A rare victory for the Fourth Amendment from the Roberts court.
Search and Seizure: Supreme Court Limits Police Car Search Powers
Drug War Chronicle, Issue #582, 4/24/09
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/582/supreme_court_limits_car_searches
A narrowly divided US Supreme Court Tuesday refused to expand police search powers at the expense of privacy rights, ruling that police cannot search a suspect's vehicle after the suspect has been detained and arrested absent probable cause. The 5-4 decision came in Arizona v. Gant.
In that case, Rodney Gant was a suspect in a drug investigation. As Tucson police surveilled a suspected drug house where they had come into contact with Gant earlier, Gant drove up and exited his vehicle. Having checked Gant's record after the earlier encounter, police knew he had an outstanding arrest warrant for driving with a suspended license. Police arrested and handcuffed Gant, then placed him in the back of a patrol car. Police then searched his vehicle, finding a gun and some cocaine. Gant was charged with and convicted of drug possession and sentenced to three years in state prison.
Before trial, Gant had sought to suppress the evidence against him, arguing it was the result of an unlawful search, but the trial judge denied that motion. Gant appealed the verdict, winning in the Arizona Supreme Court. The state of Arizona then appealed to the US Supreme Court.
To no avail. While the Supreme Court acknowledged police powers to make a search incident to arrest, the justices noted that the purposes of such searches were to ensure officer safety and the preservation of evidence. With the suspect cuffed in the back seat of a patrol car and with no reason to preserve any "evidence" of Gant's offense -- driving with a suspended license -- the court held that police needed a search warrant to conduct a search of his vehicle.
"Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority. "When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies."
A rare victory for the Fourth Amendment from the Roberts court.
FrostyMcFailure
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 4,521
Thank fucking god there is still people in the supreme court who arent "brought and paid for". Good job guyz.
Id be happier if they voted to downsize Po-Power.