Holiday Document Dump Time Again
NSA reports detail decade #39;s worth of privacy violations U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES 8-1 THAT CITIZENS HAVE NO PROTECTION AGAINST FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS BY ...
By: THElNFOWARRlOR
Read the original post:
Holiday Document Dump Time Again - Video
Virginia man gets thrown into the crazy house for simply complaining about his cable TV
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no one can enter your domicile and seize anything or anyone without your or the court #39;s pe...
By: TomoUSA
Read more:
Virginia man gets thrown into the crazy house for simply complaining about his cable TV - Video
CHEYENNE - A federal judge earlier this month dismissed part of a claim filed by a local man who was shot by police in 2011.
The claim, filed in September, said Matthew Carabajal's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable seizures and excessive force protections were violated during the incident.
Carabajal's minor son, who was an infant in the car with him when shots were fired, also was named as a plaintiff.
The lawsuit names the city of Cheyenne and its police department as defendants along with officers Pat Johnson, Joshua Thornton, Matthew Colson and Michael Sutton in their individual capacities.
The defendants in October filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl granted part of the defendants' motion on Dec. 15 and denied the rest.
The judge dismissed without prejudice Carabajal's claim against the city, an alternative claim alleging 14th Amendment violations and all claims filed on behalf of his son.
Dismissing the claims without prejudice means they could be refiled at a later date.
The defense had argued that the claim as it related to Carabajal's son should be dismissed because he was not injured or deprived of any constitutionally protected right.
Carabajal's response to the motion to dismiss, filed last month, noted the alternative 14th Amendment claim, which was dismissed, was included in the lawsuit "for precautionary purposes only ... in case, for some reason, the court dismisses plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims."
Go here to see the original:
Man shot by police gets part of claim dismissed
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (PRWEB) December 26, 2014
Last week, the US Supreme Court delivered another blow to 4th Amendment civil liberties. In Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. __ (2014), the Court, for the first time, allowed the police to benefit from not knowing the law. Federal criminal defense attorney Hope Lefeber explains the ruling and discusses its implications.
According to court documents, Heiens car was stopped after a North Carolina patrol car noticed the car only had one working brake light. Believing two working brake lights were required, the officer pulled the car over and ultimately discovered cocaine inside. Petitioner was charged with attempted trafficking in North Carolina state court. Petitioner moved to suppress the search because state law only required vehicles to have one working brake-light. He alleged, therefore, that the officer stopped him for conduct that was fully legal. The trial court denied the motion. (Docket No. 13-604, Nicholas Brady Heien, Petitioner v. North Carolina). Heien then pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking, while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
On appeal the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed. After careful analysis of the North Carolina statute governing brake lights, the Court of Appeals concluded the stop violated the Fourth Amendment, explaining that "an officer's mistaken belief that a defendant has committed a traffic violation is not an objectively reasonable justification for a traffic stop". The Court of Appeals then held that evidence from the search had to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court of North Carolina then reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the officer's mistake of law was objectively reasonable, and, therefore, the search was justified and constitutional.
The United States Supreme Court affirmed. The Court had long accepted that an officers mistake of fact would not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 183-86 (1990). The Court had little difficulty in extending the same courtesy to an officers mistake of lawas long as it was a reasonable mistake. To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them fair leeway for enforcing the law in the communitys protection. As such, the majority held that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can indeed provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to justify a traffic stop based upon that understanding.
Ms. Lefeber explains that this is an extraordinary intrusion into our Fourth Amendment rights, as a police officer can now justify a stop and search in any case and it no longer matters whether the person stopped violated any law, let alone a traffic violation.
Man gets involuntary psychiatric hold after calling cops about cable theft in Virginia
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no one can enter your domicile and seize anything or anyone without your or the court #39;s permission. Tell that to Gordon...
By: TomoNews US
View original post here:
Man gets involuntary psychiatric hold after calling cops about cable theft in Virginia - Video