Since the men and women who serve as judges attended law school, the question must be asked what these law schools are teaching. Or perhaps a better question would be, “with what are these law schools indoctrinating their students?” Far too often we learn of judicial decisions that make no sense, and we’re not talking only of the bizarre decisions federal judges have made regarding President Trump’s travel ban.
The courts have power because the people respect them and the executive branches enforce their decisions. Take these away, and the courts just turn into editorial departments. Sometimes it seems like that is the direction they wish to take.
More on page two.
Lee, what say you?
Welcome to the U.S.S.A. AND I DIDN’T STUTTER!
Bravo! One of, if not thee best discussion I’ve ever seen on social media. Very informative David.
Glad to hear it from a retired LE officer David, I know current LEs who feel the same way, especially pertaining to pot. Here in VA, laws have not caught up to attitudes
Put the story on the first page, soooo tired of these ad covered “next page” sites…….
Unfortunatly “probable cause” gives a lot of leeway to interpretation. Not sure how a reclined seat figures into it, but if the torn baggie even looked like it held drugs via residue. But like I said unfortunately the cops have a lot (too much IMHO) leeway to “see cause”.
The comments caused me to look up the Federal Court records. Interesting: 6th Circuit – 87 percent;
11th Circuit – 85 percent;
9th Circuit – 79 percent;
3rd Circuit – 78 percent;
2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit – 68 percent;
8th Circuit – 67 percent;
5th Circuit – 66 percent;
7th Circuit – 48 percent;
DC Circuit – 45 percent;
1st Circuit and 4th Circuit – 43 percent;
10th Circuit – 42 percent.
Michael Albrecht Thanks. I could write a book about the negative, widespread effects of the drug war as seen from the eyes of a common sense, old school cop who still believes in the oath I took to uphold the Constitution.
Michael Albrecht It’s not really about attitudes. It’s about the black and white letter, and the spirit of the US Constitution. The black and white of the 4th Amendment says ANY search without probable cause is an unreasonable search and is expressly forbidden, period. If a cop asks for your consent, it’s because he doesn’t have PC. If he did, he wouldn’t have to ask your permission to violate your rights. NEVER consent to a search. Stop reinforcing cops’ abandonment of their investigative abilities in favor of what amounts to a fraternity scavenger hunt.
The SPIRIT of the Constitution, as a whole, is this: The government will only infringe on your activities/behavior when those activities DIRECTLY infringe upon the same of another citizen. DIRECT infringement does not include: Not having enough money to buy diapers because you spent it all on booze/drugs; not being able to hold a job because you’re fried all the time; offending the rest of us who don’t use drugs; overdosing and dying. Those are the results of personal stupidity, and personal stupidity is not the responsibility of the government. Conversely, operating a vehicle under the influence of ANYTHING, IS a direct infringement on the rights of other citizens because of the necessity to share government provided roads and the historic likelihood of harm to OTHER CITIZENS and should remain illegal. So…the litmus test for any law should ALWAYS be “Does a violation of this law constitute a DIRECT infringement or real harm to another citizen? If the answer is “No”, the the law should not exist.
Agreed. This is over-reaching.