SkipCaptcha
12,693
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
The '''{{PAGENAME}}''' to the [[United States Constitution]] states:
The '''{{PAGENAME}}''' to the [[United States Constitution]] states:
{{cquote|'''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 [[warrant]]s 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.'''}}
{{cquote|'''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 [[warrant]]s 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.'''}}
==Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)==
"U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law"
"In a blow to the [[constitutional rights]] of [[citizen]]s, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled 8-1 in [[Heien v. State of North Carolina]] that [[police]] officers are permitted to violate [[American]] citizens’ Fourth Amendment [[unalienable rights|rights]] if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “[[ignorance of the law is no excuse]],” the [[Court]] ruled that [[evidence]] obtained by police during a [[traffic stop]] that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The [[Rutherford Institute]] had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]], the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”
“By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, the Supreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book [[A Government of Wolves - The Emerging American Police State|A Government of Wolves : The Emerging American Police State]]. “This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end — given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, [[military]] training drills on American soil, [[domestic surveillance]], [[SWAT]] team raids, [[asset forfeiture]], wrongful [[conviction]]s, and corporate [[corruption]] — is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the [[police state]].”<ref>[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/supreme-court-rules-police-can-violate-4th-amendment-if-they-are-ignorant-law Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)] Accessed December 31, 2014</ref>
{{US amendments}}
{{US amendments}}
==External Links==
* [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/supreme-court-rules-police-can-violate-4th-amendment-if-they-are-ignorant-law Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Fourth Amendment]]
[[Category:Bill of Rights]]