Changes

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)==

==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"

"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.”

"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 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.”<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>

 

“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==

==External Links==

{{reflist|2}}

{{reflist|2}}

 

[[Category:Bill of Rights]]

[[Category:Bill of Rights]]

[[Category:Privacy]]

[[Category:Privacy]]