Moving in direction of a police state?

Tuesday, June 28, 2016
 | 
Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)

man in handcuffsIn a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has given police more leeway in dealing with the public regardless if they have committed a crime.

In Utah, an officer stopped a car with no reason to believe the driver was doing anything wrong, found out he had an arrest warrant for a minor traffic violation, searched his vehicle, and found some narcotics. John Whitehead, founder of The Rutherford Institute picks up the story.

"The case went to court [and] his lawyer said that the evidence should be suppressed – the reason being our Fourth Amendment requires probable cause, clear evidence of illegality, before you pull an American citizen over on the street and question them or whatever," the attorney explains. "The Utah Supreme Court actually said the evidence should be suppressed. It violated the Fourth Amendment."

But the case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court which said, in essence, the officer may have made a mistake in violating the defendant's constitutional rights but the evidence could be used against him anyway.

Whitehead, John (Rutherford Institute)"So what it means," says Whitehead, "is that any citizen now, if you're walking anywhere along the street, it doesn't matter what you're doing or not doing, a policeman can pull you over [and] search you."

And any evidence seized, albeit without a warrant or suspicion of a crime, is admissible in court, he adds.

"I hope people haven't forgotten a couple of years ago the Supreme Court ruled that if you're arrested for just a traffic violation you can be strip-searched at a police station now and your DNA taken," Whitehead points out.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority decision, saying the 5-3 decision "implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged."

Comments will be temporarily unavailable. Thank you for your patience as we restore this service!

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWS BRIEF

FEATURED PODCAST

VOTE IN OUR POLL

What are the most likely proposals to emerge from Biden's commission on the Supreme Court?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

High court halts Calif. virus rules limiting home worship
UK’s Prince Philip honored with 41-gun salutes after death
Alibaba fined $2.8 billion on competition charge in China
Biden assigns study on Supreme Court future
Despite border crisis...Biden wants to freeze Homeland Security budget
Passage of Kansas bill on trans athletes won't be veto-proof

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Trump flag violates Minnesota city ordinance -- but business owner willing to pay fines, 'go to jail'
North Korean education official reportedly executed for 'anti-party activities'
GOP governors blast Biden's gun control push; some vow to fight back
Mask-wearing represents fear and blind obedience, not science
'Get out!' Health police loudly shouted out of restaurant in yet another fearless revolt. 'Mass civil disobedience, what a beautiful sight!'

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day
NEXT STORY
Attorney: 'History' on Hillary's side

Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth WarrenA former Justice Department attorney predicts it's "highly unlikely" that those making the final decision will ever indict Hillary Clinton for her actions in the email server scandal.