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."

Consider Supporting Us?

The staff at Onenewsnow.com strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.

MAKE A DONATION

Comments

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 NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

Are you surprised a prominent Democrat is questioning the usefulness of the U.S. Constitution?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

  Frigid air, high winds cause dangerous travel conditions
Shutdown goes on as Trump offer doesn't budge Democrats
Leftist Kamala Harris jumps into presidential race
Minister says UK faces ‘political tsunami’ if Brexit halted
  Israel says its jets struck Iranian military sites in Syria

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Big Data meets Big Gov't: New IRS spy software
Women viciously attack black Trump supporter at Women's March
Different races, same boat
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refuses to condemn anti-semitism within Women's March
Prof: White people use ‘cop voice’ to establish ‘racial authority’ over others

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.