Looks like the 4th ammendment is about to take another hit

[DMac]

Supreme Court to Decide on Warrantless Drug-sniffing Dogs (http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/supreme-court-to-decide-on-warrantless.html)


Phillip Smith
StopTheDrugWar

The US Supreme Court said Friday it would decide whether having a drug dog sniff at the door of a private residence violates the Fourth Amendment's proscription against warrantless searches. The court agreed to hear an appeal from the state of Florida in a case where the Florida Supreme Court ruled that such searches were indeed unconstitutional.

The case is Florida v. Jardines, which began with the arrest and conviction of Joelis Jardines for marijuana trafficking and electricity theft after a Florida police officer's drug dog sniffed at Jardines' front door and alerted to the odor of marijuana, Jardines and his attorney challenged the search, claiming the dog sniff was an unconstitutional intrusion into his home. The trial judge agreed, throwing out the evidence, but an appeals court reversed the lower court decision. In April, in a split decision, the state Supreme Court reversed the appeals court, siding with the trial judge.

What the high court decides will be watched with great interest by law enforcement, which sees drug-sniffing dogs as an invaluable tool in its fight to suppress drug use and the drug trade. Eighteen states had joined with Florida in urging the court to take up the case. They argued that the state court decision went against legal precedent and threatened a valuable and widely-used tactic.

This will be only the latest legal tussle over whether the use of dogs to find drugs, explosives and other illegal or dangerous substances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. In previous cases, the Supreme Court has upheld the use of drug-sniffing dogs during traffic stops, at airport luggage inspections, and for shipped packages in transit.

This case is different because it involves a private residence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that a residence is entitled to greater privacy than cars on a highway, luggage at an airport, or a package in transit. The court used that reasoning in a 2001 case involving the use of thermal imaging to detect heat from a marijuana grow operation in a home, ruling that the scan constituted a search requiring either a search warrant or probable cause.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in April and render a decision by the end of June.

Please visit and support StopTheDrugWar.org to end prohibition.

[Joe King]

They argued that the state court decision went against legal precedent and threatened a valuable and widely-used tactic.
I bet Stalin thought his tactics were valuable, too.

[palani]

Once and for all the document called the Bill of Rights has no application at all to U.S. citizens. These are rights reserved to the citizens of the several States (read that again ... the citizens of the several States and not the inhabitants of the several States). Fourteenth amendment freed slaves exchanged one set of chains for another.



"I read...
Todd did.
sofa king,
read...
Todd did."
(US citizens... say it out loud in a crowded room)

[Joe King]

Once and for all the document called the Bill of Rights has no application at all to U.S. citizens. These are rights reserved to the citizens of the several States (read that again ... the citizens of the several States and not the inhabitants of the several States). Fourteenth amendment freed slaves exchanged one set of chains for another.



"I read...
Todd did.
sofa king,
read...
Todd did."
(US citizens... say it out loud in a crowded room)Actually, it does have some bearing on US citizens, as the people have willingly placed the gov itself in the position to define what the BoR says, what it means and then to meter it out to its subjects.

Which is why they once said they couldn't put US citizens away indefinately, but they've since changed that within the regulations that define and govern exactly what it means to be a US citizen.

I've read Appelate Court rulings that stated that US citizens do not have full and direct access to the Bill of Rights.
Only to the degree allowed by fed law.
...and what I read specifically excluded the 9th and 10th amendments.

[letter_factory]

Once and for all the document called the Bill of Rights has no application at all to U.S. citizens. These are rights reserved to the citizens of the several States (read that again ... the citizens of the several States and not the inhabitants of the several States). Fourteenth amendment freed slaves exchanged one set of chains for another.



"I read...
Todd did.
sofa king,
read...
Todd did."
(US citizens... say it out loud in a crowded room)

Why do they call it a "Bill of Rights"? What's a bill?

[palani]

Why do they call it a "Bill of Rights"? What's a bill?

Specifically ...


BILL OF RIGHTS. English law. A statute passed in the reign of William and Mary, so called, because it declared the true rights of British subjects. W. & M. stat. 2, c. 2.

Generally ...


BILL, chancery practice. A complaint in writing addressed to the chancellor, containing the names of the parties to the suit, both complainant and defendant, a statement of the facts on which the complainant relies, and the allegations which he makes, with an averment that the acts complained of are contrary to equity , and a prayer for relief and proper process. Its office in a chancery suit, is the same as a declaration in an action at law, a libel in a court of admiralty or an allegation in, the spiritual courts....

The above definitions from ...

A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
Revised Sixth Edition, 1856

[palani]

Anytime you are talking "rights" then there is a correlative "duty". In any case these rights and duties do not attach to man. They are assigned to "person". A "person" is a word, an action or representation. If you assert a "right" you do so as a "person" rather than as a "man".

I would presume that you will use a "word" to proclaim your persons "right". When you do so you create that person. If that person truly has a right then there is a correlative duty on the part of another to not trespass upon that right. Who is going to do the trespass? An office holder? What office? Does he have an oath subscribed and signed on the back of his bond? Is he an agent? Is he a principal? Who does he represent if he is an agent?

[midnight rambler]

"I read...
Todd did.
sofa king,
read...
Todd did."
(US citizens... say it out loud in a crowded room)

Care to elaborate on specifically what this means?

[Joe King]

Care to elaborate on specifically what this means?
I always thought it was supposed to read....

"I am sofa king we todd ed" Go say those words in front of your spouse and see if they laugh.

[palani]

Care to elaborate on specifically what this means?

What is written is self-explanatory. What is heard might be entirely different than what is said.

Same with your name. When they sing out "MIDNIGHT RAMBLER please approach the bench" should you do so under your own volition then you agree to be held as surety for their legal fiction. As an alternative you might sing back "I am here today as the authorized representative of MIDNIGHT RAMBLER" and turn down the office they suggest you fill.

[Twisted Titan]

It dosent make a difference

A Dog can sbe spiked by his handeler to give Drug reaction if thats what they want.

Always watch their hands .....never mind The Dog. He is just going to follow commands and has no perception of right or wrong

[7th trump]

Palani yes the Bill of Right do have an effect on "US citizens".
Not many Rights from the Bill apply to "US citizens" but some do.
Here a list of which BoR apply as "fundamental" between the People and Us citizens.........complete with Senate document establishing which Rights are accessable to Us citizens and which ones are not accessable.

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm

[palani]

Palani yes the Bill of Right do have an effect on "US citizens".

For the sake of discussion, either ALL of the bill of rights apply or none of them apply. There is no pick and choose middle ground.

How about you sign a lease for a home that prohibits you from having a cat or a dog. When brought into court because of violation of this lease agreement you choose to argue "I have both a cat AND a dog whereas the prohibitive clause stipulated me from having either individually".

If it is a contract you don't get to pick and choose or to re-define actions to get around the INTENT.

If the Senate can decide WHICH apply then you are in a territory rather than a state.

[Ponce]

About sniffin dogs?.......spread some green pepper ,in powder form, around the place where they smell and after that they will not be able to smell anything else.........I keep a one pound bag handy just in case I have to take off for the hills and I don't want them to followed me.

[7th trump]

For the sake of discussion, either ALL of the bill of rights apply or none of them apply. There is no pick and choose middle ground.

How about you sign a lease for a home that prohibits you from having a cat or a dog. When brought into court because of violation of this lease agreement you choose to argue "I have both a cat AND a dog whereas the prohibitive clause stipulated me from having either individually".

If it is a contract you don't get to pick and choose or to re-define actions to get around the INTENT.

If the Senate can decide WHICH apply then you are in a territory rather than a state.
Sorry you dont agree Palani, but that "official" and "legal" Senate document that the government uses to determine what Bill of Rights are "fundamental" between the People and the Us citizen trumps your interpretation and/or opinion.
Also, I dont disagree that if you have the Senate decide which Rights apply to you as a "Us citizen" you live in a federal territory..................I agree very much!
But what you are not understanding is that this Senate document doesnt address the People................it addresses the subject on which Bill of Rights they feel are fundamental for their subject to have or not to share with the People.
Now just what do you think the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted for?
All acts (Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Social Security Act of 1935 to name a few) of Congress are territorial in nature and only apply to those who are under a particular jurisdiction.

[palani]

Sorry you dont agree Palani

If the Supreme Court of the United States can decide what rights I have then the matter does not rest with me.

You may disagree or not as your circumstances are most probably not the same as mine. For the record here is the organic law of my land (by treaty):




The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.

Now the status being addressed in this article does not bear any relation to the creation of the 14th amendment. How could it? It precedes it by 65 years.

[palani]

The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the State, and, in effect, the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516)

[7th trump]

If the Supreme Court of the United States can decide what rights I have then the matter does not rest with me.

You may disagree or not as your circumstances are most probably not the same as mine. For the record here is the organic law of my land (by treaty):





Now the status being addressed in this article does not bear any relation to the creation of the 14th amendment. How could it? It precedes it by 65 years.

For one the Supreme Court doesnt, cannot and never has decided what Rights the People have. The People do that for themselves called ratifications....not territorial enactments of Congressional policy.
The Supreme Court cannot ratify the Constitution which is what I beleive you are under the impression of.

Your cite is correct as the government didnt have subjects until the 14th amendment was enacted. So what else could they say about the inhabitants other than exactly what the Constitution stipulated about admitting into the union?
Theres no arguement that one should be argueing........you are either the "People" or a subject "US citizen".....................dont make it confusing!

[7th trump]

The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the State, and, in effect, the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516)

Hold on here.................what you are not realizing is that this about "abridgment from the state"........not the federal government stipulating policy and regulations on its subjects.
If you are a subject citizen the state cannot pass any legislation abridging rights eminating from federal policy and regulation.....................dont get the subject confused from the object here.

[palani]

you are either the "People" or a subject "US citizen".....................dont make it confusing!

Maybe you haven't had your second cuppa Joe this morning.

Until 1868 a "citizen of the United States" WAS one of the several States. The United States is a federation of independent States (countries or nation-states). It was the several States that formed the union through the Articles of Confederation. Each State was a body politic composed of their own citizens.

Inhabitants also happen.

Having gone through a "saving the Buttercup" exercise I can tell you when the ship is going to sink either with you or without you having a lifeboat handy is priceless.

[Joe King]

Palani yes the Bill of Right do have an effect on "US citizens".
Not many Rights from the Bill apply to "US citizens" but some do.
Here a list of which BoR apply as "fundamental" between the People and Us citizens.........complete with Senate document establishing which Rights are accessable to Us citizens and which ones are not accessable.

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm

This is exactly true for all "US persons" and is the same as what I've read in Appellate Court rulings 20 years ago.

"US persons" only have access to the Bill of Rights as granted and defined by the fed gov. Which is why they can change it up, from time to time.

As they recently did with the indefinate detention thing.
ie they decided that certain persons do not get access to those Rights.