Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Cops No Longer Need Warrants to Search Vehicles

?..heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure..?
Adan Salazar

Pennsylvania?s Supreme Court has ruled police officers in the Commonwealth are no longer required to obtain a warrant prior to searching a vehicle, a decision that essentially overturns the protections enumerated in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in Pennsylvania?s own state constitution.

Yesterday, Justice Seamus McCaffery issued the court?s opinion, stemming from a 2010 Philadelphia police department traffic stop of a man for having dark tinted windows, who was later found to be hiding two pounds of marijuana under the hood of his vehicle.

In a 4-2 vote, the court decided "the prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search."

Previously, as explained by Lancaster Online, police were not allowed to search a vehicle unless a driver consented, "or if the illegal substances were in plain view."

"Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with the search without a warrant," writes Brett Hambright.

Not surprisingly, police are ecstatic.

"It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs," said New Holland Police Lt. Jonathan Heisse, reports Hambright.

However, in her dissenting opinion, Justice Debra McCloskey Todd rightly noted the ruling ?heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have enjoyed as their birthright.? Todd also called the decision ?diametrically contrary to the deep historical and legal traditions? of Pennsylvania, according to Associated Press.

Several defense attorneys also view the court?s ruling as a monumental government overreach that could negatively impact the normal, day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens.

"It's an expanding encroachment of government power," Jeffrey Conrad, a defense attorney with the law firm Clymer Musser & Conrad told Hambright today regarding the court?s final opinion. "It's a protection we had two days ago, that we don't have today. It's disappointing from a citizens' rights perspective."

"I am concerned," another defense attorney, Christopher Patterson, expressed to Hambright, "that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement."

Another lawyer clarified that the ruling does not grant police the authority to search vehicles arbitrarily.

"This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop," Mike Winters with the law firm McMahon & Winters said. "They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant."

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Deputy Who Shot Dog Indicted on Animal Cruelty Charge
- FBI Investigating Bunkerville Protesters!
- Student Punished for Refusing to Pledge Allegiance to the State
- Call the Cops at Your Peril
- NEVER Let Your Kids Talk to the Police
- The American Criminal Justice System is Dead
- Long Island officers caught on video violently striking driver during traffic stop
- Albuquerque Residents Vow to Storm Another City Council Meeting

Probable cause (rather than "hunch" like reasonable suspicion) is always enough for the police to search a car. That's why the cops bring the dog to sniff, and if the dog alerts, they have their reason to search, no warrant is required. This is well known to anyone cursory familiar with the matter, so it's odd that the article presents it as some new and unheard of practice - see http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/when-can-police-search-your-car/ any pretty much all literature on the subject. If Pennsylvania was an exception, it was amazing, but it ended; the cited court opinion does say "Accordingly, we adopt the federal automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so" - which indeed seems to be the case everywhere else.

In this specific case, the driver told the cops that he had "some weed" in the car; then when they brought the dog to sniff (I wonder why, after that admission), the guy tried to flee and was caught. Seems like more than enough reasons to search the car.

This may end up in the supreme court. That couild be a good thing or a bad thing. Its again going to get worse before it gets better. Maybe night in our lifetime but god willing eventually Americans will realize cops are an occupying gang force that are the enemy and only exist to put people in jail for non-crimes.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

US Supreme Court Rejects Marijuana Reclassification Appeal

by Phillip Smith

The US Supreme Court Monday declined to hear an appeal from medical marijuana advocacy groups who had challenged the DEA's decision to maintain marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, the category reserved for the most dangerous substances.

The court denied in summary order a petition for a writ of certiorari from the groups, led by Americans for Safe Access, which had sought Supreme Court review of a DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the DEA's ruling that a change in marijuana's classification required the Food and Drug Administration's recognition of acceptable medical uses for the drugs.

Advocates of rescheduling marijuana have been trying to do so for more than four decades, but have been thwarted by DEA delays and intransigence. This was the third formal rescheduling effort to be blocked by DEA decision making.

Schedule I drugs are deemed to have no acceptable medical uses and a high potential for abuse. Other Schedule I drugs include LSD, MDMA, and heroin. Despite the fact that there is an ever-increasing mountain of research detailing marijuana medicinal effects and despite the fact that 20 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, the DEA continues to insist that it cannot be down-scheduled.

Joe Elford, lead attorney on the case for Americans for Safe Access, told Law360 that the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was in line with its reluctance to overturn lower courts and administrative decisions on medical marijuana.

"It's disappointing, but not altogether surprising," he said.

A fourth effort to reclassify marijuana led by the governors of the medical marijuana states of Rhode Island and Washington was filed in 2011 and is still awaiting action.

[For extensive information about the medical marijuana debate, presented in a neutral format, visit MedicalMarijuana.ProCon.org.]

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest General
- From Conspiracy to Anarchy: James Corbett on Anarchast
- Poll Finds Texans Ready to Legalize Marijuana
- Polls Find Maryland, Florida Ready for Marijuana Reform
- Urban Innovation Exchange: The Mower Gang in Detriot
- Essential Government Worker In Action [Video]
- Adam Kokesh's defense fund stolen while in jail, operation sabotaged
- Has Adam Kokesh Been Robbed of 50k?
- California Volunteer Marijuana Eradicator Falls to His Death

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Supreme Court Blocks Government Plan To Claim Ownership Of DNA

Collecting and storing every newborn?s blood violates Genetic Privacy Act
Steve Watson

In a long running case, a Supreme Court has ruled to limit the use of blood samples collected from newborns by the government.

The case has exposed the fact that there is an ongoing semi-covert movement by state and federal governments to claim ownership of every newborn baby?s DNA for the purpose of genetic research without the consent of individual citizens.

The Minnesota Court ruled Wednesday that the Minnesota Department of Health is violating the law in storing, using and disseminating newborn screening test results and newborn DNA.

Overruling a lower court?s decision, the state Supreme Court found that the samples are ?Genetic Information? under the State Genetic Privacy Act, and held that ?unless otherwise provided, the Department must have written informed consent to collect, use, store, or disseminate [the blood samples].?

In 2003, The Citizens? Council for Health Freedom (CCHF), formerly known as The Citizens? Council on Health Care (CCHC), discovered that The Minnesota Department of Health had been indefinitely storing the blood of newborns since the mid 1980s, and using the samples for purposes beyond the State?s newborn screening program since 1997.

The state treated the activity as an ?opt out? program, whereby if the parents of the newborn infant do not specifically opt out of the process, the state presumes its has "informed consent" and that the parents have opted in.

Consequently, the DNA of nearly a million children is considered government property under Minnesota law.

Without the knowledge or consent of the person or their parents, the government has been selling the DNA for genetic research purposes.

In 2008, state Health Department officials began seeking exemption for the so called ?DNA Warehouse? from Minnesota privacy law.

Essentially this would mean that eventually every person?s DNA would be collected at birth, warehoused by the state in what is known as a ?genomic biobank?, and sold or given away to private or governmental genetic researchers, who may manipulate, alter or splice the DNA in any way they see fit.?Hundreds of samples have already been used in government comissioned studies.

Such information would represent a goldmine to employers, insurance companies, medical institutions, and big pharma.

Under such conditions we are faced with the prospect of a society that is literally the mirror image of the nightmarish vision outlined by Aldous Huxley in his 1932 novel Brave New World, where individuals are categorized in a social hierarchy according to their genetic traits.

In a statement, Justice Helen M. Meyer, voicing the majority opinion in this week?s ruling, writes:

?The Genetic Privacy Act ? restricts the collection, use, storage, and dissemination of blood?samples collected pursuant to the newborn screening statutes?

?The newborn screening statutes provide an express exception to the Genetic Privacy Act only to?the extent that the Department is authorized to administer newborn screening by testing the?samples for heritable and congenital disorders, recording and reporting those test results,?maintaining a registry of positive cases for the purpose of follow-up services, and storing those?test results as required by federal law.?

The case was brought by 9-families who sued the Minnesota Department of Health for violation of the state genetic privacy law.

The following video shows the oral argument brought before the court back in March and breaks down the issue in much more detail:

In a press release concerning the court ruling, Twila Brase, president of CCHF writes:

?We are cheered by this good news, says. ?When our organization discovered the state health department?s Baby DNA warehouse in 2003 and the use of newborn DNA for genetic research without parent consent, we determined to do all that we could to stop this practice. No state law expressly permits these activities.?

?We are pleased that these nine families were willing to sue the State of Minnesota,? adds Brase. ?Their action and this decision now secures the genetic privacy rights and informed written consent rights of all Minnesota parents and newborn citizens."

Ms. Brase has been warning of the ongoing move for a a number of years. In January 2007 she issued a written testimony to the Minnesota legislature on the unethical and hidden uses of harvested DNA by the state.

Watch Twila Brase explain the possible consequences of the pending DNA profiling legislation:

Though the Minnesota case has received recent public attention, such DNA harvesting is not restricted to that state and is being undertaken nationwide.

The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns? DNA is being collected.

DNA of newborns has been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with by all 50 states. In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.

In April 2008, President Bush signed into law a bill which formerly announced the process that the federal government has been engaged in for years, screening the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months of birth.

Described as a ?national contingency plan? the justification for the?law S. 1858, known as?The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of ?public health emergency.?

The bill states that the federal government should ?continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening? and ?maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening? ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the internet and is updated at least quarterly?.

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests, both by the government and by researchers chosen to handle the DNA samples and the information that goes with them.

Read the full bill?here.

Many have described the law as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database, like the one in the UK.

In?2006 and?2007, then Senator Obama filed legislation that would create a national DNA database. The same bill was filed by Sen. Patrick Kennedy?in 2008. The bills required parental consent, but all three died in the Senate.

In certain states, authorities are required to destroy a child?s DNA sample if a parent demands they do so. Ludicrously, parents wishing to do this must fill in a form like?this one from Texas.

In other states, parents have to put their request in writing, however, there is no legal requirement for states to destroy the samples.

The subject made national headlines last year as CNN?s?Senior Medical Correspondent probed the issue:

The practice of taking DNA from all newborns is not limited to the U.S.

In the UK, a similar DNA harvesting program was?rejected in 2005 by The Human Genetics Commission, who cited cost and ethical problems in a report to government ministers.

However, DNA profiling of all newborn babies has since been called for by lawmakers and senior police officers.

In December 2009,?a Dublin hospital was revealed to have built a secret database containing the DNA of almost every person born in the country since 1984 without their knowledge.

The retention of newborn screening cards has also caused controversy in Australia and New Zealand where the DNA has been used by police to help to solve crimes. A sample in New Zealand was used to identify the father of a dead child against the wishes of the mother.

There is no doubt that the practice is in operation all over the developed world.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruling is a small victory on this issue. However, unless this practice is further exposed, publicized, and taken to courts across the country, and indeed the world, we could find ourselves sleepwalking towards the basis for a new eugenics movement, the practice of ?perfecting? the human race through genetic manipulation, previously endorsed by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and toyed with by the likes of Adolf Hitler.
__
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones? Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

View the original article here

Louisiana Supreme Court Allows Vehicle Searches on a Hunch

Talking on a cell phone, and entering and exiting another car is sufficient justification for a warrantless search in Louisiana.

The Louisiana Supreme Court on Friday gave a green light to police officers looking to search automobiles without a warrant. The court ruled on an interim appeal in the ongoing trial of Derrick R. Kirton, 30, and Crystal N. Strate, 27, who were charged on February 23 with distribution and possession of heroin, respectively. A judge in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court had ruled that the police search of Kirton's vehicle was unlawful because it was not based on probable cause. The prosecution appealed.

Louisiana law allows for rulings on individual motions to be appealed without waiting for the end of the trial, and the state succeeded in convincing the high court to overturn the motion to suppress the evidence from the vehicle search. New Orleans Police Detective Roccoforte had seen Strate in parking lot of a fast food store using her cell phone and "looking about anxiously." Strate drove a short distance to pull up to Kirton's parked vehicle, remained in it for less than a minute, then returned to her car and drove away. Roccoforte followed and approached Strate after she had parked her car. He noted "furtive movement" of Strate's right hand and decided to perform a warrantless search of her car. The supreme court found this acceptable.

"We simply observe that based on the totality of facts and circumstances known to Detective Roccoforte and his experience in the field of narcotics investigations, there was at least objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when the approach to the car was made," the court wrote in a footnote. The full decision added: "In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to conduct an investigatory stop, courts must take into account the totality of the circumstances in a process that allows police to draw upon their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might elude an untrained person."

Read More

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- The Ethics of the Police
- The Drug War's Einsatzgruppen
- SWAT Team Honored For Raiding Wrong House?
- Arizona Police Told To Search Arrestee iPhones For Anti-Police Apps
- District Attorney Dismisses Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Cops
- The American Police State is the 'New Normal'
- Rochester police use selective enforcement of parking laws to harass attendees at a meeting in support of Emily Good
- Former cop says his lies sent people to prison

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here