18 ms·

It's pretty demoralizing to me that there are 3 SCOTUS justices who think it's Constitutional to detain people without probable cause as long as it's not for ve

It's pretty demoralizing to me that there are 3 SCOTUS justices who think it's Constitutional to detain people without probable cause as long as it's not for very long. As I think Justice Roberts once quipped, if you "briefly" hold someone without cause, you've "briefly" violated their Constitutional rights.

justonepost 11y ago
I disagree. That's not the problem. The issue here is not the detention, it's the dog sniff. Why didn't the cop just ask in the beginning if he minded if he did the dog sniff? Why can't a cop just call in the dog squad while he lingers going through the paperwork of a regular traffic stop? That's what is going to happen here. He's not detaining, he's just finishing up the traffic stop. what's demoralizing here is the war on drugs is getting us nowhere except rampant crime, huge homicide rates, and over crowded prisons full of minorities.
- MCRed 11y ago
  If everyone who opposed the War on Drugs had instead of voting for it's Architect in the last two elections, or the other guy, had actually voted for either the Green Party or Libertarian Party candidates, things would be very different in this country. Even if both the Greens and Libertarians still lost, the Democrats and Republicans would have been shocked out of complacency and rushing to end the war on drugs. The problem is, everyone's voting for evil because they fear the other evil is greater.... yet there were two "Good" candidates running!
  - btdollar 11y ago
    It's the US voting system! Imagine if we hadn't voted for the other guy, then the architect(s) would be back in there a third year. I saw a thought experiment once on choosing lunch with coworkers under a US-style voting system showing why it inevitably ends up being bipartisan. It was fantastic, I sure wish I could find it again.
  - Lorento 11y ago
    Absolutely. It's voters' own faults. Also non-voters. So nearly 100% of eligible voters in America are to blame for whatever they don't like about the government.
  - briandear 11y ago
    Vote for Rand Paul in the Republicican primary next year. Even though he's currently base-pandering to some extent (which is necessary to win the Republican nomination,) he's the only candidate with a chance of winning (i.e. Rep or Dem) that has called for an end to NSA domestic surveillance, drug decriminalization as well as the end of criminal sentencing that disproportionately affects the poor. Paul is the closest thing to a libertarian candidate that actually could win a U.S. Presidential election. A vote for Greens or Libertarians is a wasted vote. Nobody cares about 5% of the vote that's done in protest. Ross Perot was the closest thing to a third party win in modern history and he barely got 20% of the vote. Look at Rand Paul's positions carefully; don't let the right (or left) media distort his fundamental positions and I would bet that many of you guys would be pleasantly surprised; especially when compared to Hilary Clinton's positions, both stated as well as demonstrated during her time in the U.S. senate and as Secstate.
- ianferrel 11y ago
  Did you read the opinion? It doesn't allow what you've suggested. Extending the stop is not allowable whether he calls at the beginning of the stop or at the end.
- rhizome 11y ago
  Why can't a cop just call in the dog squad while he lingers going through the paperwork of a regular traffic stop? You're saying the Supreme Court should create a loophole for the officer to dilly dally just so the dog can arrive? That seems unreasonable.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Because the standard is that the detention can last as long as reasonably required by the mission of completing a traffic stop. An officer who "dilly dallies" fails to meet that reasonableness standard, and will have their evidence suppressed.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Assuming you have the resources to do so. The legal system is the largest P2W MMO out there.
    - anonbanker 11y ago
      Only for the noobs that pay others to play for them. Could you imagine saying "I could never play WoW. I'll just pay someone $250/hour to play for me and hope for the best."? That's what happens every day in the legal system. If you become a good enough player, you can win by yourself.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Not really. You might be good enough to go 1v1, but going up against an entire legal department will still crush you. Also, becoming 'good enough' isn't an option for everyone for all the same reasons that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps doesn't always work.
        anonbanker 11y ago
        Legal departments still have to compress everything down to one process. Only one will speak as the representative of their client. But they'll all take turns reassuring their client that it was the judge's fault that you won. they may have a larger legal library, but if it's any harder to take on a full department, I haven't noticed.
- evanb 11y ago
  I'm not sure if we read the same PDF. What I read said, right in the first paragraph: >After Struble attended to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the dog alerted. So, the cop did ask in the beginning. When consent was denied the officer delayed.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ctdonath 11y ago
Demoralizing that 3 judges ignore obvious Constitutional rights, yes, but at least hopeful that twice that many disagree with them, and may apply the same reasoning to other equally obvious Constitutional rights. The right to own & carry weapons, explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and held as a clear right by the Supreme Court, may benefit from this ruling (to the surprise & dismay of some). Laws delaying (often for days or months) purchase of weapons, or of obtaining licenses to own or carry (themselves subject to debate for other reasons), may be challenged in court with the same reasoning as "briefly" holding someone without cause, regarding anything more than a 5-minute background check for adjudicated felonies or mental illness. From this ruling, we might actually get to one that acknowledges "shall not be infringed" means what it says.
- Frondo 11y ago
  I'd rather they clarified "well-regulated militia".
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    A topic on which thousands (if not tens of thousands) of hyper detailed essays and published articles have been written. Whether what a "well-regulated militia" meant in 1776 has any relevance to 2015 is also a topic upon which many, many essays have been written.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    You might enjoy reading the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights. I could tell you, but you'll appreciate it more when you see it yourself. It gives context to the Bill of Rights that I think most people have forgotten. It also makes it clear that no interpretation of that phrase could undermine the right.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    What do you want clarified? The meaning is very clear, and well-established by the courts. The prefatory clause it's a part of is a matter of some dispute and interpretation, but the meaning of "well-regulated militia" itself, is clear. (Which is to say, "well-regulated" here is not used in the same sense as it would be in the phrase "a well-regulated broadband industry", on the off chance that's what you're getting at.)
briandear 11y ago
I feel similarly about potential AG Loretta Lynch: she has no problem with civil asset forfeiture. To me that's even more unconstitutional to being held temporarily because it deprives a person of property potentially permenantly desire that person never having been convicted (or sometimes even having never been charged) with a crime. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/238905-rand-paul-blasts-lynch-over-asset-forfeiture http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/238905-rand...

justonepost 11y ago

I disagree. That's not the problem. The issue here is not the detention, it's the dog sniff. Why didn't the cop just ask in the beginning if he minded if he did the dog sniff? Why can't a cop just call in the dog squad while he lingers going through the paperwork of a regular traffic stop? That's what is going to happen here. He's not detaining, he's just finishing up the traffic stop. what's demoralizing here is the war on drugs is getting us nowhere except rampant crime, huge homicide rates, and over crowded prisons full of minorities.

MCRed 11y ago
If everyone who opposed the War on Drugs had instead of voting for it's Architect in the last two elections, or the other guy, had actually voted for either the Green Party or Libertarian Party candidates, things would be very different in this country. Even if both the Greens and Libertarians still lost, the Democrats and Republicans would have been shocked out of complacency and rushing to end the war on drugs. The problem is, everyone's voting for evil because they fear the other evil is greater.... yet there were two "Good" candidates running!
- btdollar 11y ago
  It's the US voting system! Imagine if we hadn't voted for the other guy, then the architect(s) would be back in there a third year. I saw a thought experiment once on choosing lunch with coworkers under a US-style voting system showing why it inevitably ends up being bipartisan. It was fantastic, I sure wish I could find it again.
- Lorento 11y ago
  Absolutely. It's voters' own faults. Also non-voters. So nearly 100% of eligible voters in America are to blame for whatever they don't like about the government.
- briandear 11y ago
  Vote for Rand Paul in the Republicican primary next year. Even though he's currently base-pandering to some extent (which is necessary to win the Republican nomination,) he's the only candidate with a chance of winning (i.e. Rep or Dem) that has called for an end to NSA domestic surveillance, drug decriminalization as well as the end of criminal sentencing that disproportionately affects the poor. Paul is the closest thing to a libertarian candidate that actually could win a U.S. Presidential election. A vote for Greens or Libertarians is a wasted vote. Nobody cares about 5% of the vote that's done in protest. Ross Perot was the closest thing to a third party win in modern history and he barely got 20% of the vote. Look at Rand Paul's positions carefully; don't let the right (or left) media distort his fundamental positions and I would bet that many of you guys would be pleasantly surprised; especially when compared to Hilary Clinton's positions, both stated as well as demonstrated during her time in the U.S. senate and as Secstate.
ianferrel 11y ago
Did you read the opinion? It doesn't allow what you've suggested. Extending the stop is not allowable whether he calls at the beginning of the stop or at the end.
rhizome 11y ago
Why can't a cop just call in the dog squad while he lingers going through the paperwork of a regular traffic stop? You're saying the Supreme Court should create a loophole for the officer to dilly dally just so the dog can arrive? That seems unreasonable.
tptacek 11y ago
Because the standard is that the detention can last as long as reasonably required by the mission of completing a traffic stop. An officer who "dilly dallies" fails to meet that reasonableness standard, and will have their evidence suppressed.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Assuming you have the resources to do so. The legal system is the largest P2W MMO out there.
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    Only for the noobs that pay others to play for them. Could you imagine saying "I could never play WoW. I'll just pay someone $250/hour to play for me and hope for the best."? That's what happens every day in the legal system. If you become a good enough player, you can win by yourself.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Not really. You might be good enough to go 1v1, but going up against an entire legal department will still crush you. Also, becoming 'good enough' isn't an option for everyone for all the same reasons that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps doesn't always work.
      - anonbanker 11y ago
        Legal departments still have to compress everything down to one process. Only one will speak as the representative of their client. But they'll all take turns reassuring their client that it was the judge's fault that you won. they may have a larger legal library, but if it's any harder to take on a full department, I haven't noticed.
evanb 11y ago
I'm not sure if we read the same PDF. What I read said, right in the first paragraph: >After Struble attended to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the dog alerted. So, the cop did ask in the beginning. When consent was denied the officer delayed.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ctdonath 11y ago

Demoralizing that 3 judges ignore obvious Constitutional rights, yes, but at least hopeful that twice that many disagree with them, and may apply the same reasoning to other equally obvious Constitutional rights. The right to own & carry weapons, explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and held as a clear right by the Supreme Court, may benefit from this ruling (to the surprise & dismay of some). Laws delaying (often for days or months) purchase of weapons, or of obtaining licenses to own or carry (themselves subject to debate for other reasons), may be challenged in court with the same reasoning as "briefly" holding someone without cause, regarding anything more than a 5-minute background check for adjudicated felonies or mental illness. From this ruling, we might actually get to one that acknowledges "shall not be infringed" means what it says.

Frondo 11y ago
I'd rather they clarified "well-regulated militia".
- ghshephard 11y ago
  A topic on which thousands (if not tens of thousands) of hyper detailed essays and published articles have been written. Whether what a "well-regulated militia" meant in 1776 has any relevance to 2015 is also a topic upon which many, many essays have been written.
- MCRed 11y ago
  You might enjoy reading the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights. I could tell you, but you'll appreciate it more when you see it yourself. It gives context to the Bill of Rights that I think most people have forgotten. It also makes it clear that no interpretation of that phrase could undermine the right.
- deciplex 11y ago
  What do you want clarified? The meaning is very clear, and well-established by the courts. The prefatory clause it's a part of is a matter of some dispute and interpretation, but the meaning of "well-regulated militia" itself, is clear. (Which is to say, "well-regulated" here is not used in the same sense as it would be in the phrase "a well-regulated broadband industry", on the off chance that's what you're getting at.)

briandear 11y ago

I feel similarly about potential AG Loretta Lynch: she has no problem with civil asset forfeiture. To me that's even more unconstitutional to being held temporarily because it deprives a person of property potentially permenantly desire that person never having been convicted (or sometimes even having never been charged) with a crime. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/238905-rand-paul-blasts-lynch-over-asset-forfeiture http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/238905-rand...