Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands May 30th, 2018 3:59am

The Supreme Court ruled that the 'automobile exception' to the Fourth Amendment, which allows the police latitude to search vehicles on public streets without a warrant, does not allow police to search a vehicle parked near a house. Good ruling?

50 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

CLT704
05/31/18 7:53 pm

The right to privacy is implied in the constitution. Privacy is essential to liberty. We should not give up liberty for "safety".

Reply
Robert97206 Portland Oregon
06/01/18 3:41 pm

... Liberty is the result of trading freedom for safety. But I agree with what you're trying to say.

CLT704
06/03/18 12:50 pm

I don't see it as a hard trade though. It's about priorities. We can have both but we should never compromise civil rights.

outlaw393 Trump 4 more years
05/31/18 12:00 pm

They can't search closed containers in said vehicle without a warrant though.

HPisBS now north
05/31/18 12:00 pm

The "exemption" shouldn't exist in the first place.

Reply
SHIPPY1944 Tn.
05/31/18 5:57 am

They, better have a warrant or be able to explain in a court of law why they didn’t ๐Ÿคจโ—๏ธ

Reply
Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 11:25 am

There is no “automobile exception” to the fourth amendment anyway and that practice should be stuck down as well.

Reply
Carcano Luke 10 19
06/01/18 12:58 pm

You have no expectation of privacy in an automobile. You’re in public. Only in the locked containers like a trunk can you have an expectation of privacy.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
06/01/18 1:01 pm

I mean, you can have an “expectation” or not have one anywhere. That said, obviously no one should be making an active effort to look inside it and certainly shouldn’t be breaking into your car without a warrant.

Carcano Luke 10 19
06/01/18 1:03 pm

Haha so cops have to avert their eyes? You sound like an SJW saying that looking at a woman is rape. Get over your daddy issues with authority.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
06/01/18 2:21 pm

They should learn to mind their own business as any mature adult should. Not sure what’s with you odd personal imaginations. Projection maybe?

Carcano Luke 10 19
06/01/18 3:09 pm

Criminal activity is their business

Liberty Lets Use Logic
06/02/18 1:31 pm

I’m surprised to see you admit that, haha. But the thing is it *shouldn’t* be. They should be doing criminal activities such as breaking into people’s property.

Carcano Luke 10 19
06/02/18 1:39 pm

Potential crimes shouldn’t be the business of the police.

We have a wacko here!

Carcano Luke 10 19
06/02/18 1:39 pm

Are you the kind of guy who gets pulled over and says that the police are violating his “right to travel” and that you’re exempt from the laws of the United States?

Liberty Lets Use Logic
06/03/18 6:10 am

Clearly that went a little over your head, haha.

cpaswr 864511320
05/30/18 11:09 am

It is obvious to me that a warrant was needed. The motorcycle was covered on private property.

Reply
jenkp223 Being a mommy
05/30/18 10:18 am

They shouldn’t be able to search your car without a warrant anyway, so at least it’s something.

Reply
Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 11:24 am

Past courts have made up and ruled that there is an “automobile exception” to the fourth amendment to the federal constitution (probable cause and warrant required for searches and seizures of people’s property). This decision says that “exception” does not apply to vehicles stored on your own property.

jay314
05/30/18 9:02 am

You better have a warrant if you’re getting anywhere near my property

Reply
hotgirlwithboob
05/30/18 8:02 am

I love the government so much I want to give them complete control of my life

Reply
jay314
05/30/18 9:01 am

I’m just gonna hope you’re being sarcastic

hotgirlwithboob
05/30/18 6:57 pm

I want a free apartment and a $200 safe way gift card every 2 weeks in exchange for my undying loyalty

Domino3 Abolish the ATF
05/30/18 6:14 am

It’s a step in the right direction.

Reply
cowboy SCOTUS 2020
05/30/18 6:04 am

Yes. Don’t leave your stash out in the open, morons. ๐Ÿ™„

Reply
themahcrow Louisiana
05/30/18 5:47 am

A vehicle should be considered an extension of your property; therefore, they shouldn’t be allowed to search it without a warrant.

Reply
mrmc2
05/30/18 3:12 pm

Even in a public space? Then clothes should be considered private property too.

rambo088 kansas
05/30/18 4:04 pm

Clothes are private property so...

mrmc2
05/31/18 2:38 pm

Then that would be considered a search of private property.

themahcrow Louisiana
06/01/18 4:15 am

Mrmc2... I can’t argue against that. Good point.

mrmc2
06/01/18 1:50 pm

It’s really a matter of where we draw the line. I assume the founding fathers envisioned the forth amendment to just pertain to public spaces.

Spiritof76 USA 1776
05/30/18 5:05 am

If your vehicle is parked in your driveway or near your apartment, then warrantless on the spot probable cause for cops to search and seize does not apply. I like that.

Reply
AdamStephens West Virginia
05/30/18 4:51 am

Anything that lessen police power is good.

Reply
CoffeeNow CandybarThiefLivesMatter
05/30/18 7:39 am

We could make them wear blindfolds and tie their hands behind their backs

otisfuzz Georgia
05/30/18 11:25 am

That would make high speed police chases even more fun to watch.

RNJen Bay Area USA
05/30/18 4:14 am

Nope don’t like it

Reply
RNJen Bay Area USA
05/30/18 11:33 am

I don’t like the idea of allowing police to search my personal space without either myself knowing, or a warrant. Police are known to do shady things, and this gives them more power to do so.

Henry123 Connecticut
05/30/18 2:16 pm

Uh this ruling gives them less power to do so...

Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 3:46 am

So what’s the punishment when government employees break the law mentioned?

Waiting...
Waiting...
Waiting...

Reply
lendluke iowa
05/30/18 4:37 am

A very stern talk from their boss.

HoosierFan
05/30/18 5:07 am

Anything they find is inadmissible and a criminal may walk free.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 5:10 am

Sadly, you’re right. There’s still no accountability or punishment for their wrongdoing and harm to others.

HoosierFan
05/30/18 5:18 am

There may be consequences the public never sees. An incident like that likely makes it into their personnel file and could slow or stop their career advancement.

I’m not sure that’s enough. There should be harsh, public consequences for police who break laws or infringe on the public’s rights. Their role as enforcers of the law mean they should be held to the highest moral, ethical and legal standards.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 6:02 am

Agreed. There should be fines and/or jail time, just like if anyone else broke a law.

Carcano Luke 10 19
06/01/18 1:00 pm

Your charges are dropped due to lack of evidence, dumbass. Nobody is wronged in the situation if that happens.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
06/01/18 2:19 pm

Obviously, but something should also be done to the perpetrator, as with other crimes and illegal actions.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 3:40 am

Well yeah. Congratulations on being able to read at a third grade level?

Reply
Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 3:41 am

However, they shouldn’t be allowed to search vehicle off property without a warrant either.

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
05/30/18 3:30 am

I don't think those saying this is "subjective" or will lead to "debates" are on target here. The Court found that, quoting from the syllabus, "The automobile exception does not permit the warrantless entry of a home or its curtilage in order to search a vehicle therein." Basically, you can't trespass in order to do a search. All the Court is saying here is that police can't intrude on your home or its curtilage - which they already can't - just because a car, or in this case motorcycle, happens to be there.

Reply
Laserbeam Crazy bird lady
05/30/18 2:50 am

I see anybody touching my vehicle, regardless who it is, I can shoot right? 2nd amendment

Reply
jlong105 Indiana
05/30/18 3:04 am

Laserbeam inserting the troll comment. ๐Ÿ˜‚

Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 3:44 am

That has nothing to do with the second amendment, but it would be (in reality) self defense if they were interacting with your property against your will.

That said, reality and legality are two different things.

jlong105 Indiana
05/30/18 3:50 am

Vehicle is in my garage, then yes. But not 2a that is the Castle doctrine.

geoag02 Dallas, TX
05/30/18 6:23 am

2nd amendment may be used to defend life, not property.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 6:36 am

The second amendment protects your property rights as it regards to the ownership of armaments. Self-defense would be a completely separate topic altogether.

geoag02 Dallas, TX
05/30/18 9:22 am

There are plenty of other ways you could defend your property besides shooting the thief. I would consider an escalation like that to be murder. However if you threaten them with something else like a punch in the face, or a call to the police and they threaten you with violence then self defense is a reasonable legal justification for shooting them.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 11:21 am

There are plenty of ways, yes; and they would all be justified in preventing unauthorized interaction with your property.

rambo088 kansas
05/30/18 4:06 pm

"I'm gonna punch you in the face" is not an effective deterrent compared to a gun

geoag02 Dallas, TX
05/30/18 4:10 pm

Just because you have a gun doesn’t mean you need to pull it out every time something happens that you don’t like.

Liberty Lets Use Logic
05/30/18 4:13 pm

Well yeah. Did you feel that was related to the discussion in some way?

gonzoboy Arizona
05/30/18 2:50 am

I don’t like this one bit. Subjectivity is ripe for abuse.

Reply
Gunfighter06 Iowa, since 1846
05/30/18 2:11 am

This is a ridiculous ruling. What constitutes "near a house"? Fourth Amendment protections should not be predicated on a vehicle's physical proximity to a house. Also, as things stood before this ruling, we still needed probable cause (such as MJ odor or contraband in plain sight) to do a warrantless vehicle search.

Reply
otto Olean, NY
05/30/18 1:34 am

Besides, as it stands and as it soon will be, there will be thousands of disputes stemming from the ambiguity of what constitutes “near a house”.

How ridiculous. What a prime example of overlegislating.

Reply
otto Olean, NY
05/30/18 1:30 am

No. There should be no “automobile exception”. My car, as well as my phone and all such personal items, are an extension of my home (in case of car) and my person (in case of phone, computer, etc).

Reply
PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
05/30/18 2:58 am

If you disagree in principle on the concept of an auto exception, shouldn't any ruling that makes it harder for police to use that excuse be a good thing?

otto Olean, NY
06/01/18 11:26 am

In the small picture, yes. My bigger picture point is it should not even be a thing. But you’re right, as a small step, I suppose it is preferable to have the exception.

Unfortunately, the more “exceptions” these laws get, the more argument to not get rid of it while at the same time the more confusing and convoluted it becomes to mitigate potential abuses, etc. Simpler and erring on the side of freedom is much preferable.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
05/29/18 11:01 pm

Good, but doesn’t go nearly far enough. Regardless of where it is parked, and including when it is underway, it should be considered an extension of your home and the same standards should apply. Ditto for your laptop, phone, and other portable electronics. The only exception should be when in a sensitive area, such as a military or certain other federal installations, where everyone and everything is rightfully subject to no-cause searches at any time.

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
05/29/18 11:04 pm

In other words, I guess, there should be no “automobile exception” to any provision of the constitution, and I can’t even imagine why there is.

suppressedID Shut up man
05/29/18 10:24 pm

Kind of surprising, given this SCOTUS.

geoag02 Dallas, TX
05/29/18 9:55 pm

I am not a fan of this automobile exception at all. A warrant or owners permission should be required for all searches regardless of where or why. The only exception I can think of that I would be ok with, and even here I would consider it an implied warrant, would be a check for weapons on a person who is being arrested. But this implied warrant should only cover weapons.

Reply
Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 9:17 pm

No search without warrant.
Not your house, not your car, not even your bag or backpack.

Reply
SauceBoss nj
05/29/18 9:41 pm

Since cars are typically an exception in US law, are you just arguing that warrants should be required or are you claiming that they currently are?

Praetorianus Fair enough.
05/29/18 9:59 pm

Warrants issued by the court should be needed in all cases except probable cause you are about to commit a crime.

mrmc2
05/30/18 3:15 pm

Are the clothes you’re wearing private property?

mrmc2
05/31/18 3:30 am

Then if clothed, you can’t be searched by the same line of logic.

pof over my moms knee
05/29/18 9:16 pm

Yes, rights limit the government's power. Law enforcement is part of the government, so their power is limited.

geoag02 Dallas, TX
05/29/18 9:58 pm

If someone is suspected of a crime the detectives can go to a judge and get a search warrant and that gives them permission to go look wherever the warrant says they can look. Cars parked near homes may be included in these allowed locations, but no warrant... no looking.