|
Real0ne -> RE: Using lists (12/20/2015 10:57:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Actually, this thread was to deal with the idea of using DoJ and DHS lists as a basis for preventing gun ownership.
The real problem is the existence of the lists themselves.
There does not have to be any actual concrete, 100% irrefutable proof or evidence of any activity that one supports terrorism or terrorist groups, just the suspicion, which could come from some jack ass with a grudge against some one.
There is no investigation of an individual prior to being added to the list, just the fact that the person's name came up in the course of an investigation, which could be as innocent as selling a used car, or speaking out against the tactics used to deal with terrorists in the first place.
There in lies the rub.
A person's rights, in this case, the freedom to travel, are curtailed with no reason based in concrete fact. It is understandable that a person living abroad with known terrorist ties be denied entry into the US, but we are talking US citizens at this point. Not foreign nationals.
And, as proved in court cases, getting your name off one of these lists is damn near impossible, even if it was added by mistake.
Agreed you cannot legitimately use something based on maybe as if it were a fact.
I believe that the Soviet Union had a basic position that if you were accused you were guilty.
as far as the Iowa judges are concerned it is here too!
This is the real state of the union.
quote:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
KNOWLES v. IOWA
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 97—7597. Argued November 3, 1998–Decided December 8, 1998
An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding and issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The officer then conducted a full search of the car, without either Knowles’ consent or probable cause, found marijuana and a “pot pipe,” and arrested Knowles. Before his trial on state drug charges, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that because he had not been arrested, the search could not be sustained under the “search incident to arrest” exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218. The trial court denied the motion and found Knowles guilty, based on state law giving officers authority to conduct a full-blown search of an automobile and driver where they issue a citation instead of making a custodial arrest. In affirming, the State Supreme Court applied its bright-line “search incident to citation” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been an arrest.
Held: The search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for the “search incident to arrest” exception, see Robinson, supra, at 234, is sufficient to justify the search in the present case.
569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
can you believe something so fundamental and glaringly obvious as this had to go to the federal supreme court? Meantime anyone under the same circumstances were tried under the precedence the iowa court set.
GUILTY BY PROBABLE SUSPICION! according to iowa supreme court
The knowles case proves that these courts will strip you of your rights using some bullshit logic and screw you in a new york second.
Its now to the point even traffic tickets have to be taken to the supreme court to find remedy and even the scotus has shown itself to be highly political and getting worse every day.
its da law!
|
|
|
|
