# Supreme Court ruling on police powers draws scathing dissents from justices



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Supreme Court ruling on police powers draws scathing dissents from justices*
- Supreme Court to review no-bail policy for immigrants awaiting deportation hearings


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

Lolz at the number cited.in the article. Somehow I am not surprised.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

"The case raised the question of whether the valid warrant outweighs the stop, which was illegal because Fackrell lacked any reasonable suspicion that Strieff had been violating the law. It was the court's latest case that questions whether evidence should be thrown out of court because the police did something wrong or illegal that led to the discovery of the evidence."

So, what's the point of a warrant? Why bother ever issuing them? "You didn't pay your fine. But, eh, whatever. Have a nice day. Oh, $1000 in fines. Eh, so be it. I mean, if you're arrested, the cop is wrong anyway, so, again, have a nice day."

Freaking ridiculous.


----------



## PPD54 (Apr 28, 2011)

And by reading it it doesn't look like he just randomly stopped people. Reminds me of the mass court case where campus officers can't arrest on warrants unless they stop the person in their jurisdiction......what happened to "any officer authorized to serve criminal process" ?


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

Supreme Court-Majority; "Police can do SOME stuff that the law allows them to do under certain circumstances."
Supreme Court-Minority; "No, they can't. They really should never have. Following the law is wrong. They should follow only what WE say, PERIOD."


----------

