"Probable Cause" No Longer Necessary

[DOXXP29 5]

In Maryland a couple of weeks ago, an appeals court ruled that probable cause is no longer necessary to pull over a vehicle. The new criteria is called "reasonable suspicion", which is far below probable cause and basically means that if the officer feels like it, you can be pulled over.

The case stems from a young Black male (profiling played a part here, I'm sure) who was driving down the road when an officer thought his rear window may have had too much tinting. (It didn't.) The officer had no device with which to measure the light and even if he had, he had no idea how to use it. The officer writes the guy a ticket and, Lo and Behold, another cop with a drug sniffing dog just HAPPENS to drive by and decides to pull over. The dog is unleashed and smells something. They tear the car apart and find some marijuana. A further search reveals traces of cocaine. The guy goes to jail and thus begins his battle with the courts to fight on the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by our constitution.

Liberal as Maryland may be, they aren't gonna let a live one get away. Even though the car was measured by the state and it was determined that the window that caught the cop's eye was legal and had not been overly tinted, and even though an overly tinted window does not meet the criteria for probable cause and even though the dog cop had no reason to stick around when it was determined that the first cop was merely writing a traffic ticket, the state wouldn't give up. So instead of throwing a bogus case out, why not just change the laws? Well, that's basically what happened.

This opens a whole new way for the police to stop someone and shake them down. A cop's "reasonable suspicion" can be interpreted as basically anything. (The guy slowed down when he saw me...gee, he must be up to something. Better pull him over and check it out!) As another recent thread points out, privacy is becoming nonexistant here in the U.S. This is another example of the neo-police state in which we live. And, of course we all know that some people are going to always seem to "look more suspicious" to the authorities than others. Sad, but so true in this country where everybody is supposedly equal. But, as Orwell said, some people are more equal than others. For every step that has been taken to eliminate profiling, this allows the authorities to circumvent the profiling issue by making it an individual incident of suspicion and renders the safeguards against profiling pretty much useless.

[Meg 368]

I found an article about this.  It says, in part:

The case began early on the morning of May 8, 2006, when the Harford County Sheriff’s Department was on the lookout for a black Mercury Grand Marquis that authorities believed may have been carrying drugs.

A deputy who saw a Marquis with license plates that matched the description of the suspect vehicle followed it off Interstate 95 and pulled up behind it at a red light in what he said was a well-lit area.

At that point, the deputy noticed that the car’s rear window seemed tinted and he later testified that he pulled the Marquis over because the window seemed darker than normal.quote>

So did he pull the car over because the windows looked funny or because it matched the description of a car they were looking for?   I guess it doesn't matter since the court made their ruling based on the windows, not on any alerts that were going on at the time.

Personally, I'm rather fond of the Constitution, including the fourth amendment.    For those not familiar with it, it reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.quote>

That article listed the names of the Judges who agree with the 4th amendment and disagreed with their colleagues on this ruling.    I know what names I'll be voting for when asked if they should be allowed to stay in office.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Blecch!  I guess I'll not ever move to the State of Maryland. 

In Canada we value are freedoms much more than that.  This kind of case would wind up in the Supreme Court of Canada if not overturned by a lower court.  Changing the law to fit the case is definitely a no-no.

[coolotter88 2]

IIRC, you don't vote for judges...

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 IIRC, you don't vote for judges...quote>

That all depends on the level of government that the case is being decided at, as well as where it's being decided.  On the federal level, you don't vote for judges.  On the state level, you might, depending on where you live.  Here in Texas, judges are usually elected.

In regards to the article, I second the sentiment that Ski was indicating.  This isn't the way things are supposed to work, which is troubling.

[Tropod 144]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.quote>

I read this, interesting. First thing that comes to mind is, what constitutes "unreasonable". I would imagine this would differ from one person to the next; One mans trash is another mans treasure.

I personally can not understand why those who have nothing to hide, get rigid about something that is (or ought to be) in the interest of the better good. Ok, so I wouldn't want just anyone coming into my home. But if the police or authorities where looking for someone on the run & had good reason to, well maybe.

That is not to say I am defending what has taken place though. It seems quite clear that the reason was a petty & an unsubstantiated one. If the reason had of been because the make of the car was same/similar to that of the one they were looking for, well that would seem more reasonable & actually have essence.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: coolotter88

IIRC, you don't vote for judges...quote>

To quote from the website on the Maryland Court of Appeals:

Members of the Court are initially appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Subsequently, they run for office on their records, unopposed. If voters reject a judge's retention in office or there is a tie vote, the office becomes vacant and must be filled by a new appointment. Otherwise, the incumbent judge remains in office for a 10-year term. The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals is designated by the Governor and is the constitutional administrative head of the Maryland judicial system.quote>

As a voter, I can "reject a judge's retention".   and I certainly plan on doing so.

At VT says, this isn't the way things are supposed to work, which is troubling.

Originally posted by: Tropod

I personally can not understand why those who have nothing to hide, get rigid about something that is (or ought to be) in the interest of the better good. Ok, so I wouldn't want just anyone coming into my home. But if the police or authorities where looking for someone on the run & had good reason to, well maybe.

That is not to say I am defending what has taken place though. It seems quite clear that the reason was a petty & an unsubstantiated one. If the reason had of been because the make of the car was same/similar to that of the one they were looking for, well that would seem more reasonable & actually have essence.quote>

The reason that those who have nothing to hide get "rigid" about this is for the exact reason you cited:  people in power can do things for petty and unsubstantiated reasons.  It is best that they don't have that power because they will eventually abuse it.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Tropod

I personally can not understand why those who have nothing to hide, get rigid about something that is (or ought to be) in the interest of the better good.quote>

Well, see there's the thing: there's no such thing as a person who has nothing to hide. Everybody has some sort of skeleton in their closet. If you sent everyone who ever committed a crime to jail there'd be no one left. Speaking of which:

A plot of human terror unfolds behind the precinct door

to cage all the minorities, the immigrants and poor

Next they'll hunt the handicapped, disabled, blind and deaf

and what will all these piggies do, uh, when theres no-one left?

SWAT police in riot gear are bombin' us tonight

and all our civil liberties will die by morning's light

While crooked politicians lie and rig the ballot vote

and whitewash fake democracy and paint another coat

I think this makes the third time in the last month I've been given reason to quote anarcho-punk. And I must say that worries me....

[Tropod 144]

Well, see there's the thing: there's no such thing as a person who has nothing to hide. Everybody has some sort of skeleton in their closet.........quote>

Well I invite you to come round my place then . I have absolutely nothing to hide . Just be sure to watch your step when you come in; not to step on the stolen borrowed equipment, bikes, computers, vcrs, cameras, laptops, mobiles, oh not to mention the skeletons in the closet. They're not real skeletons, they're plastic I promise.