Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse

Home » Posts tagged 'us supreme court'

Tag Archives: us supreme court

Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant | Zero Hedge

Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant | Zero Hedge.

If the most disturbing, if underreported, news from yesterday, was Obama’s “modification” of NSA capabilities, which contrary to his earlier promises, was just granted even greater powers as phone recording will now be stored for even longer than previously, then this latest development from the Supreme Court – one which some could argue just voided the Fourth amendment – is even more shocking. RT reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled that police may search a home without obtaining a warrant despite the objection of one occupant if that occupant has been removed from the premises. With its 6 to 3 decision in Fernandez v. California on Tuesday, the Court sided with law enforcement’s ability to conduct warrantless searches after restricting police powers with its 2006 decision on a similar case.

From RT:

In 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department sought suspect Walter Fernandez, believed to have stabbed someone in a violent gang robbery. When police first arrived at the suspect’s home, they heard yelling and screaming before Fernandez’s live-in girlfriend Roxanne Rojas answered the door, appearing “freshly bruised and bloody,” and with an infant in hand, according to argument recap by SCOTUSblog.

 

Fernandez was spotted by police, and said, “Get out. I know my rights. You can’t come in.” Yet police arrested him on charges of domestic violence. Later, once Fernandez was out of the home, police asked Rojas for permission to conduct a search, which yielded evidence implicating Fernandez in the robbery.

Probable cause or probable loss of all civil rights?

The Court’s decision justified the police actions, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority’s position.

 

“A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant,” Alito wrote. He added that “denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence.”

 

Alito was joined in the majority by Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – joined in the minority by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, marking a gender divide among the Justices in the case – wrote the dissenting opinion, calling the decision a blow to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

 

“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.” Tuesday’s ruling, she added, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”

 

Georgia v. Randolph was a similar case the Supreme Court addressed in 2006, in which a domestic violence suspect would not allow police to enter his home, though his wife did offer police consent. The police ultimately entered the home. The Court ruled in the case that the man’s refusal while being present in the home should have kept authorizes from entering.

 

A physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search [of his home] is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant,” the majority ruled in that case.

 

In addressing Randolph in the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the difference between that case and Fernandez was the physical presence of the suspect.

 

“Our opinion in Randolph took great pains to emphasize that its holding was limited to situations in which the objecting occupant is physically present,” he wrote.

 

“We therefore refuse to extend Randolph to the very different situation in this case, where consent was provided by an abused woman well after her male partner had been removed from the apartment they shared.”

 

Prior to Randolph and Fernandez, the Court ruled in the 1974 case United States v. Matlock that any one of the co-tenants in a home can consent to a police search of the premises.

Well there goes the fourth amen… oh look, over there: it’s another all time high in the S&P 500. On paper, those who hold stocks have never been richer. Everyone else, barricade your doors, and the police come knocking, don’t even bother answering – they will come in anyway. And also prepare your guns for return to the government: that particular “constitutional” amendment is the next to go.

Supreme Court Justice Confirms American Internment Camps Will Happen Again: “It is the Reality”

Supreme Court Justice Confirms American Internment Camps Will Happen Again: “It is the Reality”.

Mac Slavo
February 4th, 2014

internmentcamps

While President Obama and Congressional members have made an effort to convince their constituents that the provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act will never be used against citizens of the United States, the fact is that the laws clearly allow for the detention, arrest and detainment of Americans without charge or trial. The President attempted to assuage these fears of potential abuse of the law by including a signing statement promising he would never use the law against Americans, but the statement itself is non-binding, leaving the possibility of misuse wide open.

In the event of a declared national emergency or war, when fear and panic are running rampant, the President will, without a shadow of a doubt, implement whatever means necessary in order to control the populace and maintain order.

Detainment and interment will be at the top of the Department of Homeland Security’s to-do list.

And if you have any doubts about this possibility then pay close attention to the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a recent event where law students asked the judge about the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Keep in mind that this is coming from one of the people who will be sitting on the panel of judges who decides whether or not such an act is Constitutional:

Well of course Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case.

But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.

That’s what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war.

It’s no justification, but it is the reality.

There will come a time in America when panic grips the nation. There will be riots, violence, and bloodshed resulting from any number of plausible scenarios like the collapse of our economic and monetary systems.

When this happens the government will implement their continuity plans. Martial law will be declared.

The Department of Homeland Security will activate their already stocked and staffedFederal Emergency Management Agency refugee camps. We’ve seen these in limited form during major storms like Hurricane Sandy. Those who came to FEMA for help reported that their facilities were like concentration camps.

But they were nothing compared to what would happen in a situation where hundreds of thousands of people would need to be detained under a national emergency declaration. According to various sources and a ton of research over the years, FEMA camps are situated all over the country and are awaiting internees.

U.S. Army internal document provides some additional insight:

The document makes it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” and involve, “DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities,” including “man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories.

The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking his executive authority.” The document also makes reference to identifying detainees using their “social security number.”

Aside from enemy combatants and other classifications of detainees, the manual includes the designation of “civilian internees,” in other words citizens who are detained for, “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.”

If you’re paying attention you can see the signs everywhere. The government of the United States is preparing for a widespread event that, based on their recent activities, will require the deployment of armed police, military and even a multi-million strong civilian security force.

This is happening and a Supreme Court Justice of the United States just confirmed that there will be no stopping it.

%d bloggers like this: