Something Feral

Digging up the flower-beds.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Cultivating a "Condition Yellow" mindset

Arizona v. Johnson, via the Volokh Conspiracy:
This morning the Supreme Court handed down the decision in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ginsburg. The Court limited its opinion to how this power applies in a traffic stop setting. It held first that the Terry v. Ohio power to detain is met in a traffic stop setting "whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation." Second, "To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous." That is, the police can pat-down the passenger in a lawful traffic stop if the passenger is reasonably suspected of being dangerous regardless of what other crimes are suspected.
The commentary on Orin Kerr's analysis is worth a read, even if just for familiarity with some of the jargon and finer points of application. Although it is uncomfortable to think about, it is likely that having the knowledge will be of practical use sooner rather than later, considering the general mitigation of civil liberties in this forced amalgamation of vassal-states.

Furthermore, even though these have made the rounds on the 'Net more times than Rick Astley, I believe there isn't a bad time to repost them:

I would also recommend picking up a copy of You & The Police. Although the last printing was in 2005, the information is still useful, despite aggressive movement in the interim towards a more restrictive State.


MikeT said...

This is even worse. The Supreme Court has basically given prosecutors carte blanche to use jailhouse snitches against people, even if the prosecutor should have known in advance that there was good reason to believe that the informant was unreliable.

As I like to say to those who say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," "even a righteous man needs privacy and protection against evil men and those who believe them."

Something Feral said...

I'd love to say that I use the phrase "State high-priests" for that pack of mewling sycophants in jest, but it is an able descriptor when it regularly and predictably churns out decisions like Kelo v. New London, Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, Hudson v. United States, Arizona v. Johnson, etc. Even Heller v. District of Columbia was rife with "reasonable restriction" provisions, which inevitably become tyrannical edicts when implemented by unreasonable officials.

"Precendent has established worship, so worship we must!"

Elusive Wapiti said...

"...even a righteous man needs privacy and protection against evil men"

Cardinal Richelieu, any one?

Triton said...

Even Heller v. District of Columbia was rife with "reasonable restriction" provisions

You gotta admit, though, that the fallout from Heller so far has been positive. As we speak, the issue of state incorporation (via the 14th amendment) of the second amendment is being considered in the Nordyke v. King case. Compared to the civil rights aspect of the Heller ruling, the "reasonable restrictions" part doesn't seem to be carrying much water.

As long as there are lawyers out there willing to bring lawsuits, I remain hopeful. ;)

Something Feral said...

It's already happening out here in the PRK: Nordyke v. King is in progress, which is a good thing. I'm not going to hold my breath about it, though. The inmates really do run the asylum out here.

Richelieu would be floored by the autocracy that exists today, I think.

Wonder Woman said...

Bow before me all.... not on the carpet please, it's just been washed :)