The ruling might not affect behavior of the police, but if they violate it, they risk evidence being thrown out. That's the point. It was a correct ruling, in my opinion. A search warrant is not an arrest warrant.

It sounds like a reasonable decision to me. Other than the risk of flight by the target of the search, the police still get to do their search of the house for evidence. It just makes it more difficult to catch the criminal.

What's not clear from the article is whether any evidence was suppressed, which would be another issue, since a search warrant would still have found the evidence.

Important details are lacking from the story.

well, now we know of three justices that need to not be judges.Stephen Breyer,Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Too bad their appointed and not voted in by the public, Hmmm I wonder if that could be changed?

gearhead-2059900

well, now we know of three justices that need to not be judges

Give me a break. The reason there are 9 is to allow for differing opinions. Why have judges at all if we are only going to allow those who fit a certain mold??

Too bad their appointed and not voted in by the public, Hmmm I wonder if that could be changed?

Right because the "public" does such an awesome job of electing their representatives, you know, those folks in DC who are literally more despised than head lice. No friggin thanks!!

This was definitely the correct ruling, a search warrant is not an arrest warrant. In this case they detained the man before they even had probable cause to pull him over or detain him. It seems to me that he would have a pretty good case for false arrest against the police. The police can not arbitrarily detain someone without probable cause to believe they have committed a crime. Since they had not yet searched the apartment they had no cause to detain this person. This is exactly the kind of abuse by the police that needs to be stopped.

Scalia on the right side of this issue? Will wonders never cease!

Backcountry....The reasons given by Justice Breyer, expediency and ease of police work, kinda scared me. That thinking is how Nazi Germany made its long slide to being the standard by which most things bad are compared.

I think the story was rather incomplete because Justice Breyer stated "in light of the risks of flight, of evidence destruction, and of human injury present in this and similar cases." It would be nice to know if my opinion would have agreed with Justice Breyer.

Big Bird---That is absurd.

tactial45....uh no it is not....another little piece is chipped away daily by this administration...American democracy is dead.

Wanda...those little chips you have your undies all bundled over are NOTHING compared to the CHUNKS that were burned by the previous administration, you know, Bush & Cheney, who are afraid to travel outside the USA because they are considered WAR CRIMINALS, the guys who told you that they couldn't keep Americans SAFE & for US to buy Duct Tape & plastic sheets to protect OURSELVES from Sadam Hussiens WMD's that NO ONE HAS YET FOUND !

One question... IF , as you say, American Democracy IS DEAD then what in hell are you still doing here in a COMMUNIST COUNTRY ?...are you a secret COMMIE ? or just another mouthy GOP lazy whiner ?

Wanda, that's pretty ignornat. The Obama administration is not responsible for the decisions of the SC. It's called sepration of powers. American democray is alive and well despite the best efforts by canservatives to supress votes.

The problems with rulings and such, getting those rulings enforced, (8 years in this case) takes too long.

There is no true justice in America, money talks.

If one has money, they can delay, buy rehab, stall there way through "the jucicial system" as has been proven over and over in "American Justice".

Without money, go to jail, go to directly to jail!

This really seems like it is putting a chip back onto the Constitution. It is restoring a bit of freedom that had been lost.

I doubt the cops care about this. Hell, it's unconstitutional to handcuff someone, get four of your fellow "Blue Thugs," and commence to kick the @!$%# out of the guy handcuffed, on the ground, but they do that quite frequently.

Wicked Wanda

tactial45....uh no it is not....another little piece is chipped away daily by this administration...American democracy is dead.

The ignorance of some of you people is absolutely overwhelming!

A search warrant is not an arrest warrant.

Yea, but if you're present, and don't sit your ass down, it will become a handcuff you, and kick your ass warrant!

The loss of rights trickles to all areas of society. What a coincidence. Today at work (school secretary) I was saddened to learn of a 15 year old 10th grader who cut a class. Someone called the resource officer (armed policeman) to say he'd been seen at a popular snack store. The police officer drove to the location, saw him sitting at a table eating his purchased snack, and searched his person. A small knife was found. Now the kid is automatically recommended for expulsion, because he has acquaintances in a local gang (he's Hispanic, in this small town it's hard not to know someone or have an uncle who's in this local gang) and because a knife was found during what was arguably an illegal search - it's very hard when you're a minor to refuse the man with a club and gun from patting you down when he orders you to submit. It was PRESUMED that he walked directly to the snack store from school so he will be expelled for having the little blade at school, even though it was not found AT school.

This is especially sad since what on earth do these rabid officials think the kid will do with his time if he's kicked out of school? Hang out with friends, duh, some of whom will be gang members. Think it through, folks, because if you think the solution to prevent a mentally ill person from breaking the glass and murdering kindergarten students is to continuously increase the police presence on campuses, you're wrong. It's just conditioning kids to the police state. And in California, a sickeningly high percentage of male minorities are tossed into the penal system at a very young age and for surprisingly minor infractions. I was at a junior high last year and witnessed two police officers called in when a 13 year old stole 2 locks that the broke school required students to purchase in order to use lockers. The admins left him alone with the officers to scare the snot out of him but didn't actually complete the arrest process. What a joke. They label kids as failures and crooks early on and then practically steer them to that end. Back in the day a kid would have to stay after school and clean blackboards and empty trash cans as penance, and in so doing, develop a relationship with the teachers and principal who also stayed after school. The vast majority of kids outgrew their foolishness and still come back many years later to thank the teachers and admins who helped them grow up. Sadly, these old schoolers are almost all retired. The new crew arrive on campus after the kids and leave before them and complain if they have to wait a few days for someone to change a lightbulb. I could go on but I now begin to digress, sigh.

...and Gearhead, your ignernt also!

The right makes no sense. Here we are with a ruling that upholds the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and protects the public and they say that democracy is dead and the president is chipping away at the constitution. Therefore, if this is the logic the right uses, there is no reason to listen to ANYTHING they say. They are either completely irrational or downright stupid. Actually there is a third, more probable cause and that is that they are just plain dishonest and they know what they are saying is nonsense. Unbelievable!

This is a good ruling by the SC but when the cops are kicking ass and taking names it really doesn't matter. Like politics most crime is local and don't try to use this ruling when Barney Badass the local cop busts you for _____— insert reason, They all go to happy hour with the magistrate, you will go straight to jail and only a VERY good lawyer will get you off.

You really don't want judges to be elected officials. They often have to make decisions regarding constitutional questions that are unpopular. For example, take the various rulings during the civil rights era. Those decisions to disallow segregation were extremely unpopular in the states that allowed segregation. If the issue is that an older judge is preventing progress on newer issues, this problem is solved by limiting the term to 10-20 years and only a single appointment. This way judges have the ability to make unpopular but constitutional decisions and you won't run into a situation where a single very old judge stuck in their ways has significant power.

@Barry-NJ

You are right that evidence can be thrown out as a result of this but the evidence being thrown out is limited to statements the suspects made when detained by police and the police finding the keys on them which was used to show they live in the apartment.

Evidence found in the apartment itself which would have been obtained regardless of the officer's incorrectly detaining the suspects should all still be good.

Justice Kennedy, a noted conservative, sides with the limitation of police powers. Justice Breyers, a noted liberal, is of the dissenting party.

Interesting decision. Interesting breakdown of the voting.

Ferrosynthesis-3490482 speaks for the "right" and comes to the conclusion that they are either: irrational, downright stupid, or just plain dishonest. Unbelievable!

The right makes no sense. Here we are with a ruling that upholds the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and protects the public and they say that democracy is dead and the president is chipping away at the constitution

Ferrosynthesis - You do understand that a Supreme Court ruling has very little to do with whether the President is "chipping away at the constitution"?

Even those justices appointed by President Obama are under no obligation to further his policy aims, be they good or bad.

I voted twice for Obama, and I'm not one of those making shrill cries about the supposed tyranny of his Administration. But I still find your comments both comical and nonsensical. Whatever the failings of this President, they have little to do with this ruling, in which several notably conservative justices sided with the majority decision limiting the scope of police power to detain individuals while executing a search warrant.

You're missing the point. It's a search warrant, not an arrest warrant.

my post - you also introduced a false equivalence. There is no way to compare a non-violent "drug related" crime to a "serial killer." Let's catch the killers first, and then deal with non-violent crimes.

If they want an arrest warrant, they need that separately. But I must say that my first concern was to think that they arrested him so that there would be no witness to them going beyond the scope of the warrant.

The Drug War is the government's primary excuse to trample on all Americans' Civil Liberties. The War on Terror is a close second.

JS, your mistaken on your belief about a false arrest case. The information they had would have given them probable cause for the stop and immediate detention. Their mistake was bringing him back to the apartment. This however is covered under the good faith action by the police. Afterall the case had to go through a number of appeals courts before even reaching the Supreme Court.

We don't know the particulars of this case, but in my years on the job we would have kept the suspect under surveillance until the search was completed.

To answer the question about the search warrant being bad after this I would say it doesn't effect the search and what was found. The warrant itself wasn't effected by their actions.

PUBLIUS, your concern doesn't enter into this case since they brought him back to the apartment.

BTW, search warrants are executed all the time with no one present.

Other than the risk of flight by the target of the search,...

That's exactly what the court determined the police have no right to do.

Paul:

I'm just saying the first thing that came to mind from the headline and beginning of the article. I am quite aware that, by the time the article finished, it proved they were talking about something else. But "police want to do a search; they arrest owner first" sends my mind in one direction.

Detectives watching the apartment notice the guy that LIVES THERE drive away from the apartment.....

Guess all anyone will need to do now is WALK AWAY from the crime......

"Why did you allow the person to leave the area of the crime, Officer?"

"Supreme Court said it DIDN'T matter"

Guess all anyone will need to do now is WALK AWAY from the crime......

"Why did you allow the person to leave the area of the crime, Officer?"

"Supreme Court said it DIDN'T matter"

The arrest warrant is only to search a specific area or place, not a person.

Steve:

You're overlooking a couple things. One, it had not yet been established that a crime was committed at all. And two, driving away from one's own home is not a suspicious activity. I bet you drive away from your home on a regular basis. I wouldn't really like the idea of police just deciding my home was a "crime scene" without any evidence and arresting me when I go to buy groceries with the only ultimate charge being having left the scene.

Anyone notice that a "liberal" judge dissented with two rock-solid conservatives?? That means 2 conservative judges voted with the other 3 "liberals" - what's this world coming to???

Breyer isn't liberal. He's the swing vote, though he leans conservative. The Court is split 4-4: Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are conservative; Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan are liberal.

OMG, I believe you missed Rick's point. Conservative courts tend to be more law enforcement leaning while liberal courts tend to lean the other way. Certainly not written in stone, but that's the tendencies.

You're wrong Clotho. Breyer is a liberal. And Kennedy is the swing vote, but leans conservative. Interesting breakdown in this case though.

After being involved in many cases such as this, I can assure you that they had probuble cause to arrest this guy. This PC is what lead to a judge signing the search warrant for the house! It is common practice to let someone leave the house and secure them at a traffic stop away from the residence for officer safety! It is much easier to control a suspect who has guns at a felony traffic stop than it is busting his his front door, not knowing if he is standing on the other side with a gun! Who cares if they used his key to get in, I am sure it was a no knock warrant if it was for drugs and weapons! All they did was save the landlord from replacing the front door! Evidently the investigator who filled out the affidavit didn't include the person of "Polo" with his description in the warrant application. That solves that problem, just include the bad guy in your search warrant!

It's too bad they didn't catch him just as he was leaving the premises. If he was still on the front step he probably could have been held.

jdu, Of course I don't know where you are from, but our procedure was different then yours. If the suspect was away from the residence we kept them under surveillence until the results of the search was learned. Also, unless the suspect is at the location listed on the search warrant you would have to get a seperate one for him/her's person.

OMG ; You have just been outed as " TEA GARBAGE ".

No matter what the courts say, Cops do as they please, And the courts help them out. No wonder people don't care much for cops now days. Cops and the courts are all for the money not the peoples rights. People go to jail to day just because, And just because. It once was they had to prove you did something wrong, Now if they think you did it that's all they need to lock you up for a long time ,Or life. America is not the land of the free any more.

drp -

The thing is, that's just a nostalgic bit of fluff. Things once were, if you were black, you were immediately arrestable if found anywhere in the vicinity of a crime scene. Also, if you were poor, you were basically thrown in the workhouse if caught anywhere in the vicinity of a crime. Unless you paid the officer off. And there was none of this "unlawful killing" business, nor Miranda Rights, court-appointed attorneys, or anything else.

Truth is, the codes of conduct for law enforcement have gotten much better. The actual practice is severely lagging, and corruption still exists. But it always has, and very likely always will. Sucks to be human, but we soldier on as best we can.

drp, you seem to be grouping the trash of the cops with all cops, and that simply isn't a true statement.

I love how people hate cops, well until they need one that is.

I am not the biggest fan of the law enforcement agents, but I like them way better then the people writing the laws!

boraboy, you comments are ignorant at best.

Constitutional law isn't as cut and dry as you make it sound. After all 3 judges didn't agree with the decisions. I'm willing to bet there were other judges in the lower courts that disagreed with the decision. That's why there are courts to make those decisions.

Thanks for the input even if it was less then knowledgable.

drp, that's just a bunch of hysterical nonsense.

Paul try getting arrested and see how easy it is to prove you are innocent. Sounds good on paper but it sucks in real life.

Tom - Plymouth-3672298

drp, you seem to be grouping the trash of the cops with all cops, and that simply isn't a true statement.

While you cant say 100% of cops are trash - I think the number is closer to 95%. Local cops, state police... they are all the same. I notice that the same demographic who become cops also work off shift as bar bouncers to rough up drunks.

I love how people hate cops, well until they need one that is.

Oddly enough over the previous decade cops are actually needed less and less. They dont protect you - show up late - dont follow up - have no formal education. Honestly do you really want a high school grad making judgement calls on interpreting law?

We pick the most ill informed and uneducated in our ranks - give them a gun, badge and handcuffs - and tell them to go enforce the laws they dont understand. Thats a recipe for disaster.

paul71-1655761, Your a cop or what to be. I would never call a cop, I know better. And as for any one that thinks cops are the good guys just take a look around and see what cops do to good people for no good reason other then be cause they can, And there is little you can do about it because there cops , The so called good guys. No there crooks working for crooks. Cops are the ones that you never what around if you care for your family friends or any one . Cops are bad people. And i could care less what you cop lovers think or say.

What?

Obviously the police will make more of an attempt to conduct searches while the suspect is at home. If anything is found an immediate arrest can be made.

Beware that you may someday be doing something declared an "illegal action" and need a "defense ploy." Laws change, and what was once legal can be deemed illegal, and what was once illegal can be deemed legal. You never know when you could find yourself on the wrong side of an angry cop who has no scruples about arresting you on whatever charge he makes up. They do that, you know.....

Appearantly you have never read the U.S. Constituion, Bill or Rights and the Laws of Arrest or the Search and Siezure laws, in the USA... You should.

Steve-1101648

Being detained, is not being arrested. You can be detained and searched without a warrant.

You can not be searched unless you have violated some law or you foolishly give the police permission to do so when they ask.

@Steve,

Come on man what does it take to be detained and searched
without a warrant? Let me give you a hint, “Reasonable suspicion or Probable
Cause” because if you are searched without a valid reason then the evidence the cops may find on your person can and more likely then not will be suppressed. Read the Federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights 4th Amendment. FYI when you are not free to leave you have been arrested, maybe not jailed or booked for a crime, but you have been arrested. Have you ever heard of FALSE ARREST?

Backcountry, that is true some of the time, but not with Border Patrol. They can search you for "probable cause" which can be anything from a dog on alert to someone being bored with nothing to do. I specifically told one group at a checkpoint on an interstate that I didn't give them permission to search my vehicle, and they did anyway. Didn't find anything but still did exactly as they pleased, detained me for a while, and then told me to get back in and drive on. Nothing I could do to prevent them from searching my vehicle for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than boredom.

Mark, there was no arrest, but I was not free to leave. Started to walk toward my truck and had three guys draw guns on me and tell me to get back to where I was supposed to be. The Border Patrol has different jurisdiction than cops. Their authority is not as broad, but it's a mile deep.

Backcountry,

Not exactly correct. A police officer may perform a warrantless search of a person in a Terry Stop:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968) - a person can be briefly detained and frisked without probable cause to arrest, when the police officer has a reasonable suspicion with an articulable reason that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed. The search is limited.

False arrest? That's never happened.

laughingcat, I don't know you but I have serious reservations about 3 officers drawing guns on you just to tell you to not go to the truck. There has to be more to it then just that.

Border Patrol does have different athority since they and customs are reponsible for contraband coming into the country.

No, actually, there wasn't. I had nothing in my truck. Am well into my 60s. You may have your reservations, but afterwards when I contacted my attorney they told me it was good I didn't provoke them, since they could have done pretty much whatever they wanted since I was in the middle of nowhere and ALL officers "could" find cause for whatever. Then it's their word against mine when it comes to Federal officers "doing their duty." I also know friends who have driven the same route and been stopped for no cause, and put through the ringer. To note, when I was very much younger, it was common for police to plant "evidence" just to justify their salaries. Knew too many back in the 70s and 80s who went through such things. Now I'm too old to care, except when kids half my age in uniforms with guns hassle me in the middle of nowhere.

paul you are an idiot, the cops can do as they like and if it gets to court it is their word against a criminal suspect (that would be you) and who do you think the Judge will believe.

Being detained is being arrested. If a police officer requires you to stay put, you're under arrest. Most of the time they just let you go without bringing you in.

Paul71-1655761

Border Patrol does have different athority since they and customs are reponsible for contraband coming into the country.

Border patrol are equally ineffective and cost the taxpayer ridiculous amounts of money. I live along Lake Erie and we have a border patrol division near us to protect us from the threat of invading canadians. All brand new Chevy tahoe SUV's, new barracks, etc.

One of your neighbors thought they saw a rocket launcher in your house. Do you want to be taken into custody (maybe at work) before or after they search your house? Who's the bad guy?

real--

Maybe you should be a better neighbor, get acquainted and get to know each other.

What if the police think your son or daughter is the bad guy? And they aren't?

Roger......even if he was not the ideal neighbor, what's to stop his scenerio from happening? That's what our Rights are for!

You're talking about the unfortunate effort to track weapons that started with the Bush administration. Every time I hear that mentioned the # of casualties goes up.

Where did you hear that crime was on the rise?

realisticpessimist53

You're talking about the unfortunate effort to track weapons that started with the Bush administration. Every time I hear that mentioned the # of casualties goes up.

And how many of those casualties (what ever the number) occurred under the Bush program?? None. Please stop pretending this program "started" under Bush because it did not. The Obama administration revised and updated a program that the Bush administration had abandoned.

the main difference between the two administrations is that the Mexican Govt was involved from beginning to end when this was done with the Bush admin ~ under the current admin the Mexican govt was not brought into the equation... hence the reason the weapons ended up in the wrong hands as there was no accurate way to track the guns once they crossed into Mexico ~ check it out if you want

Good point and under Bush Wide Reciever DID NOT allow the purchase of weapons for tracking it was a tracking system of multi purchase's of certain guns from assualt rifles to handguns. We(FFL holdes) were ask to help with this when Bush was in office but we were told never violate the Straw purchase law for any reason unlike Holder and the Goon platoon under Obama. Wide Recv was to track people not guns and it was a good program. The Holder/Obama deal was a way to push there anti gun agenda to dis arm Americans

Bill K, to start with crime has been on the decline the last 10 years.

Just like any other group of human beings law enforcement have the good, the bad, and the ugly. Fortunately the good far, far out weigh the others.

realistic, sorry but "fast and furious" project did not start with the Bush administration.It was entirely under Holder's Justice Department.

paul71-1655761, I was all ways told cops were better then most, That a cop was the one to go to if you were lost or in trouble. Not any more. There the last ones you what to call. First of all when they get there no matter what you say it's a lie, Don't say any thing out of turn, Your talked down to like a little kid no matter your age, They try to make you mess up so as to call you a lire. Your a bad person from the get go. That's the way they treat you, Like there so much better. The courts are the same,They all stick together. There one big club. And we have to live with it. That's the sad part. And it's not going to get better, The way things are going good people will have to hide from the so called law of today. Cops stick together that's a fact, Cops lie and put people in jail for no good reason other then they know they can. Cops are not good people as you would think.

real:

When someone with enough money for a trip to theAppeals Court, then the Supreme Court challenges it.

@real,

Pro se amicus curiae is possible because citizens are not afraid to take on the
establishment; when personally pushed they will rise, and or someone who has
money to burn. Who knows maybe even some altruistic politician taking the high road to score points?

I wondered if he had a very durable door. (Steel with dead-bolts) It's much easier to open that door with the key.

Johnnyt,

From the syllabus of the case, "While police were preparing to execute a warrant to search a basement apartment for a handgun, detectives conducting surveillance in an unmarked car outside the apartment saw two men [leaving another apartment]."

As you noted, a search warrant is not an arrest warrant. No probable cause for arrest exists until after the search turns up the necessary evidence. Accordingly, the police could not detain the alleged perpetrator before the fact.

However, the police can detain anyone already in the search area for a variety of reasons not relevant here.

johnnyt, I'm not familar with the details of the case, but according to the article the officers were waiting for the arrival of the warrant when the suspect left.

Or better yet, avoid interaction with law enforcement at all costs. However, that's getting harder and harder to do.

realistic, no, they would probably look at you like you were an idiot and then go about their job.

rank, it's not the police that would have to believe his story, it's the judge that signs the warrant that has to believe it.

But hey, we can't miss a chance to make a dumb statement about the police even if it isn't true.

In most jurisdictions there is a "tame" judge who will sign almost any warrant application. The request just has to be fairly plausible.

okie, that is a wives tale. Search warrants are subject to review by the appeals courts. You not only have to sell the judge, but the judge has to make sure it won't be thrown out on appeal. Judges do not like having their court cases or decisions or search warrants thrown out by the appeals court.

paul71-1655761, You just know more then any one here as it's said. Cops can do no wrong as far as you go. Truth is your full of it , And that's a fact. You know little about what these cops can do .They do bad things to people daily for no good reason. May be there on the job to long, Most i see and know are lifers, And need to go a way, Find something other then be a cop. Being a cop does something to a person, And it's not good. That's the sad truth, Live with it. And your just one of a few that think cops are any good.

You know, I sometimes think the same thing about the other judges when they make a decision I don't agree with.

Wink:

" Perhaps a law requiring each citizen without mental incapacity to be armed would further reduce crime."

I wholeheartedly agree!

And the beat goes on! ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8&sns=em => Gun Free Zone.

Reality has a liberal bias. The words liberal and liberty have the same root.

Winkster, that's how you can become rich and famous. Invent a crystal ball that police can use to know a head of time where crimes are going to be committed.

BTW, they are a deterrent to crime. They just can't be on every street corner.

paul ,,paul paul. Cops are all ways late to the call. They can't find the address or they hear there were guns and wait for it to all go a way so they can go later and have people tell them what went on and what way did they go. If the bank gets robbed the cops all ways get there when the bad guys gone. People can take better care of number one just fine, Cops just make things get out of hand. Trouble at home, Not getting any from the wife who knows.

LOL. Wow.

Larry......When your ability to do actions you want is curtailed, that's definitely 'detained' and in my mind, arrested. I'm not a lawyer, I'm a layman and really don't know much about law, but I am a citizen and it seems clear to me that he was 'arrested'.....maybe not in the strict definition of legal speak with Miranda and such, but in reality. If someone stops you from doing what you want, I think 'arrested' is what you would call yourself.

You have to remember that the authorities need probable cause to 'arrest' you. That did not exist until the search warrant was executed. Basiclly, a false arrest. I'd like to know how that influences the rest of the case.

Larry, Johnny is right, legally if you're not allowed to leave because a police officer says you can't, you are under arrest. You're not typically read your rights until later on. This is why you always want to be mindful about what you say to the police and keep it brief.

Frank:
NEVER talk to the police without a lawyer; not even as a witness.
Truthful statements have put many innocent people behind bars.

Frank,

Self-incrimination is their best evidence at times and where the seed of corruption takes root. The corruption spring up and typically get away with making unlawful stops. They have it all gamed out. Director of the Law Dept. knows what will transpire over the course of legal action and have all necessary artillery i.e. the courts buildings, judges, clerks, security personal local police/deputy if they need to clear misconduct of law enforcement and prosecute society successfully. They do not have "lawful right" to abuse society at will. Try and sue a cop and they will come after you, truly. When we fear the cops we also fear the Courts, Politics, and our Government. Law Enforcement always concludes they acted correctly. They get twisted up from their hunches for arrest/search and not having a single scintilla of reasonable suspicion (see burglary tools on you after responding to a robbery committed) or probable cause (sees you run red light) and they get caught abusing their power but ignored because of above listed, it’s our Governance. We cannot convene a Grand Jury to examine our evidence against our local state and federal Government and our only power we have is to vote unless the Courts get involved somehow (close count) Bush v Gore. Seems as though we are powerless against this monster.

MarkGessner, That was very will put, And true. Some on here may not see it that way. That would be those in law inforcmen.

Please elaborate on your acusation.

Hitler's Party was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Seems they were socialists or Lefties.

Greg, just because the Nazi party had the word "socialist" in it doesn't mean they were socialists. It's called false advertising. I guess by your logic the USSR and China are cons because their countries both have "Republic" in it. Come to think of it, both the GOP and commies have a lot in common.

Both confuse loyalty to them to loyalty to the country.

Both think it's OK to spy on citizens just for disagreeing with them.

Both supported terrorists in the mideast.

Both claim to be for the common person but are just out for themselves.

Both have two sets of rules, one for them and one for everyone else.

The list goes on. Now as for how the GOP and the Nazi party are alike...

Both praised the christian god and were followers of same.

Both were against abortion and gun control.

Both encouraged hate against minorities.

Both were for mandatory school prayer.

Both accused anyone who disagreed with them of being traitors.

Both believed in unconditional national exceptionalism.

Both attacked nations unprovoked.

Both were against women's rights.

You want more? There's a lot more.

My point exactly! Phlemming, the "progressive" party are in fact the communists or socialists of this decade. Please learn port from starboard and Capitolism from Communism.

The only true Communists (those that live in a commune and share communal property) were a few Native American Tribes. The Russians and Chinese are Social Autocrats. The distinction was blurred and the language trashed during the McCarthy era.

@#20...,

Our Governance can best be described/compared to as a form of Plato’s Republic. Plato’s Noble lie “only us philosophers can have high thoughts” and you lowly citizens cannot think as high because you only have your senses to rely on i.e. sight and smell. Politicians are the ruling philosophers and we are the working lowly class of society. Just do as we told ya and everything will flourish as in Plato’s Republic cloned just do the work so we can tax you for our desire. The politicians have it better then the philosophers did during the times of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.

Mark Gessner, That is the truth so help me God. Government is not as it was years a go. There all crooks and we the people are not trouble for sure. Not to long from now are government may just show us Americans how they can be .

drp,

I feel ya, truth don't get in their way. The well armed separate the warriors from the mass, power to the people. Police State is scare tactics, drones smoke and mirrors. We the people, united we stand.

Here's another novel concept......the Government respecting the Principles the Country was founded on! The Founders were very concerned about these things....having endured tyranny.

and that's why there are appeals courts to sort out these things.

You mean Constitutional rights were upheld by the Supreme Court. This is still America, despite the tea party types trying to shred the first and fourth amendments.

Ron Paul is the number one Tea Partier.
Clotho is confusing standard Republicans who hate the constitution with
the Tea Party who seeks to uphold it.