TBH, it was not an argument but an opinion. However, I seem to be in agreement with the majority of the judges.
The Citizens United ruling
, which overturned literally decades of precedent, would be enough in and of itself to call the judgment of four of the five justices
who affirmed this particular decision into question. Screwtape mentioned additional court cases, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are more of them besides.
I suppose it is the level of suspicion. The word "suspicion" is vague. The transcript shows an anonymous tip off was the suspicion.
An anonymous tip-off, or even the building traffic, is in no way sufficient to justify the behavior of this officer in his illegally detaining this person, nor the further illegal actions he subsequently took. You will note, Graybeard, that even the State of Utah admitted that the officer's search was illegal - its argument was that the evidence he had found in this illegal search should be permissible in court, despite the long precedent arguing otherwise, which was overturned by this decision.
From the linked extract: "Officer Fackrell’s purpose was not to conduct a suspicionless fishing expedition but was to gather information about activity inside a house whose occupants were legitimately suspected of dealing drugs."
If they were legitimately suspected, why did the police not go to a court and get a warrant allowing them to search individuals coming out of this house? Answer: Because they didn't have enough evidence to justify such a warrant. To call something "legitimate" means that it falls within the bounds of the law, and the fact of the matter, Graybeard, is that this officer's searches did not. At the risk of repeating myself, even the State of Utah admitted that the officer's search was illegal
. I would really like to know just how you can conclude that the police had legitimate suspicion when the action being contested was admitted to be illegal by the prosecution
That's not just a red flag, that's a floodlit sign and blaring siren. The fact that five members of the Supreme Court missed it even so makes me wonder if those justices have working eyes and ears, metaphorically speaking.
I suppose that if you come out of a KFC, you might be legitimately suspected of having food.
However, the individual was not coming out of a KFC, was he? He was coming out of a house
. You know, a place where people live. Therefore, this analogy fails because you cannot legitimately suspect someone coming out of a house of "having food", as it were. In fact, it fails on another level because many people who leave fast food restaurants do not take food out with them in the first place - they eat it there, known as "dining in". If you corrected it to "having eaten food", that would answer the second fail, but not the first, because of the difference between a fast food restaurant and a residence. Which you undoubtedly know.
Here's some information on probable cause and reasonable suspicion that you really should read, Graybeard: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probable+Cause+and+Reasonable+Suspicion
I suspect it might seem an anathema to some people in your society, but to others, it might not.
This is specious reasoning and therefore beside the point. No doubt there are people in America who do not recognize the danger of decisions which undermine the Constitution, but that does not mean that the danger does not exist.
Moral - don't do drugs.
That is not at all the 'moral', Graybeard. Besides from which, do you realize just how trite and stupid-sounding the "don't do drugs" slogan is? It's almost as bad as "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
I think you do.
Scenario: You are a police officer. Your are told by control to attend an incident of an attack on an old lady and that an ambulance has already been called. You arrive to find the ambulance and an elderly lady is lying on the ground. There is blood on her head. At a distance of 25 yards a young poorly dressed man is looking from her to you and seems nervous. Another old lady tells you "It was him! He hit her with an iron bar."
What's your next move? All the information so far is uncorroborated.
First off, this is in no way anonymous, which you totally ignored despite the fact that it was a critical part of what screwtape said. But on top of that, it also is not uncorroborated. The mere fact that the police officer in your example received information from a dispatcher, then upon arriving on-scene, found that the information matched the reality, means that it was not uncorroborated. The only thing which might
be argued to be uncorroborated is the accusation by a bystander - since the police officer has no additional information which supports her statement. However, in this case, probable cause applies, at least well enough to detain the person suspected of committing the assault.
What you overlooked is that this analogy does not even come close to matching the case being discussed here. Furthermore, this is at least the second time that you have presented an analogy in this thread which does not match the case being discussed. The point of presenting analogies is to pick simplified, relevant
examples that can be easily understood. You seem to be forgetting the necessity of making sure your examples are relevant - because both of the ones you have presented have not been. The first, referring to someone coming out of a KFC having food, ignores the difference between a food-service establishment and a residence. The second, the police officer coming upon a scene which matches that which was reported to him, was neither anonymous nor uncorroborated, and demonstrated clear probable cause which did not exist in the case at hand.
You do not help your argument
any by presenting analogies which detract from it, as these two have.