"Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 23:40:47

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Pretty huge ruling by the SC, police can't detain a citizen beyond duration of a traffic stop to wait for a drug sniffing dog.

The 3 fascists dissented.

That's not the holding nor the facts. The holding is that a seizure justified only by a police observed traffic violation is unlawful if it exceeds the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the stop/issuing a ticket.

Also, in the present case the dog was already there so there was no "waiting for a drug sniffing dog."

I need to reread this case when I am not on vacation. I have some off the cuff opinions about the opinion and what it could mean, but I want to double check other caselaw before I spit hot taeks.

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 07:48:17

I nominate Trent to be on the SCOTUS

by **Bucky** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 08:00:11

if that means he gets a full season HOF box for BSG then I second the nomination

by **Gimpy** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:04:37

I feel like I'm going to end up on the wrong side of history here, but I don't think a chimpanzee should be considered a legal person.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... prisonment

by **ashton** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:57:44

"I don't find the idea that a man should be allowed to marry a male chimp to be a particularly liberal idea." - pacino in three years

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:07:02

slugsrbad wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:Pretty huge ruling by the SC, police can't detain a citizen beyond duration of a traffic stop to wait for a drug sniffing dog.

The 3 fascists dissented.

That's not the holding nor the facts. The holding is that a seizure justified only by a police observed traffic violation is unlawful if it exceeds the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the stop/issuing a ticket.

Also, in the present case the dog was already there so there was no "waiting for a drug sniffing dog."

I need to reread this case when I am not on vacation. I have some off the cuff opinions about the opinion and what it could mean, but I want to double check other caselaw before I spit hot taeks.

That is not the facts that thehill reported which is what I was basing it on.

The Hill said the defendant was asked to consent to a dog sniffing along the vehicle, he declined and was still held 7-8 minutes until the dog arrived.

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:14:09

ashton wrote:"I don't find the idea that a man should be allowed to marry a male chimp to be a particularly liberal idea." - pacino in three years

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:34:01

The Nightman Cometh wrote:
slugsrbad wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:Pretty huge ruling by the SC, police can't detain a citizen beyond duration of a traffic stop to wait for a drug sniffing dog.

The 3 fascists dissented.

That's not the holding nor the facts. The holding is that a seizure justified only by a police observed traffic violation is unlawful if it exceeds the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the stop/issuing a ticket.

Also, in the present case the dog was already there so there was no "waiting for a drug sniffing dog."

I need to reread this case when I am not on vacation. I have some off the cuff opinions about the opinion and what it could mean, but I want to double check other caselaw before I spit hot taeks.

That is not the facts that thehill reported which is what I was basing it on.

The Hill said the defendant was asked to consent to a dog sniffing along the vehicle, he declined and was still held 7-8 minutes until the dog arrived.

The stopping officer was K-9. The traffic stop/citation portion took a reasonable time and during the back and forth between car and warrant checks the officer called for back up. The officer asked if he could walk his dog around and the guy said no. It took another 7-8 minutes after everything needed to complete the traffic stop was done that the other officer arrived.

Also, I mean this as a suggestion and not being nasty, but you should go to the SCOTUS site for big cases. They publish their current opinions and it's always led with a short "syllabus" which explains the facts and holdings in "plain English."

by **Gimpy** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:45:00

SCOTUSblog is also good for getting fact and opinion analyses in plain English.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:59:24

Again, I just regurgitating what thehill and scourge of political reporters were tweeting I wasn't submitting a case study or annotation of the decision. It's semantics about the K-9 already being present, you need multiple officers to conduct a K-9 search and the other officer wasn't there.

It's about detaining beyond the duration of a traffic stop. Like I said. I am also a Political Science major,I too took a constitutional law course and take my ability to interpret law too seriously

I am using detain in the sense of the continuation of the traffic stop beyond the reasonable duration. (It is a detention, because in the literal sense he could not leave and was submitted to a search against his will)

by **Gimpy** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:30:05

Technically, dog sniffs aren't considered searches.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 13:02:51

Fair enough, main point still stands on my word choice.

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 13:08:15

The Nightman Cometh wrote:It's semantics about the K-9 already being present, you need multiple officers to conduct a K-9 search and the other officer wasn't there.

I'm sorry, but it's not semantics. Also, where is it stated that you need multiple officers to conduct a K9 search? I didn't see that (only skimmed the opinion). The main reason I could conceive of needing multiple officers is for safety purposes, not constitutional.

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 13:15:34

The Nightman Cometh wrote:It's about detaining beyond the duration of a traffic stop. Like I said. I am also a Political Science major,I too took a constitutional law course and take my ability to interpret law too seriously

Here is the holding (per the Syllabus): "Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures."

Your first post is ok, but it betrays the scope by inserting mistaken specifics from the case. What you said is correct going forward but not the exact ruling.

by **traderdave** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 13:59:20

For anyone interested:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/opini ... ore-227336

by **Bucky** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 14:32:14

hmmm, the cop was slug's sloppy-handwriting cousin

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 14:43:25

Bucky wrote:hmmm, the cop was slug's sloppy-handwriting cousin

Ol' Cousin Morgan never could get a hold on the whole "closing the a", so he had his name legally changed.

by **Doll Is Mine** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 15:10:18

ashton wrote:"I don't find the idea that a man should be allowed to marry a male chimp to be a particularly liberal idea." - pacino in three years

Is the chimp hot?

by **Soren** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 15:11:33

Doll Is Mine wrote:
ashton wrote:"I don't find the idea that a man should be allowed to marry a male chimp to be a particularly liberal idea." - pacino in three years

Is the chimp hot?

Like a slightly less hairy, less greasy Greek

by **Werthless** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 22:55:00

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I am also a Political Science major,I too took a constitutional law course and take my ability to interpret law too seriously

Archived

"Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)