53610f2e8bb13.image
Seamus McCaffery Supreme Douche

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a citizen’s vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.

The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.

Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.

That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.

The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.

Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”

“This is a significant change in long-standing Pennsylvania criminal law, and it is a good one,” Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said Wednesday afternoon.

Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view.

(Federal officers, like FBI or ATF agents, can search, regardless.)

Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant.

The Constitution is just soooo yesterday. Let’s face it, we don’t need it anymore. The current government can only protect your interest if you give them free reign. Right?



  1. dusanmal says:

    “The Constitution is just soooo yesterday” – opinion of Progressives or Libertarians? Elections have consequences. You elect Progressives who actively undermine Constitution – you kill your own rights. In exchange for promises said Progressives even do not keep. You get this result by being a Lenin’s Useful Idiot. Or Obama’s, ….

    • sflm says:

      No true Libertarian would say such a thing about the Constitution..

      Now a left “libertarian” (a false libertarian/cultural marxist) would.

  2. deegee says:

    It is only going to get worse.
    It does not matter who gets elected or appointed to any political or judicial or legal position, the majority of people are corrupt or corruptible.
    The people in power have bigger guns at their disposal.

  3. spsffan says:

    Interestingly, this just applies to Pennsylvania, and the article doesn’t say what law is in other states. I’m willing to bet that most states already allow police to search a vehicle if, for example, they smell marijuana.

    The article does say that FBI and ATF agents don’t need a warrant. And, certainly from watching the C.O.P.S. television shows, it would appear that the police in many jurisdictions don’t need a warrant. I’m going to stick my neck out and say, that, while I’m opposed to such rules, it would seem that Pennsylvania was more of an exception rather than the rule before this decision.

    As far as it goes, I’d say that DUI check points are more of a violation of the 4th amendment than this is. But both stink.

    • jpfitz says:

      spsffan says:
      5/1/2014 at 10:12 am

      “I’d say that DUI check points are more of a violation of the 4th amendment than this is.”

      Agreed, it’s a stop and eyeball checkpoint. A smidgen over the limit and big time lawyer fees, classes and pee tests.
      Honestly I felt safer going through a Mexican police check point traveling as tourists in the 80’s from Cozumel to Xcaret and back. Machine gun bunker dug in on the west side of checkpoint. Surprised me and scared our daughter, thinking tourism is one of Mexico’s largest sectors I felt safe, though maybe not today.

  4. BigBoyBC says:

    … but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation

    • LibertyLover says:

      Bingo. I guess cops can sign their own warrants now, on the fly.

      Oh, wait. They don’t have to do that either. They can just rummage around until they find something they don’t like.

  5. MikeN says:

    Now how about not being able to search cellphones either. The idea that this is based on a right to privacy is the start of the problem. It is based on a right to property. You can’t just search through someone’s papers because you happened to arrest them.

  6. ECA says:

    Ummm,
    HOW many STATES, when you get your license, you sign a paper that WHILE you have a license, they have the right to search your Vehicle if you are stopped?
    You can ELIMINATE this.. When STOPPED, get out of the car..Get to the SIDE. and wait.
    AS long as you are NOT in the car, they cant search it..and they will YELL at you to get in the car..(so they have a right to search it)

  7. Nut Job says:

    You might like to see what philosophy these judges adhere to before you go off the deep end about it being a right-wing conspiracy or all about money or something. Although I would like to know how many right-wing Pennsylvania voters approved to retain this guy in their State’s court system.

    To wit:

    Seamus McCaffery (born June 3, 1950) is a Justice on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He is a member of the Democratic Party.

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamus_McCaffery

    … Ya. I know. It’s that famous old lying Wikipedia again.

    • Cap'n Kangaroo says:

      And why not point out that it was a 4-2 decision with Seamus McCaffery being the only Democrat to join the majority opinion?

      Or maybe point out that Seamus McCaffery is the only foreign-born judge on the court?

      Or, perhaps most important, that Seamus McCaffery is a 19 year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Dept.

      • jpfitz says:

        Thanks Cap’n, Nut Job thinks all D’s are his enemy.

        • Nut Job says:

          Not quite there jpfitz. Rather it’s just another illustration of how “one is never so blind as he who won’t see.”

          Democrats have been getting away with political murder for quite some time. Even literally if you’re a member of the Kennedy or Clinton family. All I’m doing here is simply reminding you that these “D”s are not as innocent and pro-American as the masses who voted for them believe them to be.

          The man (McCaffrey) is obviously a biased EXTREMIST! But you won’t see anyone in the main corps press saying that (unless it’s on Fox or something).

          For crying out loud! Judge McCaffrey comes from a law enforcement career where things like the Constitution are often in the way! And then he gets to not only rule on this but then write the majority opinion?! WTF?! It’s a little over the top when it comes to hypocrisy, if you ask me.

          I won’t even go into the sheer hubris that a State like Pennsylvania is clearly taking with regard to ignoring the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which are the first 10 Amendments). We already know the 1st and 2nd Amendments are considered to be a load of crap depending on who you ask.

          The facts couldn’t be any more clear. Democrat McCaffrey — like any of his right-sided extremists — are in absolute lock step keeping with the same anti-American views that also consider the Constitution to be “… just another goddamn piece of paper“! — GWB

          • Cap'n Kangaroo says:

            Are you trying to illustrate with your rant that which you are ranting about?

            Unless you can cite an actual reference to Justice McCaffery by Fox News, I would bet that they (Fox News) would refer to McCaffery as mainstream and it would be MSNBC referring to him as an extremist.

  8. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior cop wanna be bustin' them bad guys says:

    I don’t know… read that Number IV– my car is not “me”, its not my house or a piece of paper, so==my car must be an “effect?” Damn! Years and years of reading the dictionary and I don’t know what my effect is. Must be my car though for those states that hold that way? Like part of my house that just moves around?

    Well, I for one do NOT support criminals being able to haul their stuff around in their 2004 Effect.

    Once you know the Feds are not so limited, doesn’t the entire issue go away…. or are you a knee jerk self centered privacy loon?

    ME—MY HOUSE — MY PAPERS (on me, my house or my personal Ipad the “Effect 2.0″). But my car?

    Thats silly.

    • jpfitz says:

      Yeah, my car. Stay out. Nothing of importance except my papers, books, and music.

    • McCullough says:

      So if they can search your car without probable cause, they should be able to search your trailer as well…cuz’ they’re both mobile.

      And don’t give me the BS story that you pulled the wheels off and put it up on blocks buddy, I aint buyin it.

      Stop lubricating the slippery slope.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior cop wanna be bustin' them bad guys says:

        “Stop lubricating the slippery slope.” /// Good one.

        Did either of you (jp!) read the link?… or sp’s excellent surmise above?

        No One: YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY to your car. Thats why the Feds can search your car without a warrant. This is all about STATE law. Good point about papers in the car. I could see the privacy of papers in your car going either way or being fact specific. Still don’t care much…. who doesn’t like lube?

        No Two: cops can’t stop you “at all” to begin with without reasonable suspicion (sic?–whatever) so how thinly do you want to slice the baloney??

        come on guys—tell me really what you are so concerned about that you want to give criminals a free pass or a loophole over common sense “What you do’in here” policing?

        When cops come up to me, I just smile, drop my pants, and bend over. They can see I got nothin’ to hide.

        Easy Peasy

        • jpfitz says:

          I’ll have the bologna sandwich. I am a wise ass around certain LEO’s, not all, and depending on my mood I may eat the ticket right in front of the LEO. I cut my nose to spite my face.
          Damn mood impulse control deficit or something like that.

          Sometimes I’m courteous and polite.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior cop wanna be bustin' them bad guys says:

            I would be confrontational with Popo to the extent I would answer questions as honestly as I could and disagree on facts where warranted.

            I just read too much.

            While I am an Inuit, still too many young men shot by Popo for not submitting to their will.

            Winning an argument….. really is worth only so much.

        • jpfitz says:

          Reminds me too much of NYC’s stop and frisk.

          It’s lawful to carry a joint in your pocket in NYC. It is unlawful for said joint to be in the public’s eye.

          Stop and frisk means, bend over empty your pockets. If your lawfully carrying a joint, now you’re under arrest and probably of color and young.

          Somethings wrong with this practice. Same as my vehicle being searched if I’ve done nothing wrong.

          I’m aSeamus of Seamus.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior cop wanna be bustin' them bad guys says:

            Again with State Law issues that have been overturned/stopped already?

            I read that “joint in the public eye.” Strikes me as pure made up BS. The thing about stuff that sounds like pure made up BS: I don’t believe it. Why do you?

            Cars are used by criminals to move contraband around. If you’ve been stopped already for something else, why NOT check the car? Or is everything you happen to not like the basis for a law against it? I don’t like all kinds of laws, but hey, I live in a democracy where the cops act according to law.

            Don’t like it?—change the law.

          • jpfitz says:

            Are you bobbo telling me I’ve got the facts wrong about NYC law? Do I have to cite articles and law. A Brooklyn judge just claimed he’ll not jail stop and frisk defendants if found with small amounts of mj.

      • Cap'n Kangaroo says:

        They can search your vehicle on the public highway with probable cause, including an RV, without a search warrant. The case goes back to the Prohibition era (1925).

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

        The courts have ruled that if it is on private property and not considered quickly movable, a search warrant is called for.

    • Nut Job says:

      Try reading those dictionaries a little more in depth. Here’s a partial cut-n-past of the word EFFECT for your amusement:

      n. Movable belongings; goods.

      Of course, there’s also a homonym too. And that word you may be thinking of is AFFECT!

      n. Obsolete A disposition, feeling, or tendency.

      transitive v. To have or show a liking for: affects dramatic clothes.

      transitive v. Archaic To fancy; love.

      Source: https://www.wordnik.com

      So take it for what it’s worth. I’m sure you’ll find some other reason to disagree with the Constitution and try to subvert it, you Putin-loving pinhead.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior cop wanna be bustin' them bad guys says:

        Hey Nut Job—thank you very much. RATS. I was too much on a roll to look the word up. Don’t know if I even had the patience to scroll down to “n.”

        I guess goods are the effects of your labor?

        Boy, those founding fathers of ours sure could write.

        Hang in there. It looks to me like you are mostly wrong, but a good nut is hard to find.

  9. Publius says:

    “long train of abuses”

    Can someone help me elaborate?

  10. John E Quantum says:

    Driving is a priviledge, not a right in many states. Everyone is guilty of something.

    • Greg Allen says:

      It’s not about driving. It’s about privacy. And that is not a priviledge.

  11. Greg Allen says:

    Read the article — they didn’t throw out the 4th Ammendment.

    Blog entries, like this, are why I come here far less than I used to.

    (Don’t get me wrong — I don’t like this decision. I am for MORE rights, new fewer.)

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior cop wanna be bustin' them bad guys says:

      Why?

    • McCullough says:

      “Blog entries, like this, are why I come here far less than I used to. ”

      Oh boo hoo. So you want to leave because you disagree…then good riddance, I certainly don’t care to please everyone. I want you to get mad, get pissed, disagree, state your opinion. Sometime I do it just to tweek libs like yourself.

      But if you can’t handle it…bugger off. My bottom line stays the same.

      • Cap'n Kangaroo says:

        Here is a story that might get peoples knickers in a bunch (and then again may elicit a yawn).

        AIPAC is lobbying for Israel to enter the US Visa waiver program.

        http://bit.ly/1fCE1sQ

        Sounds innocuous until you find out what they truly want is a totally UNIQUE right to discriminate against US citizens while still participating in the Visa Waiver program.

        http://bit.ly/1m17Swg

        • jpfitz says:

          No, I’m furious. Israeli citizens not only treat Palestinians with terrible living conditions and predjudice. The black Jew is treated very poorly.

          Palestinians go thru check points just to see relatives or to go shoping. Now don’t come back at me with the bus bombings and so on.

          How would you feel if in 1948 your country is now a permanent Jewish state. The Irish understood the occupation and offered help in food weapons.

          • jpfitz says:

            Help in food and weapons, the Irish were treated as poorly as the Palestinians buy the brits for four hundred years.

            This bullshit of Israeli citizens being able to enter OUR country without waiting for the normal visa, and taking billions in aid without admitting to a stockpile of nukes has gotten my underwear in a bunch.

          • MikeN says:

            Palestinians go thru check points just to see relatives or to go shoping. In Israel.

            There fixed it for you.
            The Palestinians have made it clear that they wish to see Israel destroyed. How would you feel if people kept shooting guns in your general direction, then claiming it’s no big deal because they aren’t doing much damage?

  12. Greg Allen says:

    America desperately needs Congress to pass robust digital privacy laws. Digital communication needs to be explicity named as “papers” protected by the Fourth Ammendment.

    But, this won’t happen.

    Tol many conservatives keep voting do-nothing, obstructionist representatives into office.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior cop wanna be bustin' them bad guys says:

      Greg, you know the first rule about keeping a secret, right?

      …………………………………….> Don’t tell anybody.

      More than childishly petulant to put your secrets “out there” and then want to be shielded from your own exhibitionism.

      I suppose…… “if” I were honest…. there are a few things on my computer that I would be embarassed for the general public to know. I give that up easily to stop Wall Street and Mafia criminals from running their empires free from police interruption because of idiot concerns about privacy.

      The HEART AND SOUL of privacy is between your ears and in your home and All these issues are 2-3-4 ripples away if not totally different issues altogether.

      I do prefer more effective policing.

      Ha. ha. IN THE REAL WORLD: you should act as much as possible as if there were no secrets (best way to actually have some) AND we would have effective policing. Somehow, today and getting worse, we have neither.

      Silly hoomans.

    • McCullough says:

      “America desperately needs Congress to pass robust digital privacy laws. Digital communication needs to be explicity named as “papers” protected by the Fourth Ammendment. ”

      So this is where we agree.

      But you’ll have to excuse me when I say that the Liberal party and OBAMA has done NOTHING to turn this around.

      NOTHING except to make things worse.

      Deny it. Defend him…go ahead..lets hear it.

      • Nut Job says:

        Deny what? I think everyone can NOW agree that Obama is a do nothing President. Although he does bring a new twist to politics when it comes to partisan arrogance.

        So kiss your Internet goodby. Nothing lasts forever. Hell! You voted for it, so…

        CHANGE!

  13. AdmFubar says:

    >>>The current government can only protect your interest if you give them free reign. Right?<

    the gov will only protect your "rights" if you give them free money.

    • Nut Job says:

      WRONG!

      Apparently, you’ve never had to deal with TAXES! But if you’re a Congressman then I suppose you would have a legitimate excuse for thinking that money is indeed “free”.

      Apparently, you’ve never encountered more than 3 people in your entire life either since the vast majority of the American population is politically affiliated. And voting for one’s political party these days is really just a physical exercise — certainly not a MENTAL one!

      … And I’m the “Nut Job”?!

  14. norman says:

    Once had the pleasure of my day in court:

    The accused was said to have stolen a six-pack. Biggest insult to my then 20yrs drinking habbit, going on 40 now.

    The judge had a policeman beside her. and when i question her questioning him about my past record, before she tell me of verdict

    “I have made my decision, need to know past so as to sentence”

    Of course I could not accuse the judge of sticking its’ nose into my private or public papers because in this state there are no 10 commandments to wave at public servents when they are at work.

    The five hostile witnesses had been told off, though the city would pay thier wages for the day. but maybe not next time.

    I never got paid for my performance

    that is the cost of being a citizen

  15. MikeN says:

    Again, saying this is about a right to privacy is where you are wrong. It is about a right to property, expressly stated in the constitution. This is similar to the current Supreme Court case of checking people’s cell phones without a warrant.

  16. Glenn E. says:

    I’m sure the PA police still need permission to search the vehicles of anyone rich or important enough. So don’t expect to see the cops rifling thru the trunks of any stretch limos, in that state.