Herring v United States: Due Process Denied

Just when you thought you were safe, the majority of Justices of the supreme Court of the United States vote that you were too safe: that is, you do not have the benefit of law when due process is violated. You should read that as, "there is no due process."

And that is not the half of it: in reading a little of the opinion (here found at SCOTUS Wiki), you will find that the arresting officer, Anderson, was not given authority to arrest Herring; instead acting on word of mouth (read, "I have a certified copy of neither the arrest warrant issued by a magistrate within this jurisdiction, nor a search warrant issued under oath of a third-party") and putting his neck on the line. Anderson, taking the law into his own hands, is personally liable and is subject to a trial for malfeasance.

The Judges think that Anderson "acted in good faith reliance on a warrant." How can that be the case when he never had a valid warrant under which he could act in good faith? The opinion references the 1984 case United States v Leon, 468 U.S. 897, writing evidence obtained on a warrant issued without probable cause is admissible. Even the magistrates issuing the warrant do not perform their job in investigating the substance of complaint or information, only issuing warrants based on adjudicable probable cause.

Would you like to be subject to an unlawful arrest, search and seizure, and then have no recourse to lawful behavior because some Judge says that lawful doesn't apply to your kind? If you let the majority of Justices of the supreme Court answer for you, then you're excited, raptured even, by the thought. Well, I'm not.

If you, citizen, do not draw the line at Justice, then, as you can read, the politicians and judges will draw it all over your face :-) Need I write that if you respect not yourself, including your rights, then others will find it difficult to respect you: and what kind of example is that, leaders of political freedom, to extend to our brothers in communist Lands?

Also, as people tend to get hung up on the Bill of Rights presented in the constitution for the United States. All you need to remember is that, unless the contrary appears in that instrument, then it is your right. Deny searches without valid warrants issued by a maginstrate of proper jurisdiction on the oath or affirmation of a third-party, and do not acquiesce and prejudice yourself when not under arrest. Umm... yeah, and oh yeah! More at The Bill of Suggestions: Why the Supreme Court endorsed unreasonable searches and seizures

One could infer from this opinion that the supreme Court of the United States does not function to unequivocally protect your rights, but to meet arbitrary quotas.

This opinion is a very good example of why you should always eschew cud: especially after you become a judge!

And hope that you meet their quotas...

Some more references:
See Barefoot's 2002, Worden, C.F., The Police Contact: Silence Is Golden, the Constitutional Society's Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest and the following complementary talks: