You No Longer Have the Right to be Secure in Your Home!

Yet the word "law" is not mentioned in the text, but I guess I see your point, however esoteric it might be.

That is, how can it deny something that it does not mention?

 

it denies and disparages general intent laws and strict liability laws, in any conflict of laws.

 

Well it does not mention either general intent law nor strict liability law, so I guess you're making your claim based upon implication?

 

General intent can be considered an Act proscribed through that form of Bill of Attainder to our privileges and immunities; thus, potentially denying and disparaging our natural and civil rights, declared inalienable or indefeasible, in State Constitutions.

In other words, a Person may not be immune from arrest for being honest with police about collectively or cooperatively, cultivating medical marijuana in the State of California, even when in accordance with a Constitutional Amendment to our State supreme law of the land.

It is a clear Infringement to our natural and civil rights, declared inalienable in our California State supreme law of the land.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

Now that so many States have medical marijuana provisions and licenses the mere smell of marijuana is no longer sufficient probable cause to raid a residence or dwelling based on a smell of marijuana as sufficient or probable cause for search and siezure without benefit of a search warrant.

 

Logically that's correct for States that have such provisions. But there are still quite a few States that have no such provisions and police do not necessarily deal with logic whether they are from States that do or don't have such provisions, as evidenced by many instances of shoot first ask questions later mentality.

 

I believe this issue may resolve itself on its own, with advances in "smoking" technologies.

- - - Updated - - -

Our elected representatives do not have any more "wisdom" than the People. Our State supreme laws of the land were ratified by the People; there is nothing our elected politicians can legislate, that is more supreme than a supreme law of the land.

 

While I agree with Sotomayor that police should not be allowed to benefit from their legal mistakes (this seems obvious), in this particular case the fact that led to the arrest was not the traffic stop itself; it was the defendant granting permission for the cop to search his vehicle.

If I were stopped for a broken brake light and the officer asked to search my vehicle, I would say "No." Actually, what I would say is "You stopped me for a broken taillight. How does that lead you to request a search of my vehicle?"

Yes, the stop should never have occurred, so the opportunity to ask for a search should never have arisen. And yes, there is something inherently coercive about being asked by a police officer to search your vehicle: it's not easy or natural to stand up and say "no." Especially because, if he wants, the officer can make your life difficult by making the stop extra long, or impounding the vehicle while seeking a warrant for a search, and things like that.

But if you give permission for an officer to search your vehicle, you don't really have legal recourse afterward unless you can show that the permission was coerced in some way.

 

Understood but what does that have to do with the police or the point of my post? All State Constitutions contain a provision similar to the federal Constitution's 4th Amendment, which the police violate often.

 

when you bend the law for people you do not like, it no longer protects anyone

this seems to be a trend, people trying to turn our rights into privileges

heck, we just heard that in some states they have made it a crime to smoke in your own car.... here you can get a $50 fine for doing so in some places

.

 

It has to do with proving that our alleged War on Drugs, is simply a repetition of a historical mistake, last millennium, and that boondoggle and generational form of theft, at every legal opportunity.

 

It wasn't a mistake or a repetition of a mistake, it was deliberate. See this article:

Nixon Policy Advisor (John Ehrlichman) Admits He Invented War On Drugs to Suppress 'Anti-War Left and Black People'

http://jezebel.com/nixons-policy-advisor-admits-he-invented-war-on-drugs-t-1766359595

 

This has been around the bush many times.

When applying for a driving license, you are giving officials the right to review your driving habits and fine or revoke that privilege if you fail to obey the lays.

By registering a vehicle, you provide your consent to examine and search that vehicle for any reason that it does not meet the proper standards.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO OPERATE A VEHICLE. It is a privilege granted by each state.

 

The police still have to ask for your permission to search the vehicle. That is established law.

 

Hasn't happened to the right person yet.

- - - Updated - - -

Till they drag you out, and say it was in "plain sight".

 

where o' where are the prono bono legal chics when we need them.

 

Posted on a list on display @ the local bar association of your State.

 

now you tell me.