PA Supreme Court: No Search Warrant Needed to Search Cars

In yet another tyranny-supporting ruling from a supreme judiciary of this land, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that police officers do not need a search warrant to search your car in their state. How they were able to get past the clear language of the Fourth Amendment in this ruling is hard to fathom:

“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” [Justice Seamus] McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception . . . which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so . . .” . . .

 

“This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law,” [Lancaster County District Attorney Craig] Stedman said.

Oh, I see. The federal government has already trampled on the Fourth Amendment, so now state governments should trample on it too, so as to render state laws “consistent with established federal law.”

Yeah. What about the supreme federal law: the US Constitution? Shouldn’t that be the real benchmark for legal matters? Not so much. But, just in case you were wondering, the current federal law is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment clearly states:

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.

Yeah. So no search is legal without a warrant. And many people will say, “No, but the Fourth Amendment allows for search if there’s probable cause.” Actually, no it doesn’t. Do all of these people have reading comprehension problems? The amendment states clearly that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

That means that, without probable cause, a search warrant will not be issued. And no search can happen without a warrant. And furthermore, those warrants were not carte blanche approval for unspecified searches into possible infractions.

No. A search warrant had to clearly state exactly what was being searched and exactly what was going to be siezed. And the probable cause for this search also had to be explicitly stated, and attested to by a legally binding oath. Meaning that trumped up probable causes were perjury.

Pennsylvania made a grave error with this ruling. It has made it even easier for law enforcement to violate the rights of citizens. And unfortunately, the federal government set the precedent for these violations. When will we wake up?

243 responses

  1. And we keep crawling forward into civil war to recoup the liberties that courts take away from us as if we were their property.

  2. Well another judge to add to the list of those to prosecute for violations of the Constitution.
    I wonder what kind of perversions the cops have as leverage on this judge, kiddy porn, drugs, interesting to know.

  3. What 4th Amendment? Surely not the one that clearly states THEY CAN’T without proper cause. How long before the SHTF? One thing is clear. The Admin has it’s ignorant foot slammed down on the accelerator and look out boys….you’re coming to a bend in the road that is so sharp…you’ll crash and burn.

    • They can do anything they want ONLY because We the SHEEPle don’t care! If we did care, things would change before tomorrow morning.
      We remain useless and are of No Serious Effect against our enemies within! As I said, We the SHEEPle, (the Vast Majority), don’t care!
      Pray for, what’s left of, OUR America. If you don’t believe in prayer, pray that you are right. Thanks

  4. Well you know a car is not a person or an effect .Right.Our Founders are rolling over in their graves

    • I have a feeling that they would be thoroughly disgusted that they sacrificed so much for our freedom only to have this generation sell it so cheaply.

    • No. Joe Stalin loved killing massive amounts of human beings. He terrorized millions of Russians. There was no probable cause – just quick executions.

  5. time to clean house ALL judges and other politicians need to be removed . Make a list , include name, address and charge and when it comes to the time for change you will know what to do and where to do it

    • Not complicated. Just vote against Democrats, even for dog catcher or simply vote against ANY candidate the media endorses.

      • Good advice. I once was a democrat when I was a young man, several years ago. The democrat party had not been hi-jacked by the liberal/marxist/communist at that time. I soon realized the dummycrats were heading in a direction with the country that I felt would not be in the country’s best interest to follow that path. Of course they did away with the speaker ban law & started letting every “weirdo” that came along speak to the young minds of our youth. It wasn’t long before they started to be hired on as professors. If I had a kid now, that qualified to enter any of these big time schools, I would discourage it, because they have become a hotbed for all the communist B/S that these young people are coming out of these schools believing. Even our state schools & universities are accepting professors who are teaching this liberal/marxist propaganda. I remember back in the early sixties & seventies, the “flower” children were letting their hair grow out & sitting around campus looking like a bunch of rag-tag hoodlums, which many of them were. Now many of them are the democratic idiots we have in Washington today ruining this country.

        • Several YEARS ago? Sorry to have to point this out to you, but the Demcrat party was hi-jacked by the liberal/marxist/communists several decades ago. It’s just that they quit trying to hide that fact in recent years.

          • A RINO is being counted on to stand up to the democrats. When he doesn’t, he is sabotaging the republican agenda. With a wolf in wolf’s clothing, you know he is the opposition. A RINO is taking the place that a conservative could be occupying. Unfortunately, the RINOs are campaigning harder than the democrats against the conservatives.

          • Yea. But it’s the Democrats (and the left-wing media) that’s doing the controlling.

      • Sadly, it isn’t just Democrats. There are an awful lot of Republicans who care more about holding onto their own power than they do about “liberty and justice for all”. And they might be even worse than the Democrats. At least the Democrats a honest (well… sort of) about their socialism. The Republicans I speak of would have you believe that they’re on our side. And shame on the low-information voters who keep re-electing these MRT’s (Marxist, Republican Traitors)

        • Does not change the fact that even a RINO is better than an Obama lapdog. RINOS did not vote for the $3+ Trillion anti seniors anti middle class Obamacaid welfare and takeover scam as one example.

          • The RINO’s didn’t NEED to vote for it. The Democrats had enough votes to pass it without them. That left the RINO’s free to vote against it. It was all a “show”. Meant to fool the voters into thinking that they opposed Obamacare and keep the voters loyal. Think I’m making thnat up? Take a look at how many of them are twisting and spinning, doing everything they can, to keep from having tovote to repeal it.

            Here’s another example; Everytime they approach the “debt ceiling” it’s the RINO’s who give in and raise it without any conditions. (Or, at best, phony conditions.) These people are nothing but foxes in the hen house.

            So tell me they’re better. I stand my ground. They’re as bad… if not worse.

          • You are correct, Sir. Both parties are nothing more than evil twins. Republicans behave as if they don’t want more spending but in reality, can’t wait for their turn to get their hands on the $$. My Congressman, Mo Brooks (R), stated this on a local radio station about Continuing Resolutions/Debt Ceiling increases: I will support speaker Boehner on these matters UNLESS there is enough votes to pass it without mine and then I would cast a symbolic vote Against. Symbolic??? You can’t make that shit up…
            Short of a revolution, the only thing that will return us to a lawful society is to vote the bastards out until they get the message…or Conservatives become strong enough to be a viable 3rd party. Of course it would be painful but, can you put a price on REAL freedom?

          • Sadly, we’ll never get them ALL out at one time. And the ones still there will quickly, or eventually, corrupt many of the new ones coming in. Look’s what’s happend to my congressman, Paul Ryan. In the beginning he was a solid conservative. But since his run for VP he’s started to get soft on a number of issues. I’ve supported him in the past, but no more. He’s been there too long. I’m hoping a soild conservative will run against him in the primary. Though it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

          • 10-4 on squishy Republicans who have been co-opted just like Rove and Boehner said they would do to the new ‘Tea Party’ freshmen in Congress. Gonna be a battle for freedom!

          • I’m pretty much convinced that, sooner or later, it’s all going to end in an armed insurrection. And none of us will win when that happens. Even if “our” side won the battle, the “squishy” Republicans would most likely end up writing a new Constitution. Who do you think THAT’S going to favor?

            The one we have has lasted for 200+ years because it was written by men with integrity. No one has integrity anymore. At least not at that level.

          • That’s what I’ve been waiting for, but in my state the rinos usually win in the primaries, then the dummycrats win in the main election. I think the truly conservatives, tea party, conservatives, just don’t stand a chinaman’s chance to get elected. I am about to conclude these lo-infos & young college students deserve the government of the liberal/marixist/communist who have about taken over our country. They are too stupid to see, or just don’t care, but our truly conservatives needs to turn out & vote, & try to get the message out.

  6. I can not believe that the SHTF hasn’t happened. Oh, wait a minute, people have got to have guts and want their rights and freedoms in order to do that. People in America are so dumbed down and cowards.

    • The useful idiots, which are the Democrat Party and the RINO’s in the Republican Party are the problem. They are uninformed, unlearned (but educated or indoctrinated) and worst of all, they have the “right” to vote!

  7. Well I know one State that I will never visit for ANY Reason. Another Judge that CANNOT read a simple English Language Amendment to OUR Constitution. How dare this State Supreme Court set such an Unlawful precedent.

      • Thank you, I worked for a long time and very long hours for every one of them. I was a TACP and worked with the Army for my entire career. Many of them were awarded by my Army counterparts. It took 24 years and 9 months to accumulate all of them.

          • Tactical Air Control Party. Basically Enlisted Forward Air Controller. Dropping bombs and other ordinance on the enemy in close proximity to friendly ground forces. Close Air Support.

          • Close was very close at times. I have a friend that called in A-10s when lying in a ditch on one side of a dirt road trying to get rounds from the Aircraft on the enemy on the other side of that same road in the other ditch. Now that is very close. They were pinned down with nowhere to go.

          • That is exactly what I meant by “close”. Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. You guys had to be dead on target or the wrong guys could wind up dead. Thanks a big bunch for your service!

          • I bet if they had horseshoes they would have thrown them across that road. I was never that close but within rifle range when I controlled.

          • Gotta love that. As a student of history, I recall a line you would get a hoot out of. As you know, Marine Aviators in Korea flew the F4 U Corsair. Someone asked the Koreans what weapon they were most afraid of. Their answer? “The Blue airplanes!”

        • Hello, my friend. I’m impressed. thank you for your service.
          I’m getting beat up on here tonight, but dammit, I know this stuff! I taught it for years and used it every day.
          i think i’ll stick to COS stuff!

          • Hi, I saw that you were getting beat up on your posts. I however do not totally agree with you on your stance. I have personally been pulled over for 3 miles over the speed limit and the police officer searched my car without any reason at all. I had only gone 3 miles over the limit on a downhill very steep grade in n automatic car. But, this happens for no reason at all in many cases and people are fed up with these tactics. All the police are trying to do is get someone’s property for any reason and confiscate their cars, so they can be auctioned off. No different than stealing. I can see where your point is, but as I read the 4th Amendment it is not quite as cut and dry as you say it is.. There are some police departments that actually get new cars for their use from confiscation, in my opinion it is illegal. It may not be , but it sure should be. There is a backlash happening all over this country that defines what is going on. It is the people feeling like there is a Police State happening. You can see that with the Bundy Ranch thing. Did you know that people came all the way to Nevada from New Hampshire? Things are getting out of hand at both the Federal and State levels.
            It is time for a COS so that many of these things happening can be dealt with. So, yes maybe you should stick to that.
            By the way the cop that pulled me over wanted to find anything on me because I was in the Military and I found out later that he was kicked out of the Army for dealing dope in the barracks. How he got a job as a cop, I’ll never know.

          • Obviously i can’t speak for a specific officer in a particular case. If your car was searched for no reason at all, you should have sued the officer and the department. I would have.
            If somebody can show where a department is violating the 4th amendment for any reason, sue them.
            Federal law and most state law allows for vehicle forfeiture in certain situations, usually when used for narcotic traffiking, sometimes other things like prearranged street racing. if a department is abusing that, again, there are lawful remedies.
            But the LAW regarding the 4th Amendment, and warrantless searches of motor vehicles is in fact, very “cut and dry” and has been settled for nearly 100 years.
            Regarding anecdotal evidence, every cop I know, including myself, has been accused repeatedly of making illegal stops, illegal searches, etc. I put 1000’s of people in jail, and most of them claimed it was my fault. It’s a routine accusation, and it is almost always untrue, The rare cases of actual illegality make the good cops look bad, and they hate it worse than anybody else.
            That aside, speaking specifically of this case, which is what the article is about, based on what we know – nothing unlawful happened.

  8. Pennsylvania has always thought of themselves as being a part of the United States anyway. They make their own rules and do as they please even down to the county level. Pike County is infested with these people in the first thing they always say is that Pennsylvania Is Not a State! So they consider it perfectly okay to run their courts any way they want and there is no such thing as individual rights if they get in way of what the judge, County Judge, and the local Gestapo have in mind.

    Pike County is more like Mexico where if you have the money you can buy anybody. This happened to my wife’s family. They had a family farm of well over 200 acres that was supposed to go to the family. It was basically stolen by the relation of the stepmother who had been allowed to remain on the property until she passed away. She had a very large problem with dementia towards the end and her son got her to sign a paper putting his name on the property. He then bought a local lawyer to provide nonfactual information, lose the original will made out by my father-in-law and for a price stole better than $1,500,000 from the family. If you go to Pike County don’t stop is worse in Tijuana.

  9. I am a Person of America. I do not live in Penn.. I do not allow warrantless searches of any of my property. I will see you in a Constitutional Court if you insist on this folly.

      • You must not love your God given freedoms which the Constitution puts into the language of men. I for one love my freedoms. Do not try to remove them as obama and his co-conspirators have been trying to do for the last 6 years. If you do not believe me look to the State where obama worked in before he was appointed President.

        • Hard to debate someone as ignorant as you. Appointed president? That proves what a nut case you are. As take your med’s, you’ll feel better.

          • If you do not count the dead voters and the voters which voted an admitted 6 times, you will find ‘mr. obama’ is in the White House against the People’s will. Your TROLLISH habit of insulting People who show you the truth do not help your Socialist standing. If you do not like America, move to another country which does not like the truth as you demonstrate.

          • That BS has been debunked so many times it’s not even worth commenting on. Only sore losers and ignorant clowns believe that BS. Truth is something that is devoid in your vocabulary.

          • I love your attemp at derogatory remarks. Sore loser, NAWW! Just know the truth which is proven in the world. Look into the mirror if you like to see a clown. You remind me of the clown in “IT”. Have a lovely life in your delusional dream world.

  10. This country is going to fragment and disappear if something isn’t done to rein in these totally unconstitutional governments. This country is litterally dying from within because of all these empty headed fools that we have in positions of power. Pennsylvania is one of the original colonies that broke from England because of this very reason, and now they are doing the very things that ouf forefathers revolted in order to change. It is really sad to see such moronic edicts comming from those that are supposed to be protecting our rights.

      • You really believe an election will change any of this? Do I need to remind you that Barack Hussien Obama was re-elected in 2012? And it wasn’t entirely because Romney ran a crap campaign.

        Not only is the entire main-stream media in the bank for the Democrats but, between the 1/3 of American voters who side with them, and the 1/3 of voters who listem to them and are, therefore, too stupid to understand what they’re voting for, this slide into tyranny will continue for the foreseeable future.

        While I’d hate to see it come to this, (because there is no guarantee we’d win) I am convinced that nothing will change without an armed insurrection. The nation’s power-brokers know this. Which is why they work so tirelessly to disarm us.

        • You have some valid points. However Obama got fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008. It was the lazy voters who did not vote that allowed the moochers and unprosecuted fraud voters to prevail.

          • That’s true. But it supports my point. Those of us who see the need for, and want, a change, are in the minority.

  11. What else would you expect from a legal system that has declared GMOs essentially the same as non-GMOs and therefore require no labels.

  12. The ranks of the tyrants keep expanding. We have Dear Leader, the Marxist democrat party, progressive judges/justices/lawyers who rule on the basis of ideology – oh, and lets not forget the paramilitary cops decked out in combat gear riding in armored assault vehicles.

    Under “liberalism” (there’s irony in that word) the United States grows more totalitarian by the day.

    • Your comment is funny. How much research did you do to see the bio’s of the justices who voted for this. This isn’t a liberal issue. If anything, it would be from a conservative justice. But if you did any research into the case, you’d see that the writer did lousy job reporting on this case.

      • I didn’t do any research on these particular justices. My comments are based on what I see as a problem across this country. If you’ll note – I identified the problem with progressive justices/judges/lawyers.

        I fail to see why “if anything it would be from a conservative justice.”

        I also fail to see why my comment was funny. To me, it is quite sad to see what progressive democrats are doing to the Constitution and our liberty.

  13. The day is coming when all these liberal communists will be dragged in the streets of their capitol cities, then the People will rejoice.

  14. CORRECTION:

    Oh, I see. The federal government has already trampled on the Fourth Amendment, so now state governments should trample on it too, so as to render state laws “consistent with PERVERTED federal law.”

  15. The so called Commonwealth of Shitsylvania does it again by trampling on it’s citizens constitutional rights. Commonwealth means the common peoples money for the wealth of the crooked politicians.

  16. BUT… We are talking about Penn’s, Like the birthplace of Liberty.. so it must be ok.. to walk on the Constitution there!!!

  17. Excuse me but there is a thing called the 4th amendment of the Constitution that precludes that order. The PA supreme court needs to disbarred and go back to law school.

    • Your ignorance is in abundance. What law school did you go to? What do you know about the case? Did you know that the driver told the police officer he had weed in the car? The fact that the officer also smelled it gave him probable cause.

      • So if a Police officer says that he smells weed then that is probable cause whether or not the driver admitted it. Wake up!

        • The driver admitted he had an illegal substance in the car. The police did have probable cause to stop the car. I deal in fact, not fantasy.

          • They didn’t have “Probable Cause,” they had an admission to the fact, which is greatly different from probable cause!! What was the probable cause? Oh yeah, “Tinted Windows!” How about we as citizens arrest every undercover cop for being in a vehicle with excessively dark “TINTED WINDOWS!” They are NOT above the law themselves!

          • If you walk up to a police officer and tell him that you have heroin in your pocket – guess what? He has probable cause! And due to “exigency”, he doesn’t need a warrant.

        • No, just someone who deals in facts. To many here never look up what the writer’s write for accuracy and truthfulness. In this case the writer left out a lot of information about the case.

          • OK, for everyone else’s edification what information was left out and what is the source of it? A lot of statements from the LEOs justifying their actions is not very factual. Facts, supported by unbiased, material evidence is the only thing the really counts.

      • You fail to understand the clear wording of the 4th Amendment… “probable cause” is one of the elements required in order to meet the burden of issuing a search warrant. Read the amendment and discover what the rest of the elements required are, things like a description of the place to be searched and who or what is to be seized, and support by oath or affirmation of all of the elements required. It would seem that none of that was done and the only other factor allowing a search was permission of the owner or the person in control of the vehicle. It appears that the PA supreme court has acquiesced to erroneous rulings from federal courts.

  18. Welcome to the USSA, the new 3rd world police state and banana republic. Thanks OBozo, America’s first illegal president!

    • You just be an illegal resident because you’re so ignorant. Obama has nothing to do with the courts decision, not the appointment of the Pa justices. So many ignorant people here, and you’re close to the top.

  19. When you go to the polls remember to vote for Constitutionalists – people who understand the Constitution and what it states. Don’t depend upon the party, look at the individual.

    The Pennsylvania legislature needs to impeach these judges.

    • Ballet voteing isn’t gonna get it anymore it’s who has the most money to buy the election….you want to vote do it air mail with an AR …

      • The judges are making law not enforcing law. Amendment 4 is explicit in the requirement of a search warrant to effect a search. The judge have commit malfeasance in office by writing law not enforcing law. The problems we have in the country is judges think they are able to write law and ignore the actual laws and Constitutions of the United States and States.

        • Your analysis of the requirements of the 4th Amendment is incorrect. There are very few times when a warrant is required to search a vehicle. You may not like that, but it’s a fact.

          • Try reading what it states. You have to have probably cause. The police can not just stop you and search your vehicle. Even if they stop your for an offense such as speeding.

            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.

          • I’ve read it thousands of times. The odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle establishes probable cause. Nothing in this case suggests the police just randomly stopped this vehicle and searched it. And speeding is obviously justification to stop. So, there was nothing wrong here. See United States v. Carroll. (1925)

          • I think you are missing what the story is reporting. The story states the following was stated in the opinion:

            “The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is
            probable cause to search,” [Justice Seamus] McCaffery writes in the
            opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception . . . which allows
            police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause
            to do so . . .” . . .

            Probable cause is the grounds to get a warrant to perform a search, not to do a search. One violates Amendment 4, the other does not.

          • According to the Supreme Court, in Carroll v US (1925) you are wrong. A warrant is not needed to search a motor vehicle on the side of the road, and hasn’t been for almost 100 years. Your lack of knowledge, or your disapproval, doesn’t change that. There is no violation of the 4th Amendment.

          • Only when “Probable Cause,” is present! What is Probable cause? Pretty ambiguous in a court of law!
            A simple traffic violation does not equal probable cause, and a cop saying, “I smell reefer is not probable cause! If so, I could retort that I smelled alcohol on his breath and I want him searched! Quid for quo!

          • Nope, not ambiguous. How about – “facts and / or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that evidence of a particular crime is located in a particular place”.

          • Actually again — you are wrong. The 4th amendment is entirely silent on making exceptions when warrants are not required. It is a blanket requirement for all searches. The courts have carved out very carefully (until now) extremely narrow exceptions. Such as exigent circumstances, or destruction of evidence. But the courts used to be uniformly in agreement that warrants were required in normal circumstances before a search was conducted.
            There was even an entire body of caselaw regarding the “fruit of a posionous tree” throwing out evidence that was tainted by a improper warrant affidavit, or a search that went beyond the warrant.

          • Until now? The ruling allowing warrant-less searches of vehicles, based on probable cause, dates to 1925.

          • Furthermore, Even you may remember that an exception to a warrant is “Consent”. Police routinely asked a motorist “is it all right to search your vehicle?” If you said “No.” they would sometimes bluff and say they would keep you detained for hours while they obtained a warrant. If you called their bluff, they usually backed off. Because they knew they could not get a warrant based on an honest affidavit. That was our protection against the jack booted thugs invading our privacy without probable cause. They had to convince a third person of the validity of their case. 1000’s of criminal cases (if not more) have been dismissed based on the warrant. That protection is now destroyed.

          • I think you’re right with respect to vehicle search warrants, providing there’s probable cause which there apparently was in this case. My comments were based strictly on the info given in the article, which at first is somewhat incomplete and, therefore, somewhat misleading.

        • Okay, rather than questioning my intelligence, answer the question. what is unconstitutional about this case?

  20. Let’s get the facts of the case straight, something that the writer left out. The car was stopped because it had illegal tinted widows. The police officer smelled weed. The driver then told the the police officer he had weed in the car. Thus probable cause. The police still need probable cause to stop the car. Btw, the justices happen to be conservative not liberal..

    • So if the Police officer says he smells weed and the driver says that the Police officer is ridiculous and he needs a search warrant and the police officer says he smells weed and thus had probable cause then he is allowed to search the vehicle . The PA. Supreme court stated that if the Police had probable cause they could search the car. The Police get to determine probable cause. Apparently you don’t get it.

      • Yes, that is the law. Smelling marijuana in a vehicle establishes probable cause. No warrant is required to search.

        • and so you get things like out west with the police taking the man to hospitals, doing all types of INVASIVE procedures, and then sending the guy the bill when they find nothing. Like it or not, this type of interpretation of constitution breach can only lead to a police state.

          • Totally different than this. Apples and oranges. That was wrong and there have been consequences.

    • They may have had probable cause to seek a warrant, but the only thing that would allow a warrantless search is permission of the vehicle’s owner or the person nominally control of it.

      • Incorrect. See US v. Carroll, 1925. if probable cause exists, a warrant is not necessary. There are several exceptions to the requirement for a warrant, including consent.

        • That’s a court decision, not necessarily correct since courts and judges have been wrong in the past. A clear reading of the fourth amendment demonstrates that perhaps the decision you cited is wrong.

  21. So what is the Real Constitutional Penalty for “activist” judges, it has to be a felony, the lawyers are Aiding and Abeting, also in this case a felony. So to start with:

    16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the
    land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both
    the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly
    void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of
    the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such
    a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no
    office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid
    law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

    Then there is Title 18 Section 241.

    Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons
    to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or
    enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of
    his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the
    conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances
    of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

    So someone in Pennsylvania needs to file charges on this “activist” judge.

  22. I really hate to rain on this parade of outrage, and I’m sure I’ll be called all manner of anti-American pinko commie and such, but…

    This is neither unusual, unlawful, or problematic. The law in nearly every state is what PA has decided to adopt – that being simply following the 4th Amendment, without adding additional state regulations. There is nothing un-Constitutional about it. I won’t speak for any state other than NC, but the 4th amendment doesn’t change across state lines. A police officer almost never needs a warrant to search a car. The author is woefully ignorant of the 4th amendment, as indicated by his statement “So no search is legal without a warrant.” That is flat out wrong and any any first year law student or rookie cop knows it.

    I get as upset as anybody about the over-reach of the government, but this ain’t the fight to have.
    Okay – let the name calling begin.

    • Are you a “Constitutuional Scholar of Rhodes quality?” Just asking,as I know that I am not, but I take the Constitution as it should be, and needs to be taken, “VERBATUM!”

    • You called them yourself, if the shoe fits….

      Read my other response to you. Additionally, there is a HUGE, long line of precedent cases that disagree with your ridiculous new interpretation of this Amendment. The new case decisions coming out in the last few years are also ignoring legislative history and court precedent in order to rule as they have.

      • I’ll cite US v. Carroll, 1925. No warrant is necessary to search a mobile vehicle as long as probable cause is present. Which case can you cite from that HUGE, long line?

    • lets, see. I don’t think I see any “exceptions” in the Constitution. Just because the feds decided to allow “exceptions” does not make it constitutional. Do you think that when the Constitution was written, people were immobile? What, they couldn’t get on a horse or walk away? What makes a car any different than a buggy? All these modes of transportation existed when the constitution was written. Still, no exception to warrant was put in the constitution.

      • If you don’t acknowledge the validity of court rulings, particularly Supreme Court rulings, well i guess that is your choice. but the law does recognize them. Some of them are bad, wrong and dangerous, and we should scream and fight against them every chance we get. But a warrantless motor vehicle search is not one of those. It’s just common sense, and that’s why it has stood since 1925.
        Consent isn’t mentioned in the 4th Amendment either, but is a valid exception to the warrant requirement.
        If a child was buried alive and the man with the map to the burial site in his pocket was standing in front of a cop, and the cop knew the map was there… would you expect him to go apply for a search warrant while the child suffocated?

  23. Liberals only apply the laws they want, and break all others at will. The 4A is as simple as the 1A and the 2A, but they twist and wiggle and lie to make it something that it is not. How long until 3A is crossed on a large scale? Before you say that is crazy it has already happened in isolated instances by local police departments displacing residents to do servaillance on a next door neighbor.

  24. PA. is a Blue State. They elect control freak Democrats as apparently they are sheeple so this should come as no surprise.

    • Unfortunately, we are considered a blue state. That’s due to Phila and Pitts and Hsbg. The majority of the state is red, but our voices are lost to the big cities with their progressive mentality. I am very hopeful that this trend will reverse. A lot of us constitutionalists are wide awake now. We just set a first by electing a write-in senator against the hand picked RINO and dem on the ticket. We are taking back our localities, counties and state.

      • Tryanny is rampant that is eminating from the “Outhouse” and if you can’t understand that then there is no use in trying. Wake up and pay attention to what is happening here in AMERIKA that was “transformed” just as our Muslim-Marxist jihadist had insured the sheeple that supported him!

        • Okay, but you didn’t answer my question. Where is there tyranny in the case referred to in this article?

          • The fact that the judiciary uses these rulings to support the next step is the problem. Not a lawyer, but see the slippery slope we are speeding down now. If it is as you say, that since 1925 a vehicle could be searched without a warrant, I am sure that ruling somewhat defined probable cause. It’s like sticking a screwdriver into a closed door and eventually it becomes an open door that anything goes. This is just a further widening of that opening to total loss of security as outlined in the 4th.

          • If you can’t see it then you’ll never will until your ass is in a FEMA camp!

          • Okay, so you obviously have no answer, because you made a baseless assertion. So your answer is to demean me. That is a progressive tactic, not a conservative one. If we conservative constitutionalists are to win out, we have to deal with truth and reality, not hyperbole.

      • Your loss of freedom to have security in and of your property! Can’t grasp that can you?

  25. Pennsylvania is just taking its cues from this criminal White House and administration. Screw the 4th Amendment and the entire Constitution! To paraphrase and old hag of a Democrat (Hitlery “Benghazi” Clinton) – at this point what does it matter?

  26. Just like the family in a van with
    Florida plates passing through Maryland. A state police vehicle followed the
    van for a while while they did a search of the plate that reveals a lot more
    such as the drivers CCW permit. The police pull the van over and ask for
    drivers license and owners card. They then order the man out of the van. One
    officer questions the man about where his firearm is and is told that it is
    locked up at home in Florida. The second officer questions the wife about the
    gun who tells him that she does not know where the gun may be. The second
    officer walks back to the husband and calls him a liar. The police then call
    for backup. When two more police cars arrive the wife is put in one, the three
    daughters are put in the other and the husband is put in the first police car.
    The police spend over an hour searching the van going through all their
    luggage. The police find no gun. The police give the father a warning and send
    them on their way. Who has the money to sue the state of Maryland or any other state.

  27. I find it funny reading all the stupid comments blaming liberals, when the 4-2 vote, the 2 who voted no in this case are liberal. People here are such hypocrites.

  28. Michael, You were most helpful in editing my books, I respect you highly, and I almost always agree with you. But I question whether you’re reading the Fourth Amendment correctly.
    Yes, the Fourth Amendment says “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause….” Yes, it says a warrant must “particularly” describe what is being searched and seized. Yes, it says a warrant must be attested under oath.
    But where does the Fourth Amendment say there shall be no search without a warrant?
    Maybe it should say that. But if it doesn’t, then should judges add to the language of the Constitution? Isn’t that the kind of judicial activism we say we oppose?

    • You are correct sir. The author clearly knows very little about the 4th Amendment. That is fine, but it is not fine to write as though you are an authority when in fact you know almost nothing.
      Nothing in this incident, as I have read it, violates the 4th Amendment.

      • Help me here, so you are saying it’s fine for the SWAT team to bust my door down without notice based on an anonymous tip that I was smoking dope (and it’s not Colorado of course), that being ‘probable cause’ for the local brown shirts definition?

      • Basic Legislative interpretation. The second clause by necessity modifies the first clause. If it did not, then it would be entirely superfluous. It would make no sense to mention the warrant requirement if the first clause can be interpreted in isolation to not require a warrant. The “and” makes it clear they are inseparable.

        • -the search / seizure must not be unreasonable
          -probable cause is required to issue a warrant
          -the warrant must be specific

          Where does it say a warrant is required to search? generally, the courts have held that a warrant is required, unless one of several exceptions to that requirement are met. An operable motor vehicle is one of those exceptions.
          think about it… would the vehicle still be there if the officer left to go get a warrant?

          • So you’re now saying the 4th only applies if the department in question has enough manpower for backup to hold the vehicle “in locum tenent” while the officer goes and gets a warrant. If no backup is available then it’s a free-for-all.

          • No, you’re making up things from thin air. I’m not saying anything. The US Supreme Court said it in 1925 in Carroll v. US, and it has been affirmed hundreds of times. The availability of backup is a non issue.
            There is simply a long standing, well established exception to the warrant requirement. It’s been there for almost a century now, and is used hundreds of times a day all over the country. Those are the facts, like them or not.

    • I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the southern states have been this way for many years, as have almost every other state. This is not something new, nor is it something everybody needs to be getting all bent out of shape about.

      • It makes a big difference when it’s official policy, as it will soon be in this case, as a result of a state supreme court ruling. We all know it “goes on” anyway in many other states. The ruling makes the difference, as it’s a violation of the 4th Amendment. The article states this very clearly.

        • The writer of the article is wrong. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that requires a warrant to search.

          • “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 . . .etc.”

            Sounds pretty clear that a warrant is required and must be specific.

          • Thank you, I’m very familiar with the text of the 4th Amendment. So again I ask, where does it state that a warrant is required to search?

          • It is in the word “SECURE!” Don’t know what that means? Look it up in CONTEXT of the 4th Amendment!

          • Sorry , but no, it isn’t. We don’t get to just make up crap and pretend it’s in the 4th Amendment.

          • Tell me where the 4th says a warrant is not required to perform a search.

          • And there are long established exceptions to that general requirement. An operable motor vehicle is one of them and has been since 1925. See Carroll v. US.

          • The Carroll doctrine does not grant a free-for-all thus if a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used. Except for CA, PA, and MD.

          • Carroll doesn’t grant a “free-for-all” anywhere. It simply recognizes the practical reality that the process of obtaining a warrant to search would be more invasive than an immediate search, to a person stopped in a car on the side of the roadway, as well as the fact that if the officer left to go get a warrant, the person in the car would simply drive away. That can’t happen with a house. Whether or not another officer could or could not guard the vehicle while the warrant is obtained is irrelevant. Other cases have expanded that exception to seized vehicles, but that doesn’t apply here. And there are a lot more than those three states that do not add state requirements on top of US Constitution requirements.

          • You’re talking about case law, we’re talking about as the 4th was written. Carroll doctrine could easily be handled by jury nullification. Prohibition brought about this “law” because cops were outnumbered to catch the operations in the act, so they subverted the Supreme Law by making it easy to catch them during transport.

          • Do you have any idea how many times Carroll has been challenged? Why hasn’t it been overturned in almost 100 years?

          • Too many times has the 4th (and clearly most if not all the other amendments) been subverted. Citizens are clearly underwhelmed by the prospect of performing their duty as a juror. Many do not know the 10th and the power it bestows on them. Jury nullification is not implemented enough as we saw with MN this week. Murder convictions for defending yourself against two burglars. Asinine jury.

            Just because a lawyer, legislature, or judge said it was so, and can be no other way, is a lie. If the law violates an obvious fundamental right it is the duty of the jury to nullify the law.

          • The Supreme Court disagrees with you. since 1925, there has been no requirement for a warrant to search a motor vehicle lawfully stopped on a roadway. Probable cause is the only requirement. I’m not the one “twisting” the law.
            As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned, I sell guns and ammo, I’m an NRA certified instructor, and I teach concealed carry. It’s pretty important to me.

          • Having said that, you may not know, but your arguments seem fortified from the wrong side of the aisle.

          • Actually, in this case, the police had potable cause to stop the car. The officer smelled weed. The driver stated that he had weed in the car. In this case they didn’t need a search warrant and some Pa defense attorneys agreed with this ruling concerning this case.

          • Not clear at all, in fact, what is clear, since 1925 at least, is that a warrant is NOT required.

      • Yes, people NEED to be getting bent out of shape over this over step of clear law as in the Constitution! You are part of the problem as you have already laid down!

        • Please tell me how the Constitution was violated, specifically the 4th Amendment.
          And you, sir, have no idea just how wrong you are about my being “laid down”. i just try to choose intelligent, legitimate fights. This isn’t one of them.

        • You are part if the problem by being ignorant regarding this case. Many PA defense attorneys actually aggree with the ruling, not happy with it, but agree with it

        • I disagree that the folks on here are “low information voters”. I’m sure the vast majority are fine and productive Americans. They are simply being misinformed by someone who should know better. And since i’m not the “author”, they don’t believe me.

      • Do you really mean that? We shouldn’t get bent out of shape over warrant-less searches? A clear violation of the 4th?

        • It is NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment, sir. That is simply a fact. Look up Carroll v US, 1925. That is the case that established that there is no warrant requirement for a motor vehicle search if probable cause exists.

  29. Its going to take a lot of clarification, police will deem it necessary to search a car for a parking ticket as probable cause.

  30. I was chatting with my daughter regarding this ‘legal’ atrocity, when she asked me where the Constitution was written. Oh the IRONY! Philadelphia, Pennsyvania!

  31. I can only hope lots of Constitution hating pigs get taken out over this. This is nothing more than a declaration by the corrupt courts that we are officially living in a police state.

  32. Badges, we don’t need no stinking badges. Most Americans can’t tell you anything about the US. Constitution, it’s simply not part of the curriculum of government run schools. We coast along blissfully in our ignorance & buy what the press and the gov. shovel upon us. It has taken a Muslim president to wake people up, & still we’re happy to follow along. Every generation excepts more of what is being shoveled & follow along like lemurs. Kids today don’t understand that their freedom is being lost because they don’t know what it is to have no rights. More & more people have their hands out & are happy to be lead by the nose. Freedom is costly, but they don’t know that because it isn’t taught. I’ve asked my teenagers friends the simplest questions about the government, they have no clue, wars the US was involved in zip, what’s Communism or Socialism, blank looks, religion-( I’m no Bible thumper, but to hear so many kids say that they don’t believe in God or a higher power) is scarey. The family unit is gone, the gov. is the new religion, you’re black balled or labeled for stating facts & opinions. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler & Mao are smiling, they always loved when a plan comes together

    • So, I assume, being the Constitutionalist you are, you realize that everything reported about the case referenced in this article is fully Constitutional.

  33. “We the People” all know what comes next…this is all part of their Commie/Muslim/NWO plan…!!! Prepare and ..????

  34. McCain authored NDAA, basically denying any US citizen their4th Amendment rights and indefinite detention.
    A health care law foisted on US citizens in the guise of a tax, when it is blatantly unconstitutional.
    Now no search warrant to search cars.

    Anyone getting this is no longer about two parties but elitism and totalitarianism.

    We are on the brink of losing the greatest republic ever created, and the authoritarians are going to continue their march to complete control if we don’t stop this, here, now.

  35. Simple answer here, our Nation is going straight to HELL, thanks to the perverted left and their scum sucking minions within the Justice System! WHERE IS THE GUTS OF CONGRESS?

  36. Our houses are next…Hell, how about strip searches along side of the road!? WHY NOT!!??

    I live in PA and all I can say is F THEM!
    They will have to search my dead body if they don’t have a warrant in their hands!

  37. The constitution is being incrementally reduced by the statists in the supreme court as a result of us having statist politicians.

  38. We travel a lot and see a lot of history and America. I will just add Pennsylvania to my list of States that I do not travel to or thru if possible. I would rather take my tourist money elsewhere where my rights are appreciated.

    • If this bothers you, you’d be better off to stay home. Most states don’t add extra-Constitutional requirements to search and seizure law.

  39. Me thinks that if a REAL head count of ALL folks..male & female..that are legally licensed to ‘conceal & carry’ .. (ME)..along with those that are not..but are legally licensed as ‘hunters’ (ME) & competition ‘shooters’..in combination would comprise an ‘ARMED FORCES”..surpassing that of our total military..which is steadfastly being eradicated to a level of inability to provide the NATIONAL SECURITY that will be REQUIRED to handle the coming REALITY of IRAN gaining nuclear war head capabilities. THEY ..IRAN..& JIHADIST ISLALMIST..DON’T INTEND TO ‘..PUSSY FOOT’ AROUND & if I’m still alive (84)..when that comes to pass..I’M ON ‘POINT DUTY’..

  40. Drip, drip, drip, goes our freedoms and right leaking from the bucket full of constitution. Every day ti’s another drop and no one is concerned about one little drop.

  41. I don’t know where all these people have been….but I started my law enforcement career in 1972….as with ANY search…probable cause was ALWAYS needed…Duh…..Vehicles were one of the few “warrantless search” exceptions….always has been since I was an officer…because of the “exigent” circumstances with a vehicle….(given that a vehicle is mobile, and evidence, etc. can be moved to be destroyed, hidden, etc…). It would seem the PA, is emerging from the dark ages…and getting with the program….
    (of course…if you DON”T have probable cause…and search anyway…anything you find if then “fruit of the poisonous tree” and cannot be used in a prosecution….

    • Correct, Phil, as I have been trying to tell these folks as you can see below. Carroll v US in 1925 authorizes warrant-less searches of motor vehicles. Of course, probable cause is required.
      It’s a shame that the author of this piece is stirring people up over a non-issue. Folks on here are ready for armed revolt over this stupid piece of misinformation. Maybe they’ll believe you. I’m getting treated like the anti-christ, just for telling the truth.

      • People don’t get stirred up over something they know nothing about unless they want to get stirred up….Ignorance reigns and everyone gets wet…and/or…you can’t argue stupid people smart…
        (Kinda makes you wonder what planet these people just came from….because they sure haven’t been around this one for awhile!!!! LOL)

  42. People I offer you this small but equally extended piece of legal opinion.
    Because the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, 2005; Law enforcement has no legal obligation or constitutional requirement to protect anyone from anything or anybody including themselves; it seems to me that the right of law enforcement to enter, search, seize, detain or otherwise encroach upon any citizen for any reason whatsoever has been duly nullified. Therefore, any representative of law enforcement that encroaches upon your personal space or property should be regarded an armed criminal and dealt with accordingly by you.

  43. A key term here is “motor vehicle” in Federal Code. It means it’s gross weight is 10,001 lbs and engaged in commerce. All other vehicles are deemed automobiles and outside their jurisdiction.

    Get into title 49 and verify this.

  44. So, who’s going to be the first citizen in PA to sue the state over this travesty? Since the states have more power over the Federal government than the Obama Administration or the Judiciary, why don’t they have the cahones to protect their citizens from government over-reach? The whole deal in Arizona over the state enforcing the laws they have and Holder suing them over it was a clear case of States rights trumping the Feds. It’s in the Constitution you bozo’s! All it takes is a county sheriff with the hutzpah to make the Feds back off! PA needs a “Sheriff Joe”.

  45. Don’t make the same mistake I did and try to trade the Forex market that is a losing market for sure. Go to the website Traders Superstore, that’s where I went now I’m trading the futures market which is so much better than the Forex. Trading the futures I’ve not had a losing week yet and I’m getting better and better at it.

  46. Americans, patriots, citizens. Join your local militia now!!! WTP are being reduced to slaves almost daily. We cannot allow this enslavement to continue. WE MUST RESIST!!!

  47. If you are white and with plenty of cash you have no worries. You can have a bath tub full of cocaine in your truck and a good lawyer will keep you out of prison. If you’re black and not wealthy you’d get a long sentence.

    Wealthy lawyers have the resources and the tools to make the cops look bad and not the defendant. They could investigate each cop handling the case and make a jury believe that the cops planted everything. Remember Mark Fuhrman?

    • Additionally, and just as egregious, is prosecutorial misconduct. Clearly, the cops and prosecutors have a symbiotic relationship where the cops bring em in, prosecutor acts tough on crime, and runs for AG based on “I’m tough on crime.” Bullshit. If a prosecutor has it in for you, stand by for a long winter cause they will harass the shit out of you…stack the charges…deny PTI on BS grounds, and literally force the defendant to go to trial AND face MORE BS like mandatory minimums with resulting Draconian sentences.

  48. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants….Thomas Jefferson

  49. While I agree that the PA Supreme Court is in violation of the Constitution’s 4th Amendment with it’s ruling, it must be mentioned that the SCOTUS has ruled in the past that evidence can be seized from a vehicle if said evidence is in plain site and further search can be conducted within reasonable reach of the location of said evidence ( wing distance?) all without a warrant. This ruling seems to be an expansion of existing established law. I believe this latest assault on the Constitution will not pass the smell test even by our perverse SCOTUS upon challenge.

  50. No., its a very necessary law to keep perps at bay. You cant wait for a warrant because the car wont.

  51. Check the photo — How many guns does does this storm trooper need?? Protect and serve my toush, Hassel and intimidate fits better

  52. Another topic for a constitutional convention, there will soon be 50. It seems a constitutional convention is necessary right now to avoid a violent resistance to everything that is happening. 35 states and counting.

  53. Amazing how the flag burning, dope smoking hippies wailed about “the man” back when they were attending fund raisers for Ho Chi Minh at college back in the sixties. They are “the man” now and are proving to be the knuckle dragging thugs that Spiro Agnew said they were.

  54. Just spoke to my local Rep. I was told that the 4 judges who voted to approve this nonsense are: Seamus McCaffery, Ronald Castile, Thomas Saylor, and Michael Eakin. They’re next up for reelection in 2015. REMEMBER THEM in your vote!

  55. Supreme court Judges, congressmen, Rep. Dem. All on Obama’s Payroll. The only people left to uphold the constitution of the United States is now the Citizens. We no longer have anyone in office protecting America or it’s people. This administration is sinking America like the Titanic. Something tells me that has been their plan from the start.

  56. Looks like the PA Supremes would not uphold 4th Amendment rights against a burglar either. After all, burglars don’t get warrants or have probable cause and they certainly go on “fishing expeditions” looking for stuff to steal. Just like government.

  57. This same state doesn’t even require little boys to reach puberty either… all’s fair game. Why is that school even open?

  58. Lets see the DOJ,IRS,EPA,FBI,DHS,ATF,etc.etc. and now another BAD JUDGE all totally CORRUPT! People its clear! The cards are against us to save our country! I say
    THY WILL BE DONE, LORD THY WILL BE DONE AMEN!

  59. We have communist President George Bush and his administration to thank.

    The PATRIOT Act is the most unpatriotic of the things that the Bush administration and Congress could have visited upon us.
    Among other things, the USA PATRIOT Act effectively voided the Fourth Amendment and gave federal agents and local police the authority to write their own search warrants and serve them without the intervention of a judge.

    There is no way Congress will now give up the Power that the Patriot Act gives them.

    911 was an inside job on America by the CIA and the Israeli Mossad to terrorize the American people into agreeing to the Patriot Act, the DHS and the endless war on terror.

    The more people government can keep smoking pot the more their minds will be off the government.

Leave a Reply