Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 3942910" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>Carrol is absurdly reasoned, by the way.</p><p>"<em>Held:</em></p><p>(a) That the primary purpose is the seizure and destruction of the contraband liquor, and the provisions for forfeiture of the vehicle and arrest of the transporter are merely incidental. P. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/132/#153" target="_blank">267 U. S. 153</a>."</p><p></p><p>This argument supposes that a statute against "contraband" renders the forteiture of the vehicle and arrest of the person merely incidental! As though the "contraband" is more imperative than the person, who no longer has the right to be secure in his person against such search and seizure! The obvious question is whether the Congress has the power under Artcle 1, Section 8 to nullify or limit the Fourth Amendment (which has never been repealed nor amended.) And in any case the Eighteenth Amendment which gave Congress the power to prohibit "intoxicating liquors", under which authority Carrol was searched and seized (1) is repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, and (2) applied to "intoxicating liquors", of which "weed" is not one! Carrol's application here is tenuous at best.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 3942910, member: 5183"] Carrol is absurdly reasoned, by the way. "[I]Held:[/I] (a) That the primary purpose is the seizure and destruction of the contraband liquor, and the provisions for forfeiture of the vehicle and arrest of the transporter are merely incidental. P. [URL='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/132/#153']267 U. S. 153[/URL]." This argument supposes that a statute against "contraband" renders the forteiture of the vehicle and arrest of the person merely incidental! As though the "contraband" is more imperative than the person, who no longer has the right to be secure in his person against such search and seizure! The obvious question is whether the Congress has the power under Artcle 1, Section 8 to nullify or limit the Fourth Amendment (which has never been repealed nor amended.) And in any case the Eighteenth Amendment which gave Congress the power to prohibit "intoxicating liquors", under which authority Carrol was searched and seized (1) is repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, and (2) applied to "intoxicating liquors", of which "weed" is not one! Carrol's application here is tenuous at best. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom