Chief Justice Roberts Urges State Courts To Violate 4th Amendment

Check out the absurd logic used by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts in his desperate attempt to destroy the 4th Amendment.

Chief Justice says Virginia court ruling on drunk driving could have dangerous consequences

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out in vain Tuesday against a lower court ruling he says will “grant drunk drivers ‘one free swerve’” that could potentially end someone’s life.

Roberts wanted the Supreme Court to review the lower court ruling but he failed to persuade enough of his colleagues. The court declined to hear an appeal from Virginia officials who had their drunk driving conviction of Joseph A. Moses Harris, Jr. thrown out by that state’s Supreme Court. Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

The majority of the justices did not say why they did not take the case, but Roberts in a written dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Virginia court’s decision will put people in danger.

“The decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road — by which time it may be too late,” Roberts wrote.

Couldn’t the same logic – that “it may be too late” then be applied to everything? “We have to, without probable cause, search everyone to see if they have a gun because if we don’t, it may be too late”. Imagine if Justice Roberts had said that! What would the reaction have been then?

Roberts noted that close to 13,000 people die in alcohol-related car crashes a year, which equals to one death every 40 minutes.

Tragic, but does it justify destroying the 4th Amendment? I don’t think so.

Roberts said a majority of the courts have said it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure to pull over drunk drivers based on anonymous tips from programs like the “Drunk Busters Hotline.”

But some courts, including some in Wyoming, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have agreed with Virginia in saying that police must see a traffic violation before pulling over a suspected drunk driver based on an anonymous tip.

The Supreme Court should have stepped in and made the rule clear, Roberts said.

More clear? What’s unclear about the idea that you need probable cause to pull someone over?

“The stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers ‘one free swerve’ before they can be legally pulled over by police,” Roberts said. “It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check.”

Absurd logic. What does Justice Roberts propose? Pull over everyone for no reason to stop some potential drunk drivers?

If that’s correct and the Fourth Amendment bans the use of anonymous tips on drunk drivers without police verification, “the dangerous consequences of this rule are unavoidable,” Roberts said.

The only dangerous consequences of this case, Justice, is when one man decides that he is going to try and destroy our Constitutional protections. Better luck next time.