The judiciary, lawyers, NORML, ACLU do not recognize marijuana users as person and marijuana as property thereby denying equal protection of the law, the Bill of Rights

 

 

AMENDMENT IV

 

 

The first part of Amendment IV refers to the reasonableness of the law that authorizes the use of police power to search and seize your house, person, papers, and effects for violating the marijuana laws.

 

Amendment IV: “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 search, and the persons or things to be seized.”

 

 
We specifically held in Mapp that this constitutional prohibition is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, " by the application of the same constitutional standard prohibiting "unreasonable [374 U.S. 23, 31] searches and seizures." Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 30 (1963), >[367 U.S. 643, 655]
 

The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, ….."protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 2 (1968)."what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968) >[364 U.S. 206, 222] [116 U.S. 616, 641]

 

A "seizure" triggering the Fourth Amendment's protections occurs only when government actors have, by “means of physical force or show of authority, . . . in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16 (1968). A full custodial arrest is …a severe intrusion on an individual's liberty, its reasonableness hinges on "the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999).

 

It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13

 

Reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

 

The Fourth Amendment’s first clause provides that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” There are two types of expectations provided by this text, one involving searches, the other seizures. “A ‘search’ occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. A ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).

 

“The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511(1961).

 

The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, ….."protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 2 (1968)."what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968) >[364 U.S. 206, 222] [116 U.S. 616, 641]

 

“[T] he central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment … the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968).

 

392 U.S. 1, 10 “The heart of the Fourth Amendment… is a severe requirement of specific justification for any intrusion upon protected personal security, coupled with a highly developed system of judicial controls to enforce upon the agents of the State the commands of the Constitution.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 10,11 (1968)

 

[506 U.S. 56, 70] The construction and constitutionality (of criminal marijuana laws) laws should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process test. …It is more "explicit textual source of constitutional protection" over the "more generalized notion of `substantive due process.'"….The Fourth Amendment's specific protection for "houses, papers, and [506 U.S. 56, 71] effects," rather than the general protection of property in the Due Process Clause. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 70 (1992).

 

The Fourth Amendment's provides specific protection for ‘houses, papers, and effects.’ ” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 70(1992

 

The Fourth Amendment is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. ….. ." Soldal v. Cook County,506 U.S. 56, 61 , (1992)

 

(a) …..this Court's cases unmistakably hold that the [4th] Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not implicated. ….Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 56 (1992)

This court previous cases “hold that seizures of property are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny even though no search within the meaning of the Amendment has taken place.” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 68 (1992).

 

"at the very core" of the Fourth Amendment "stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home." Soldal v. Cook County,506 U.S. 56, 61 , (1992).

 

(a) …..this Court's cases unmistakably hold that the [4th] Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not implicated. ….Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 56 (1992)


A ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference Fourth Amendment found easy acceptance in the Supreme Court Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616, 627

 

 

 

 

Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal