U.S. prosecutors and F.B.I. admit they withheld evidence in Steven's case. We invite Attorney General Eric Holder to come in and crawl up our ass with a microscope, because there you can find factual proof that U.S. prosecutors and F.B.I. withheld evidence of crimes and also lied to cover them up.
Excuse us for mentioning this but inside our site, they did a whole lot worse then that to us, like censorship, and extortion and more, and then they covered it up.
THE SUPREMES:
Supreme Court scales back police right to search cars.
The ruling limits searches to cases when there may be a weapon within the suspect's reach or evidence related to the arrest. The decision sets aside broader powers granted by the court in 1981.
By David G. Savage
7:06 PM PDT, April 21, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court put a new limit on police searches of cars Tuesday, saying that "countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation" have had their vehicles searched in violation of their rights.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices set aside a 1981 opinion that had given police broad authority to search cars whenever they made an arrest.
Instead, the justices said that an arresting officer could search a vehicle only if weapons were potentially in reach of the suspect or if there was reason to believe that the car contained evidence related to the arrest. For example, if the driver was arrested in a drug crime, the car could be searched for drugs.
Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the court, said that merely arresting a driver does not "provide a police entitlement" to search the vehicle without a warrant.
He said the court's past rulings had given police too much leeway, allowing them to search cars even when there was no threat to the officers' safety. For example, if a motorist was handcuffed and put in a patrol car, there was no danger that he could reach for a weapon that might be hidden in his car.
The lineup behind Stevens was unusual. Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg formed the majority.
The case arose when Rodney Gant was arrested in Tucson for driving with a suspended license. His car was parked in his driveway, and officers handcuffed Gant and put him in a patrol car. Then they searched the car and found a gun and cocaine in a jacket in the back seat.
Gant was convicted on drug charges, but the Arizona Supreme Court threw out evidence on the grounds that the search of his car without a warrant was unreasonable.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision Tuesday in Arizona vs. Gant.
The dissenters, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said the court should have stuck with the old rule that permitted searches of a vehicle whenever a driver or an occupant was arrested.
