[cyarvin]

When I click on "unreasonable searches and seizures," I get this... excellent... explanation:

This part of the Constitution is supposed to guarantee that 5-0 can’t fuck with you (unless they have “probable cause”)

But — the Conservatives found a way around this by allowing a “stop and frisk” aka “Terry stop” if cops have “reasonable suspicion” (this is why they are still allowed to fuck with you) (see Terry v. Ohio)

In an automobile, cops are often held to the “plain view” standard, although the Roberts court has recently increased their ability to fuck with you (see Beacoats v. Georgia)

Nowadays, keeping “your glove compartment locked” is not enough to protect you, as it was in the Jay-Z/Clinton era of liberal jurisprudence in criminal procedure.

While this is a wonderful text and an unimpeachable use of the technology, I can't avoid reflecting that certain initial choices of brand identification may present serious practical concerns in a prospective attempt to pivot and expand.

[bcoates]

It would be more excellent if it were factually correct. Becoats (note spelling, and no relation) v. The State is a Georgia State Supreme Court decision about search dogs that has nothing to do with the Roberts court, which has been mixed to liberal on 4th Amendment issues.

The rule about locking your glove compartment isn't because the police have less rights to search a locked glove box than an unlocked one; it's because police lie that a search was consensual when challenged, and a broken lock makes that awkward.