REVISITING STA-PUF'S MORONIC CLAIM !!!

The blogger remains astounded, in fact, stunned by the level of STA-PUF KERN'S outright STUPIDITY!

In fact, STA-PUF'S moronic claim is so OUTRAGEOUS that it merits another visit!

On Page 8 of his recent brief, filed with the Ninth District Court of Appeals, STA-PUF claimed:

"THE COMPLAINT DOUBLES AS THE AFFIDAVIT BECAUSE IT IS A SWORN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE CHARGED ACT."

 The blogger referenced this claim, in a broader context in a prior post at this blog, captioned STA-PUF KERN IS OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY CHALLENGED ! found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2013/01/sta-puf-kern-is-obviously-mentally.html

This is such a patently STUPID claim that it is worthy of examining what the Supreme Court of the United States has to say about it. 

What STA-PUF alleges is that it is perfectly correct and proper for an office to simply swear that an accused person violated a specific offense, and nothing further !!!

As has already been shown, contrary to STA-PUF'S moronic claim, the Fourth Amendment to the United States specifically provides, "NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION." 

Setting aside for a moment the law of the land, the United States Constitution, which STA-PUF has obviously NEVER READ, the United States Supreme Court, with which STA-PUF appears to be unfamiliar, has examined this very issue . . . IN 1971, A MERE 42 YEARS AGO !!!

In 19771, the United States Supreme Court decided Whiteley v Warden of the Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560 (1971).  The Whiteley case is similar to the case being profiled at this blog, and can be found at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/560/

The following is taken directly from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Whiteley case:

Syllabus

A sheriff, acting on a tip, made a complaint before a magistrate charging that petitioner and another individual on the date and at the place named "did then and there unlawfully break and enter into [the described] locked . . . building," and a warrant was issued.

Held:

1. Petitioner's arrest violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the evidence secured incident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Pp. 401 U. S. 564-569.

(a) The complaint, which did not mention that the sheriff acted on an informer's tip, and which consisted of no more than the sheriff's conclusion that the individuals named committed the offense, could not support the independent judgment of a disinterested magistrate. P. 401 U. S. 565
.
(b) The standards applicable to the factual basis for an arresting officer's probable cause assessment are no less strict than those applicable to the magistrate's assessment. Here, the arresting officer had no information to corroborate the report that the suspects had committed the crime and the fact that the warrantless arrest was based on a police radio bulletin cannot supply the element of probable cause that the officer who issued the bulletin lacked. Pp. 401 U. S. 565-567.

2. Since, notwithstanding petitioner's constitutional challenge at each stage, respondent made no attempt to show that the magistrate had more information than was presented in the complaint, he may not attempt to do so now on remand; and the writ must issue unless the State appropriately arranges to retry the petitioner. P. 401 U. S. 569.

The precise language of the "complaint" in the Whiteley case :

"I, C. W. Ogburn, do solemnly swear that, on or about the 23 day of November, A.D. 1964, in the County of Carbon and State of Wyoming, the said Harold Whiteley and Jack Daley, defendants, did then and there unlawfully break and enter a locked and sealed building [describing the location and ownership of the building]."

THAT'S  THE EXTENT OF IT !  MARKEDLY SIMILAR TO THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE "COMPLAINT" FILED BY DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG.

IT HAS NOT GONE UNNOTICED THAT A SHERIFF'S OFFICER, IN BOTH CASES, FILED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE "COMPLAINT, " AND NOT BY PROPERLY TRAINED, COMPETENT, AND QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL POLICE OFFICERS!


Just what did the United States Supreme Court have to say about the need to observe the requirements of the Fourth Amendment pertaining to the issuance of arrest and search warrants?  Let's see:

"The decisions of this Court concerning Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements before a warrant for either arrest or search can issue require that the judicial officer issuing such a warrant be supplied with sufficient information to support an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the warrant. [Footnote 6] Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102 (1965); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964); Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U. S. 528 (1964); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480 (1958)."

In deciding the Whiteley case, the U.S. Supreme Court observed:

In the instant case -- so far as the record stipulated to by the parties reveals  -- the sole support for the arrest warrant issued at Sheriff Ogburn's request was the complaint reproduced above.  That complaint consists of nothing more than the complainant's conclusion that the individuals named therein perpetrated the offense described in the complaint. The actual basis for Sheriff Ogburn's conclusion was an informer's tip, but that fact, as well as every other operative fact, is omitted from the complaint. Under the cases just cited, that document alone could not support the independent judgment of a disinterested magistrate.

In sum, the complaint on which the warrant issued here clearly could not support a finding of probable cause by the issuing magistrate.
  

"Therefore, petitioner's arrest violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; the evidence secured as an incident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961)."

It is clearly obvious that STA-PUF KERN, like LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, have failed to read and apply Whiteley and other controlling cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, IF THEY CAN READ AT ALL !!!