4th Amendment ruling allows wrongfully obtained evidence

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Cross posted from another forum, I'm a little surprised CR didn't get to this first.

http://fe11.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/us/story/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_evidence

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants.

The justices split 5-4 along ideological lines to apply new limits to the court's so-called exclusionary rule, which generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizure.

Looking on the bright side, they aren't quartering troops in our homes yet. :medievalcheers:

[Strike For The South]

So do we still have a legislature? Talk about open ended language, my God.


The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges.

Huh? As an upcoming lawyer I'll read the dissenting and majority opinions and give you my take.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a difficult issue, on the one hand finding evidence that a guy is a drug lord and letting him go is bad, on the other hand use of illigally obtained evidence is not good.

Balance is key here, or a reform of your Police to increae competancy and reduce the risk of illegal evidence being obtained, illegally.

[Vladimir]

So we're becoming more like the UK now? I thought the common complaint was that the opposite is true!

[rory_20_uk]

It's a tough issue IMO.

The term is so broad that it could almost theoretically allow anything to be admitted - illegal wire taps, illegal searches etc etc.

And if the police submit evidence that they've illegally entered the suspects house, are they not admitting to a crime?

Then is that in turn OK as long as they found something (massive incentive to find something - anything - to ensure the department isn't sued), or are the police immune can go into anyone's palce or car whenever they feel like it as long as they say they're looking for something).

In cases where all but one form was signed in duplicate not triplicate and due to this the druglord gets away with the 300kg of coke I'm happy with this. It's the other areas that are far more grey. Very transparent oversight is needed - else police powers are almost without limit.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

The conservative majority
Conservatives eh :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

An overpowered police force is far more terrifying than your average drug dealer...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In cases where all but one form was signed in duplicate not triplicate and due to this the druglord gets away with the 300kg of coke I'm happy with this. It's the other areas that are far more grey. Very transparent oversight is needed - else police powers are almost without limit.

This would be my view as well. So the judgement should have included stipulations that it be a clerical technicality.

[KukriKhan]

I'm probably totally wrong but, to this old nose, this ruling smells like "paving the way" for disposing of Gitmo cases in US domestic courts, after that place is closed and we can't pawn any more detainees off on UK/Oz.

Trouble is, of course, as with all these post 9-11 extraordinary measures, how do you undo them later?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good, now it is as open-ended as a the rest of the amendments. Welcome to our nightmare.

It sounds to me like the burden is reduced slightly for law enforcement. It doesn't make sense that not including a middle name on a warrant means that an incriminating seizure done under that warrant should be thrown out.

Let not pretend that that the US legal system doesn't go out of its way to protect people who are legitimately in the wrong. This will just adjust the balance back in favor of those whom crimes have been commited against. Unless that crime was commited by the government, in which case this will aggravate the situation more thoroughtly.

We'll se how it works and take issue with it if it proves to be a source primarily ofcorruption in law enforcement rather than a rational reduction in absurd warrant requirements after they have been issued.

Judge - "I'm sorry, officer, but this warrant named the defendant as a double-ended dildo salesman - this is clearly a quad-ender and therefore the seizure is void. He goes free. Better luck next time"

[rory_20_uk]

I'm probably totally wrong but, to this old nose, this ruling smells like "paving the way" for disposing of Gitmo cases in US domestic courts, after that place is closed and we can't pawn any more detainees off on UK/Oz.

Trouble is, of course, as with all these post 9-11 extraordinary measures, how do you undo them later?

It would make the trials a lot easier - try 'em, find most guilty, sentence them to time served. The gordian knot is cut, the whole mess has been legalised.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think Kukri may be on to something, but it's important to remember that the "gitmo" crowd will mostly be executed, I believe.

[spmetla]

Well I'm against it, I don't want the police to be encouraged to make 'mistakes.'

[Lord Winter]

I think Kukri may be on to something, but it's important to remember that the "gitmo" crowd will mostly be executed, I believe.

Doubt it, it would be political suicide.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Cross posted from another forum, I'm a little surprised CR didn't get to this first.

http://fe11.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/us/story/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_evidence

Excerpt:


Looking on the bright side, they aren't quartering troops in our homes yet. :medievalcheers:

The government, of course, reserves the right to string you up for any minor infraction - "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but only for the peasants, since police seem to be allowed to do anything. ******* hypocrisy.

Oh, and funny how the AP article mentions the "conservative majority" while in the Kelo vs New London case, where the liberal judges said the government can take your house and sell it to a corporation, this AP article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/) didn't say a word about ideologies.

CR

[Tribesman]

The government, of course, reserves the right to string you up for any minor infraction - "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but only for the peasants, since police seem to be allowed to do anything. ******* hypocrisy.

Where are all those "conservatives" who saw nothing wrong with the government doing away with legal protections because it was only the bad people who had anything to worry about ?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:




Oh, and funny how the AP article mentions the "conservative majority" while in the Kelo vs New London case, where the liberal judges said the government can take your house and sell it to a corporation, this AP article didn't say a word about ideologies.

Is that because the conservative majority split on the issue so there wasn't a conservative majority in that ruling and you can't really call a non conservative minority a non conservative majority if its got conservatives in it .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is that because the conservative majority split on the issue so there wasn't a conservative majority in that ruling and you can't really call a non conservative minority a non conservative majority if its got conservatives in it .

:inquisitive:

No. In this case, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens dissented.

In Kelo vs New London, those four judges, along with the swing vote Kennedy (so there's really not a 'conservative majority') ruled in favor of the city.

The whole idea that the SCOTUS has a conservative majority when Heller was decided 5-4 is laughable.

Even if you incorrectly call Kennedy a conservative, the bias is blatant when the AP doesn't mention the 'liberalness' of 80% of the majority ruling justices in the Kelo vs New London case while labeling these judges the 'conservative majority'.

CR

[Tribesman]

Ah so Ford Reagan and the two Bushes packed the court with liberals then .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes. Rather foolishly.

Does posing that question really make you feel so clever you need to indulge in more smilie spam?

CR

[Husar]

Could you please stop mentioning his smiley spam in every post and accept it as part of his freedom of speech already?

Ok, I'm done, you can solve this court issue now. :smash:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ah so Ford Reagan and the two Bushes packed the court with liberals then .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Where have you been? They've essentially split the bill evenly.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Could you please stop mentioning his smiley spam in every post and accept it as part of his freedom of speech already?

Ok, I'm done, you can solve this court issue now. :smash:

What? That's the first time I've mentioned it this thread I believe.

Now, did you really just post in this thread only to defend tribesy's smilie spam? :inquisitive:

CR