Evidence found during an illegal search can now be used to prosecute you

[Quiksilver]

Yahoo Article

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.

-------------------------------------
OP Commentary is missing

Senior Anadntech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[Brainonska511]

That's ridiculous. Disavowing evidence because of illegal search practices sucks in some ways, but I'd rather the evidence be tossed to keep agents of the government doing things by the numbers instead of being able to do what they want (and subsequently only getting a slap on the wrist).

 

[Farang]

This sets a dangerous precedent. I understand they were very different cases but the Bush v Gore comes to mind, where the court tries to address a single instance and it can't help but spreading like wildfire. This case should have never been accepted because it is skewed too much against the exclusionary rule while having broad implications towards its use.

 

[JEDIYoda]

My God!! You kiddies didn`t even read the article did you?????????

The Op`s title is very mis-leading.....


Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's deputies found amphetamines in Herring's pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff's computers had not been updated.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements

Herring was arrested after a Coffee sheriff's employee asked her counterpart in Dale County whether Herring, called "no stranger to law enforcement" by Roberts, was wanted in Dale. An arrest warrant had been issued in Dale, but it had been recalled by July 2004.

The sheriff's electronic records, however, showed it was still a valid warrant.

Acting on that information, Coffee County deputies arrested and searched Herring.

The Dale employee meanwhile discovered the warrant was no longer valid and called Coffee County to say so. But it was too late for Herring.

Some courts have ruled that as a deterrent to police misconduct, the fruits of a similar search may be excluded from evidence.

But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in Herring's case would be unlikely to deter sloppy record keeping.

 

[smack Down]

How is failing to keep a database update not either systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements?

 

[MotF Bane]

So your civil rights now pay for police negligence? :/

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: smack Down
How is failing to keep a database update not either systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements?

I think by systemic error he'd mean something like an unreliable method for determining warrants being part of the system so this happened a lot, not a one-off mistake.

By reckless disregard of constitutional protections, I think he means where protections are just ignored intentionally, not a one-off clerical error like this.

Haivng said that, I think this is wrong. The constitution guarantees a protection needing a warrant, and there was no warrant, so end of story, the search was unconstitutional.

As innocent as it sounds, as outrages as the public gets about people getting out of crimes on technicalities, the bottom line are the protections of civil rights.

 

[Fern]

Marked for later

 

[n yusef]

Maybe I'm irrational, but I fear police using this verdict to perform illegal searches and claim they made "mistakes" when you see them in court. It's very hard to prove something was not a "mistake."

 

[theeedude]

That's strict constructionism for ya. Hopefully Obama will appoint some good judges who actually respect people's civil rights.

 

[kylebisme]

Great, police can now ignore the recall of any warrants they like, effectively denying the civil rights of anyone who ever had a warrant against them. All they have to do is make it look like a "mistake."

Why don't we just cut to the chase and strip the civil rights of anyone who has ever been accused of a crime? At least that would be the honest way to go about it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
My God!! You kiddies didn`t even read the article did you?????????

The Op`s title is very mis-leading.....


Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's deputies found amphetamines in Herring's pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff's computers had not been updated.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements

Herring was arrested after a Coffee sheriff's employee asked her counterpart in Dale County whether Herring, called "no stranger to law enforcement" by Roberts, was wanted in Dale. An arrest warrant had been issued in Dale, but it had been recalled by July 2004.

The sheriff's electronic records, however, showed it was still a valid warrant.

Acting on that information, Coffee County deputies arrested and searched Herring.

The Dale employee meanwhile discovered the warrant was no longer valid and called Coffee County to say so. But it was too late for Herring.

Some courts have ruled that as a deterrent to police misconduct, the fruits of a similar search may be excluded from evidence.

But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in Herring's case would be unlikely to deter sloppy record keeping.

You're trying too hard when we all know that this will lead to a slippery slope. Not good.

 

[Lemon law]

In any larger analysis, it was a bare majority 5-4 decision, it goes against many prior SC decisions, and is fairly narrow in scope.

I will hazard a guess, once the makeup of the court turns more probably liberal during and post the Obama administration, this and many recent SC decisions will be either watered down in later SC cases, or the SC
will completely reverse itself as it did in Brown v. Board of education and other decisions. In short, I would not count on it being permanent, but then again, all of our crystal balls are cloudy.

But IMHO, give the five Justices who voted for this, very big dope slaps, and they will become the judicial villains of our generation. And they will soon buried under a mountain of appeals demanding its clarification.

Respect for the legal profession takes a nosedive.

 

[theeedude]

This is why Bush's legacy will hurt this country for a long time to come. Those judges are there to take away your constitutional rights if they can find an excuse to do so.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: senseamp
This is why Bush's legacy will hurt this country for a long time to come. Those judges are there to take away your constitutional rights if they can find an excuse to do so.

You'd think the "conservative" camp of the SCOTUS would've shot this down...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: senseamp
This is why Bush's legacy will hurt this country for a long time to come. Those judges are there to take away your constitutional rights if they can find an excuse to do so.

You'd think the "conservative" camp of the SCOTUS would've shot this down...

Strict constructionists almost always side with the state against the individual. How many Americans died fighting for the constitutional rights these losers just throw away willy nilly?

 

[Zebo]

In general most judges at statists, sideing with the state not the people not constructionists at all- remember the eminent domain case?

Judge Thomas is a rarity and IMO the best SC judge ever almost always with constitutional rights and not wild interpretations he screwed up here.🙁

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's strict constructionism for ya. Hopefully Obama will appoint some good judges who actually respect people's civil rights.

And not just some civil rights - all of them. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter weren't all that interested in upholding civil rights in Heller, Kelo, or McConnell.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Zebo
In general most judges at statists, sideing with the state not the people not constructionists at all- remember the eminent domain case?

Judge Thomas is a rarity and IMO the best SC judge ever almost always with constitutional rights and not wild interpretations he screwed up here.🙁

Huh? You joking? He sided with Majority here. And he's one of the biggest statists there.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: senseamp
This is why Bush's legacy will hurt this country for a long time to come. Those judges are there to take away your constitutional rights if they can find an excuse to do so.

You'd think the "conservative" camp of the SCOTUS would've shot this down...

Strict constructionists almost always side with the state against the individual. How many Americans died fighting for the constitutional rights these losers just throw away willy nilly?

You're such a mindless partisan hack, it's just sad. Who sided with the state in Heller?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: senseamp
This is why Bush's legacy will hurt this country for a long time to come. Those judges are there to take away your constitutional rights if they can find an excuse to do so.

You'd think the "conservative" camp of the SCOTUS would've shot this down...

Strict constructionists almost always side with the state against the individual. How many Americans died fighting for the constitutional rights these losers just throw away willy nilly?

You're such a mindless partisan hack, it's just sad. Who sided with the state in Heller?

Are you a strict constructionist apologist?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: senseamp
This is why Bush's legacy will hurt this country for a long time to come. Those judges are there to take away your constitutional rights if they can find an excuse to do so.

You'd think the "conservative" camp of the SCOTUS would've shot this down...

Strict constructionists almost always side with the state against the individual. How many Americans died fighting for the constitutional rights these losers just throw away willy nilly?

You're such a mindless partisan hack, it's just sad. Who sided with the state in Heller?

Are you a strict constructionist apologist?

No, I'm a practicing attorney with a far deeper appreciation for the law than you'll ever have. And I don't believe in taking the Bill of Rights cafeteria-style.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: senseamp
This is why Bush's legacy will hurt this country for a long time to come. Those judges are there to take away your constitutional rights if they can find an excuse to do so.

You'd think the "conservative" camp of the SCOTUS would've shot this down...

Strict constructionists almost always side with the state against the individual. How many Americans died fighting for the constitutional rights these losers just throw away willy nilly?

You're such a mindless partisan hack, it's just sad. Who sided with the state in Heller?

Are you a strict constructionist apologist?

No, I'm a practicing attorney with a far deeper appreciation for the law than you'll ever have. And I don't believe in taking the Bill of Rights cafeteria-style.

Yeah, except you are an apologist for those who throw the 4th Amendment in the trash when they feel like it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Yeah, except you are an apologist for those who throw the 4th Amendment in the trash when they feel like it.

Really? And your proof of this accusation? Or are you following your usual practice, of typing first and thinking later (if ever)?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Zebo
In general most judges at statists, sideing with the state not the people not constructionists at all- remember the eminent domain case?

Judge Thomas is a rarity and IMO the best SC judge ever almost always with constitutional rights and not wild interpretations he screwed up here.🙁

Huh? You joking? He sided with Majority here. And he's one of the biggest statists there.

Not at all read is opinions. I said he made a mistake here...and has a little jack boot lover in him unfortunately but overall a strict constructionist.

"Among the present Supreme Court, Thomas is typically the second most likely to uphold free speech claims (tied with David Souter), as of 2002.[68] He has voted in favor of First Amendment claims in cases involving a wide variety of issues, including pornography, campaign contributions, political leafletting, religious speech, and commercial speech."

"Justice Thomas was among the dissenters in both Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, which held that the Constitution prohibited the application of the death penalty to certain classes of persons."

"he was in the majority in Kyllo v. United States, which held that the use of thermal imaging technology to probe a suspect's home, without a warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment."

ETC