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

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: 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

Senseamp has no appreciation for nuance or complexity, and just likes to throw around buzzwords; "Statists!", "Apologists!", etc.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I'm on the fence. The article doesn't specify whats considered a "simple oversight" though in the example given I would agree with the ruling. Could be a slippery slope.

 

[MovingTarget]

Great. I feel much safer now that the gvt can violate my 4th amendment rights as long as they can claim (read: fabricate as) a mistake. :roll:

I feel that this only erodes our liberties without really doing much anything to protect our safety - not that one should be traded for the other anyway.

 

[theeedude]

I have no appreciation for nuance and complexity when it comes to my 4th amendment rights being held as secondary to police sloppiness. You are the one who claims to not believe into taking the bill of rights cafeteria style, yet is first here to apologize for the strict constructionists on the USSC who just did exactly that.

 

[scott916]

So how would this come into play in a situation where police, say, broke into the wrong home during a search and discovered something illegal?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have no appreciation for nuance and complexity when it comes to my 4th amendment rights being held as secondary to police sloppiness. You are the one who claims to not believe into taking the bill of rights cafeteria style, yet is first here to apologize for the strict constructionists on the USSC who just did exactly that.

I asked you above for a quote from me saying I agree with this decision, and you yet again throw out accusations without evidence. You're an absolute idiot.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: scott916
So how would this come into play in a situation where police, say, broke into the wrong home during a search and discovered something illegal?

Wasn't the prior precedent that anything discovered during an improper search (either a wrong/unconstitutional search or a "mistaken" search not specified by a warrant) was not admissible in court? They could bust you doing something illegal in your home like this, but they couldn't charge you with jack squat unless it endangered someone's immedeate life.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have no appreciation for nuance and complexity when it comes to my 4th amendment rights being held as secondary to police sloppiness. You are the one who claims to not believe into taking the bill of rights cafeteria style, yet is first here to apologize for the strict constructionists on the USSC who just did exactly that.

I asked you above for a quote from me saying I agree with this decision, and you yet again throw out accusations without evidence. You're an absolute idiot.

I am not seeing you condemn these strict constructionists either. Instead you are bashing the judges who voted against this.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: scott916
So how would this come into play in a situation where police, say, broke into the wrong home during a search and discovered something illegal?

hopefully that would be considered a "systemic error" and would be thrown out of or not admissible in court.

 

[scott916]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: scott916
So how would this come into play in a situation where police, say, broke into the wrong home during a search and discovered something illegal?

Wasn't the prior precedent that anything discovered during an improper search (either a wrong/unconstitutional search or a "mistaken" search not specified by a warrant) was not admissible in court? They could bust you doing something illegal in your home like this, but they couldn't charge you with jack squat unless it endangered someone's immedeate life.

From what I understand, anything found without probable cause to search is absolutely inadmissable. I hope to god that hasn't changed.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have no appreciation for nuance and complexity when it comes to my 4th amendment rights being held as secondary to police sloppiness. You are the one who claims to not believe into taking the bill of rights cafeteria style, yet is first here to apologize for the strict constructionists on the USSC who just did exactly that.

I asked you above for a quote from me saying I agree with this decision, and you yet again throw out accusations without evidence. You're an absolute idiot.

I am not seeing you condemn these strict constructionists either.

First, I'm not going to comment on this particular case until I read the opinion and the dissents (if any). Unlike you, some people like to think first, then speak. But more importantly, I'm not going to bash these "strict constructionists" because this ruling doesn't even sound like an application of "strict constructionist" theory, something you clearly know nothing about and just read on a website somewhere and like to repeat here. Take a few courses in the law of criminal procedure and get back to me. Like I said, you're an absolute idiot.

Instead you are bashing the judges who voted against this.

For their failures in other cases to consistently defend civil rights. Once again, nuance and complexity escape you.

 

[scott916]

Mursilis: can you comment on the scope of this decision?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: scott916

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: scott916
So how would this come into play in a situation where police, say, broke into the wrong home during a search and discovered something illegal?

Wasn't the prior precedent that anything discovered during an improper search (either a wrong/unconstitutional search or a "mistaken" search not specified by a warrant) was not admissible in court? They could bust you doing something illegal in your home like this, but they couldn't charge you with jack squat unless it endangered someone's immedeate life.

From what I understand, anything found without probable cause to search is absolutely inadmissable. I hope to god that hasn't changed.

Criminal procedure (which includes search and seizure law) is such a complicated part of constitutional law, with so many rules and exceptions, it's usually a seperate class (or classes) in most law schools. It really can't be summed up as you describe. The 4th Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Lawyers have built whole careers arguing over what "unreasonable" means.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: scott916
Mursilis: can you comment on the scope of this decision?

I really haven't read it all, so I don't want to say anything, but I have a feeling Lemon Law may be right - it will be construed narrowly in the future by lower courts. Again, that's just a guess.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: scott916
Mursilis: can you comment on the scope of this decision?

I really haven't read it all, so I don't want to say anything, but I have a feeling Lemon Law may be right - it will be construed narrowly in the future by lower courts. Again, that's just a guess.

All this guessing is why they shouldn't have passed this ruling. I can definitely see this returning to the SCOTUS very soon.

 

[scott916]

Interesting. It's good to get opinions from those who have a much better understanding of the intricacies of the law than I do.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have no appreciation for nuance and complexity when it comes to my 4th amendment rights being held as secondary to police sloppiness. You are the one who claims to not believe into taking the bill of rights cafeteria style, yet is first here to apologize for the strict constructionists on the USSC who just did exactly that.

I asked you above for a quote from me saying I agree with this decision, and you yet again throw out accusations without evidence. You're an absolute idiot.

I am not seeing you condemn these strict constructionists either.

First, I'm not going to comment on this particular case until I read the opinion and the dissents (if any). Unlike you, some people like to think first, then speak. But more importantly, I'm not going to bash these "strict constructionists" because this ruling doesn't even sound like an application of "strict constructionist" theory, something you clearly know nothing about and just read on a website somewhere and like to repeat here. Take a few courses in the law of criminal procedure and get back to me. Like I said, you're an absolute idiot.

Instead you are bashing the judges who voted against this.

For their failures in other cases to consistently defend civil rights. Once again, nuance and complexity escape you.

There is no civil right against eminent domain. There is a Fourth Amendment right. Plus the strict constructionist position would be to reserve to the states the right to decide eminent domain cases, just like they want the states to decide reproductive rights. It's the "strict constructionists" who are inconsistent when it comes to the judiciary. On one hand they want it to stay out when they violate other people's rights, but on the other hand, they are the first to come crying when they feel their rights are being violated.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

Oops, I guess we forgot to update this warrant that was issued 17 years ago. We swear, we really thought we could ransack your house weekly just waiting to find something illegal.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

You mean like Democrats trash the 2nd?

Yeah, I thought so.

 

[Xavier434]

This one is too slippery for me. I think I would rather the evidence be dismissed even if though it seems like the guy is indeed a criminal. I don't like letting people go who are caught red handed, but I think that it is for the best in this case.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

while I am not a lawyer, I did previously take some con. law classes in political science, and what struck me in skimming the OP and the posts is that there seems to be a lack of awareness that the exclusionary rule, like Miranda rights, have limitations. The relevant example for the exclusionary rule seems to be the "good faith exception" which allows evidence that were discovered based on harmless or minor errors.

I will admit, though, that the dissenters have a point in fretting over the deterrent value in suppressing evidence. To what extent should errors affect the admission of evidence at trials and result in law enforcement blunders allowing criminals to go free? Harmless, non-malicious errors?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: scott916
So how would this come into play in a situation where police, say, broke into the wrong home during a search and discovered something illegal?

hopefully that would be considered a "systemic error" and would be thrown out of or not admissible in court.

Where do you get the "hopefully" out of that?

There is nothing inherently systemic about "mistakenly" breaking into the wrong house.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: scott916
So how would this come into play in a situation where police, say, broke into the wrong home during a search and discovered something illegal?

hopefully that would be considered a "systemic error" and would be thrown out of or not admissible in court.

Where do you get the "hopefully" out of that?

There is nothing inherently systemic about "mistakenly" breaking into the wrong house.

Really? So lets say the police have a very strong case against your neighbor which fully supports issuing a warrant to search his home. Now, lets say some "creative" officer is pretty sure you're up to no good as well. He "mistakenly" puts your street number on the warrant and your house is searched. Low and behold, unbeknownst to you, your neighbor had some of his illegal activities/products stored in your back shed. Well, now you're caught red handed and that evidence is admissible due to a "clerical error" which indicated they had the right to search your premises in the first place. That doesn't sit poorly in the pit of your stomach? This ruling, on the surface, appears to be nothing more than an easy way to obtain evidence when probable cause for a warrant doesn't exist. Oops, a warrant was put into the system prior to actually being approved by a judge. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 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

Senseamp has no appreciation for nuance or complexity, and just likes to throw around buzzwords; "Statists!", "Apologists!", etc.

You did not show much appreciation for nuance either, when you responded to his statement about what strict constructionists 'almost' always do with one exception.

The old saying 'the exception that proves the rule' never made a lot of sense to me, but it makes about as much sense here as anywhere I've seen.

Perhaps you have a great case to make why he's wrong in his generalization about strict constructionists, but you know that generalities are not disproven with an anecdote.

On another topic, congrats on finding one of the few P. J. O'Rourke quotes that's reasonable.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: scott916
Mursilis: can you comment on the scope of this decision?

I really haven't read it all, so I don't want to say anything, but I have a feeling Lemon Law may be right - it will be construed narrowly in the future by lower courts. Again, that's just a guess.

IMO the application of "mistaken" searches in the coming years will determine whether the SC revisits the issue. They've done similar things before where the practical results of a ruling were such that they flipped on the issue not too many years after the initial ruling.

The issue in future cases featuring some mistake by police will center around whether the police error was simply "negligence" as opposed to "reckless disregard of constitutional requirements." State and federal case law will expound upon this in the coming years, and left leaning judges will probably be more likely to exclude evidence due to error while right leaning judges will find the mistakes mere negligence. But on the whole I expect all judges will do their level best to fit the error before them into the standard set by the SC.

For the record, I side with the Court minority on this one, as I believe the potential for widespread abuse and moral hazard attendant with handing a "yeah so?" card to careless cops outweighs the potential number of should-be criminals getting acquitted due to excluded evidence.