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

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: 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).

I'm left wondering what the disincentive to conduct illegal searches will be now.

 

[halik]

What's stopping cops from making these 'simple mistakes' to do searches?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: halik
What's stopping cops from making these 'simple mistakes' to do searches?

Looks like nothing now.

 

[MadRat]

Cops always have a way of making simple mistakes when its an error in their favor. But by God, when its not in their favor look out! This new ruling will only be abused. Roberts once again shows his naivety. We need ti recall him and let in a new Chief Justice. Damn, we don't have a right to do that...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Roberts once again shows his naivety. We need ti recall him and let in a new Chief Justice. Damn, we don't have a right to do that...

It's not naivete. It's his ideology deceitfully implemented, IMO. He's long been the shark, the 'charismatic' lawyer who has the wrong agenda, IMO.

Unfortunately, we had our chance to stop him, as I wanted to, but he was confirmed and with Bush specifically picking him to be younger, for a long time. Bush's legal legacy.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

as i see it, there's a limit to the disincentive an exclusionary rule can serve absent systematic flaws, misconduct, malicious conduct, etc. If there was no "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule (which, mind you, existed prior to this ruling), then the law would make no distinction between conduct that resulted from law enforcement who acted 'in good faith' and conduct from grossly negligent or malicious law enforcement.

a judge years ago posed the question, "should the criminal go free because the constable blundered?". suppressing the evidence because of the officers' conduct when they had no reason to disbelieve the information they were mistakenly given merely penalizes the criminal, while failing to deter malicious/grossly negligent etc. law enforcement conduct.

as (another) judge pointed out, malicious/negligent law enforcement behavior that resulted in illegal searches and seizures can be deterred by punishing such conduct.

 

[1prophet]

Question: Imagine if the police found 80 pounds of heroin and cocaine in the back of a car that a Federal judge ruled to be an illegal search, should the evidence be disregarded?

Answer: Not if the President of the United States tells him he better reverse his decision and he does.

CLINTON PRESSING JUDGE TO RELENT

The White House put a Federal judge on public notice today that if he did not reverse a widely criticized decision throwing out drug evidence, the President might ask for his resignation.

The remarks about Judge Harold Baer Jr. of the Southern District of New York, made by the White House press secretary, Michael D. McCurry, at his daily briefing, came as Republicans made it clear that they intended to make President Clinton's judicial appointees a major issue in the Presidential race.

We are scouring every aspect of Clinton's record, and that's certainly one area we're looking at," said Ed Gillespie, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

Judicial appointees have long been a campaign issue used by the two parties, because judges remain on the bench long after the President who appointed them is gone.

Judge Baer, named to the bench by Mr. Clinton in 1994, has become the Republicans' first cause celebre of the Presidential campaign because of his decision to throw out as evidence 80 pounds of cocaine and heroin that police officers seized from the trunk of a car in Washington Heights last year.

The judge ruled that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to pull over the driver when they observed four men approach a car at 5 A.M. and drop off several bags in the trunk. He said that fleeing the police was not suspicious behavior in Washington Heights, a neighborhood that he said was known for corrupt and violent police officers.

Judge Harold Baer Jr and the decision that made him famous.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: 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.

Good!

 

[manowar821]

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.

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: 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.

Good!

Wow, that's a fuckin laugh.

Edit: And so is that.

 

[IGBT]

..good. that should put some of you's dopers and drugies in a cold sweat.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: senseamp
There is no civil right against eminent domain.

:boggle;

 

[TheVrolok]

Narrow scope in this instance .. but a bad precedent and I imagine it'll be overturned.