Recent Supreme Court ruling

[Craig234]

You're a felon driving down the road with a gun hidden in your car.

Using the good judgment that made you a felon, you break a traffic law and are pulled over.

Getting out of your car as instructed, you smile about the 4th amendment protecting you from 'unreasonable search and seizure', so you'll get a ticket and the gun stays hidden.

Not so fast. Using the current law, the officers find grounds for searching your car, find the gun, and you go to jail for the gun violation.

But then there's a development. The grounds the officers used to justify searching your car are found to be unconstitutional (in an unrelated case), and no longer valid.

If you were pulled over today, you would not have your car searched. So, if it's now unconstitutional, it was really unconstitutional then, right?

So, shouldn't the exclusionary rule exclude that unconstitutionally obtained evidence, and get you out?

Well, good question for the Supreme Court; good enough that the Justices didn't all agree on the answer, 7-2. The majority said, 'tough luck, it was on good faith at the time'.

Interesting issue. On the one hand, 'justice was done' that you got caught, but that can be said about any unconstitutional search that finds evidence.

On the other, there you are remaining in prison for being treated in what turned out to be violation of the constitution.

I suspect people will fall largely on ideological grounds on this.

Should you have gone free when the grounds for the search were found unconstitutional?

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/davis-v-united-states?wpmp_switcher=desktop

 

[woolfe9999]

I have to disagree with the majority opinion on this one. Constitutional rights belong to citizens. If those rights are taken away, the intent of the infringer is not relevant because the rights have still been taken away. The intent of the infringer would only be relevant if the purpose of the Constitutional provision was to punish an infringer, but that isn't the purpose. The purpose is to protect the citizen from infringement.

 

[bfdd]

I'm super confused... Are we saying that unconstitutionally derived evidence is to be thrown out? If so I agree and any PREVIOUS cases in which someone was found guilty due to said "unconstitutionally derived evidence" should be released.

 

[Infohawk]

Does anyone else hate the way Craig starts threads? Vague titles that don't tell you enough about what's in the story... horribly structured walls of text (why did he have to start a new paragraph after each sentence)... come on.

 

[bfdd]

Does anyone else hate the way Craig starts threads? Vague titles that don't tell you enough about what's in the story... horribly structured walls of text (why did he have to start a new paragraph after each sentence)... come on.

That and I just don't have enough time to digest the PDF on the link he posted right now so I'm terribly confused lol.

 

[Craig234]

I have to disagree with the majority opinion on this one. Constitutional rights belong to citizens. If those rights are taken away, the intent of the infringer is not relevant because the rights have still been taken away. The intent of the infringer would only be relevant if the purpose of the Constitutional provision was to punish an infringer, but that isn't the purpose. The purpose is to protect the citizen from infringement.

Yes, the 'good faith' exception seems to come up a lot in cases about the exclusionary rule.

The question seems to be if it's being used by opponents to carve out exceptions as large as they can because of larger opposition to the rule.

I sympathize with your position, that rights make sense to grant retroactively (while punishments of course do not). Haven't reached an opinion yet, though.

 

[Fern]

I haven't read the case, but at this time I agree with Woolfe9999 and bfdd.

Odd ruling, and unexpected too.

Edit: Noticed this in the ruling:

The remedy of exclusion does not automatically follow from a Fourth Amendment violation, see Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 13, and applies only where its “purposeis effectively advanced,”

Welp, I thought it did. I'm now gonna go with bfdd and say I'm confused too.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

Does anyone else hate the way Craig starts threads? Vague titles that don't tell you enough about what's in the story... horribly structured walls of text (why did he have to start a new paragraph after each sentence)... come on.

The thread title is vague here, but his explanation flows pretty well in this case. I followed it quite easily. He does tend to use extremely short paragraphs, but it's far better than lumping everything into the same paragraph.

 

[werepossum]

I followed his explanation okay. Personally if the prevailing ruling at the time of the search was that the search was legal, then the evidence should stand.

As a conservative, my concerns about Constitutionality are that our rights be preserved but also that the guilty are caught and punished. I'm not real big on throwing back the criminals just because we inadvertently violated some sense of fair chase, just follow the rules from now on.

 

[JTsyo]

Does that mean after Roe v Wade parents get to go back and kill the kids they wanted to abort? I think the good faith clause makes sense. If the police did what they were allowed to do at the time, then it's fine. If what changed was the ground of the actual crime, then I could see them letting him go. Example: SC rules that denying felons firearms permits is unconstitutional, then the guy gets out.

 

[Gooberlx2]

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fourth Amendment protects the right to be free
from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” but it is silent
about how this right is to be enforced. To supplement
the bare text, this Court created the exclusionary rule, a
deterrent sanction that bars the prosecution from intro
ducing evidence obtained by way of a Fourth Amendment
violation. The question here is whether to apply this
sanction when the police conduct a search in compliance
with binding precedent that is later overruled. Because
suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct
in these circumstances, and because it would come at a
high cost to both the truth and the public safety, we hold
that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance
on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the
exclusionary rule.

It is an interesting argument. The conduct (not misconduct) at the time followed prevailing constitutional thought. In the OP's example, a crime was in fact committed and conviction served due to evidence found from a search that was considered constitutionally sound at the time. Despite the fact that constitutional opinions changed since conviction, the proven truth remains that the crime (and still a crime) was committed.

 

[Darwin333]

Should you have gone free when the grounds for the search were found unconstitutional?

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/davis-v-united-states?wpmp_switcher=desktop

Absolutely 100% yes that person should be set free.

I do not only agree with our rights and the constitution just when they benefit me. IMO, there is no grey area when it comes to our rights, you either believe we have them or you believe we don't/shouldn't.

 

[Darwin333]

It is an interesting argument. The conduct (not misconduct) at the time followed prevailing constitutional thought. In the OP's example, a crime was in fact committed and conviction served. Despite the fact that constitutional opinions changed since conviction, the proven truth remains that the crime (and still a crime) was committed.

Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The only relevant part was should the evidence of that crime, which has been ruled a violation of constitutional rights, be admissible in court.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The only relevant part was should the evidence of that crime, which has been ruled a violation of constitutional rights, be admissible in court.

Not so fast. Using the current law, the officers find grounds for searching your car, find the gun, and you go to jail for the gun violation.

But then there's a development. The grounds the officers used to justify searching your car are found to be unconstitutional (in an unrelated case), and no longer valid.

If you were pulled over today, you would not have your car searched. So, if it's now unconstitutional, it was really unconstitutional then, right?

So, shouldn't the exclusionary rule exclude that unconstitutionally obtained evidence, and get you out?

Actually, it's completely relevant to this discussion as OP was asking about overturning a conviction. If the prevailing constitutional opinion suddenly changes mid-trial....well I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Craig234]

It appears that the central issue here is differing views on the exclusionary rule.

Many of us base our position on the rights of the citizen. If their rights were violated, in hindsight, then the penalty they pay for that should no longer be paid.

However, the courts have written a much narrower purpose - though they admit different courts have ruled differently.

They say that the exclusionary rule is an 'extreme remedy' that should only be applied for the purpose of deterring wrongdoing by law enforcement - and even then only when the benefits of that deterrence outweigh the costs of the exclusion. So, they don't buy into the whole 'protecting your rights retroactively idea'.

I found the following appellate decision for this case, defending the narrow ruling.

“[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right”; it “applies only where it
‘result in appreciable deterrence,’” and “the benefits of deterrence must
outweigh the costs.” Herring v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 695, 700 (2009)
(quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 909) (alteration in original).7 Whether to suppress
evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search thus “turns on the culpability of
the police and the potential of exclusion to deter wrongful police conduct.” Id. at
698. Because the exclusionary rule “cannot be expected, and should not be
applied, to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity,” the Supreme
Court has established an exception to the rule’s application for cases in which the
officers who conducted an illegal search “acted in the objectively reasonable belief
that their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 919.
The Court has gradually expanded this good-faith exception to
accommodate objectively reasonable police reliance on: subsequently invalidated
search warrants, Leon, 468 U.S. 897; subsequently invalidated statutes, Illinois v.
Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987); inaccurate court records, Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1
(1995); and negligently maintained police records, Herring, 129 S. Ct. 695. In

(Footnote: 7 “The principal cost of applying the rule is, of course, letting guilty and possibly
dangerous defendants go free—something that ‘offends basic concepts of the criminal justice
system.’” Herring, 129 S. Ct. at 701 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 908). 11)

each of its decisions expanding the exception, the Court has concluded that the
unlawful police conduct at issue was neither “sufficiently deliberate that exclusion
[could] meaningfully deter it” nor “sufficiently culpable that such deterrence
[would be] worth the price paid by the justice system.” Herring, 129 S. Ct. at 702.
In this case, Sergeant Miller did not deliberately violate Davis’s
constitutional rights. Nor can he be held responsible for the unlawfulness of the
search he conducted. At the time of the search, we adhered to the broad reading of
Belton that the Supreme Court later disavowed in Gant, and a search performed in
accordance with our erroneous interpretation of Fourth Amendment law is not
culpable police conduct. Law enforcement officers in this circuit are entitled to
rely on our decisions, and “[p]enalizing the officer for the [court’s] error, rather
than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment
violations,” Leon, 468 U.S. at 921. As the Tenth Circuit explained, the general
“purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement
officers, not other entities,” and there would be little “significant deterrent effect
in excluding evidence based upon the mistakes of those uninvolved in or
attenuated from law enforcement.” McCane, 573 F.3d at 1044.
Because the exclusionary rule is justified solely by its potential to deter
police misconduct, suppressing evidence obtained from an unlawful search is
12
inappropriate when the offending officer reasonably relied on well-settled
precedent.

 

[sactoking]

I read the blog and the ruling and I have to agree with the majority on this one. First some clarification: Contrary to what was presented in the blog this case was not grated certiorari to determine whether the Gant ruling applied. If you read the opinion, after Gant the defendant's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit on Fourth Amendment grounds was successful. The Eleventh Circuit did not, however, exclude the evidence. Defendant appealed that application of Gant should automatically exclude the evidence under the Fourth Amendment.

In the majority opinion several key issues were raised:
1) Gant did modify the application of Bolton
2) The new interpretation of Bolton via Gant made the search in Davis unconstitutional
3) The original intent of Bolton was to create a deterrent to violations of the Fourth Amendment
4) The USSC has maintained that violations of the Fourth Amendment do not automatically trigger the exclusionary provision of Bolton
5) The exclusionary provision of Bolton is discretionary
6) Exclusionary redress is not a constitutional right

Applying those points here we have Davis appealing to the USSC that the Eleventh said the search was unconstitutional per Gant but that the Eleventh failed to exclude the gun per Bolton. The majority opined that exclusion under Bolton is not mandatory and since there was no mal- or misfeasance on the part of the officers, a point to which Davis agreed, exclusion would not serve the deterrent principle required under Bolton. Thus, the USSC affirmed the Eleventh's opinion that while Gant made the search a violation of the Fourth, exclusion under Bolton was not appropriate.

 

[Craig234]

Actually, it's completely relevant to this discussion as OP was asking about overturning a conviction. If the prevailing constitutional opinion suddenly changes mid-trial....well I don't know what to tell you.

I think his point - with which I agree - is that the guilt of the person is not the issue. He's guilty.

That's the case in any of these rights issues. If he wasn't guilty, there wouldn't be much to talk about, unless the officer didn't find a gun but he was convicted for one anyway.

Rather than the person's guilt, the issue is whether he should have evidence used to convict him which was obtained unconstitutionally - under a later ruling.

On a side note, apparently the person was sentenced, for lying about his name and the gun being found, to *220 months*. Yikes, that seems outrageously long.

 

[cubby1223]

Reminds me of a court case some time ago I was hearing about...

Guy driving late night, makes a right-hand turn without using the turn signal. Cop pulls him over. Cop discovers the man is drunk and arrests him. Guy gets out of the DUI because his lawyer was able to make the case he should not have been pulled over for not using his turn signal.

And former Illinois Governor George Ryan is still in jail even though (if I remember correctly) the law he was found guilty of was later deemed unconstitutional by the IL Supreme Court.

 

[sactoking]

I think his point - with which I agree - is that the guilt of the person is not the issue. He's guilty.

That's the case in any of these rights issues. If he wasn't guilty, there wouldn't be much to talk about, unless the officer didn't find a gun but he was convicted for one anyway.

Rather than the person's guilt, the issue is whether he should have evidence used to convict him which was obtained unconstitutionally - under a later ruling.

On a side note, apparently the person was sentenced, for lying about his name and the gun being found, to *220 months*. Yikes, that seems outrageously long.

He was a repeat-offender felon in possession of an illegal handgun. Those things never go over well with judges or juries for sentencing.

 

[woolfe9999]

It appears that the central issue here is differing views on the exclusionary rule.

Many of us base our decisions on the rights of the citizen. If their rights were violated, in hindsight, then the penalty they pay for that should no longer be paid.

However, the courts have written a much narrower purpose - though they admit different courts have ruled differently.

They say that the exclusionary rule is an 'extreme remedy' that should only be applied for the purpose of deterring wrongdoing by law enforcement - and even then only when the benefits of that deterrence outweigh the costs of the exclusion. So, they don't buy into the whole 'protecting your rights retroactively idea'.

I found the following appellate decision for this case, defending the narrow ruling.

Yup, that is the other side of the argument. That the exclusionary rule is for deterrence, and there is no deterrence when the police are acting in good faith. My view is that for a Constititional right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure to have meaning, the state should not be able to use any evidence obtained pursuant to such unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of the state of mind of law enforcement at the time.

The good faith exception is an attempt to balance Constitutional rights against the interests of society in prosecuting criminals. I tend to favor the Constitutional side of that equation, but that is just me.

 

[werepossum]

I read the blog and the ruling and I have to agree with the majority on this one. First some clarification: Contrary to what was presented in the blog this case was not grated certiorari to determine whether the Gant ruling applied. If you read the opinion, after Gant the defendant's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit on Fourth Amendment grounds was successful. The Eleventh Circuit did not, however, exclude the evidence. Defendant appealed that application of Gant should automatically exclude the evidence under the Fourth Amendment.

In the majority opinion several key issues were raised:
1) Gant did modify the application of Bolton
2) The new interpretation of Bolton via Gant made the search in Davis unconstitutional
3) The original intent of Bolton was to create a deterrent to violations of the Fourth Amendment
4) The USSC has maintained that violations of the Fourth Amendment do not automatically trigger the exclusionary provision of Bolton
5) The exclusionary provision of Bolton is discretionary
6) Exclusionary redress is not a constitutional right

Applying those points here we have Davis appealing to the USSC that the Eleventh said the search was unconstitutional per Gant but that the Eleventh failed to exclude the gun per Bolton. The majority opined that exclusion under Bolton is not mandatory and since there was no mal- or misfeasance on the part of the officers, a point to which Davis agreed, exclusion would not serve the deterrent principle required under Bolton. Thus, the USSC affirmed the Eleventh's opinion that while Gant made the search a violation of the Fourth, exclusion under Bolton was not appropriate.

Very well said, and only makes me agree more. The exclusionary rule should be only a tool to prevent and redress government misbehavior, not to automatically enforce some sort of fair chance to get away with a crime.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Thanks for the summary. :thumbsup:

Makes sense to me. I now understand why there was a big majority too, that's not something I recall seeing often.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Reminds me of a court case some time ago I was hearing about...

Guy driving late night, makes a right-hand turn without using the turn signal. Cop pulls him over. Cop discovers the man is drunk and arrests him. Guy gets out of the DUI because his lawyer was able to make the case he should not have been pulled over for not using his turn signal.

It's infuriating that people who are guilty go 'unpunished' (of course by the time these issues are decided, especially by the Supreme Court, they've probably been punished).

But it's the price we might need to pay for rights, if we aren't going to just get rid of the rights in the interest of catching more guilty people.

I have considered alternatives though, in the interest of justice, where a different deterrent for violating rights is applied, while the evidence is not excluded.

The thing is, nothing else jumps out as effective, including disciplining the officers - the most effective deterrent seems to be the loss of the 'fruit' of the violation, the evidence.

Though judging by the show COPS, this may be a moot point anyway, since everyone with a bag of crack in the back seat appears to consent to searches.

Never did quite understand why they say 'ok' to the request to search.

 

[werepossum]

It's infuriating that people who are guilty go 'unpunished' (of course by the time these issues are decided, especially by the Supreme Court, they've probably been punished).

But it's the price we might need to pay for rights, if we aren't going to just get rid of the rights in the interest of catching more guilty people.

I have considered alternatives though, in the interest of justice, where a different deterrent for violating rights is applied, while the evidence is not excluded.

The thing is, nothing else jumps out as effective, including disciplining the officers - the most effective deterrent seems to be the loss of the 'fruit' of the violation, the evidence.

Though judging by the show COPS, this may be a moot point anyway, since everyone with a bag of crack in the back seat appears to consent to searches.

Never did quite understand why they say 'ok' to the request to search.

I never understood that either. Had a high school buddy that was busted for something like $15,000 of pot; he consented to have his car searched because he thought that if he declined, the cop would get suspicious. When I asked him if the cop wouldn't be at least as suspicious after he finds a big bag of weed, he had no answer.

 

[bfdd]

I haven't read the case, but at this time I agree with Woolfe9999 and bfdd.

Odd ruling, and unexpected too.

Edit: Noticed this in the ruling:



Welp, I thought it did. I'm now gonna go with bfdd and say I'm confused too.

Fern

Thank god I'm not the only one.