Recent Supreme Court ruling

[theeedude]

I took one of those portable breathalyzer tests on a roadblock stop near home, manned by cops but administered by MADD ladies (who actually seemed very hostile to me for no better reason than I had worked late.) The cop asks if I'm willing to take a breathalyzer, and since I haven't been drinking (and figure if I refuse I'll look suspicious and have to take a field sobriety test) I agree. The very angry MADD lady walks over and pokes it into my mouth, I test negative, the MADD lady stomps off, the cop thanks me, and I drive off. It's only later that it hits me - how many people have had their lips wrapped around that thing? Ugg!

You are not required to blow into that thing OR take a field sobriety test unless you've already been arrested, and the officer would need to have probable cause to arrest you, and you can challenge both the arrest and the alcohol test you did not consent to yourself. But if you consent, it's going to be used against you in court. The whole point of field sobriety test is for the officer to sucker people into volunteering to give the officer probable cause to arrest them.

 

[Wreckem]

You are not required to blow into that thing OR take a field sobriety test unless you've already been arrested, and the officer would need to have probable cause to arrest you, and you can challenge both the arrest and the alcohol test you did not consent to yourself. But if you consent, it's going to be used against you in court. The whole point of field sobriety test is for the officer to sucker people into volunteering to give the officer probable cause to arrest them.

You have the right to refuse, but in doing so you also give up your license for a year in many states. In some states, they can get a warrant to draw blood on site.

 

[nonlnear]

Actually, the urine tubes are also re-used for the blow tests in Werepossum's state.

Darn, still missed the chance.

Craig, you're replying to werespossum in the wrong thread.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I like it. It's pragmatic for legislating from the bench to not invalidate prior police procedures.
The police need a firm set of rules to operate by, and you can only get that in a system that evolves if you compartmentalize. "It was valid then. Now it's not. These do not intermix."

This also frees up the Supreme Court to make rulings on procedures without opening up a floodgate of lawsuits.
Should we be giving redress to the families of criminals hanged in the 1800's on evidence that, in 2011, would be considered to have been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
They were criminals. Justice was done. That's good enough.

 

[RisenZealot]

I like it. It's pragmatic for legislating from the bench to not invalidate prior police procedures.
The police need a firm set of rules to operate by, and you can only get that in a system that evolves if you compartmentalize. "It was valid then. Now it's not. These do not intermix."

This also frees up the Supreme Court to make rulings on procedures without opening up a floodgate of lawsuits.
Should we be giving redress to the families of criminals hanged in the 1800's on evidence that, in 2011, would be considered to have been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
They were criminals. Justice was done. That's good enough.

I agree completely nice post.

 

[dmcowen674]

It doesn't matter, there was another ruling that a car can be searched anytime if not in your garage.

 

[Wreckem]

It doesn't matter, there was another ruling that a car can be searched anytime if not in your garage.

That was about putting a tracking device on a car not searching it.

 

[Venix]

You have the right to refuse, but in doing so you also give up your license for a year in many states. In some states, they can get a warrant to draw blood on site.

That only applies if you've already been arrested. Prior to an arrest you can and should refuse any kind of sobriety test. In some states the police are even required to inform you that the screening tests are voluntary and that there is no penalty for refusal.

At least that's how it works in all the states I'm familiar with. If there are any states where implied consent laws apply before an arrest, I'm not aware of them.

 

[Anarchist420]

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.

The cops usually ask a compound question and most people fall for it. So the cops can say they have consent.

This is mostly a states' rights issue anyway. The neocon/modern liberal incorporation doctrine needs to be thrown out by a future court if we ever get a court that isn't so damn neoconservative. Better yet, why don't we just throw the liberal 14th Amendment out so the federal judges won't have that shit to fall back on whenever they think they can grant someone a right?

 

[Darwin333]

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.

I think that is where you and I disagree. You look at it as a fair chance to get away with a crime and I look at it as a fair chance to keep our rights regardless of the .govs intentions.

 

[Carmen813]

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

My opinion is that rights don't come into existence only after a Supreme Court ruling. Thus the person in jail had their rights violated and should be let free.