Evidence collected in illegal arrests now usable

[Chairboy]

The Supreme Court has ruled that even if you're arrested improperly, anything the police find on you can still be used against you. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_search

Under this ruling, I see no reason why an LEO couldn't just make up a fake reason to search someone, then bust them for whatever they find. 

So long, 4th amendment, the latest casualty of two decades of the De-Constitutionalizing of America.

[Curval]

You have guns.  Don't worry, be happy.

[Gunslinger]

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

sounds normal to me.  It was only illegal under Virgina law and the SC only ruled that the violation of virginia law doesn't nescesarlily violate the 4th amendment.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law.

[Tango]

Doesn't make sense to release a criminal because the Cop screwed up the arrest. It does make sense to do something to the Cop if hes in the wrong, but the evidence should still be used against the crook.

[Maverick]

There was no fake charge there in that case.

[myelo]

Doesn't make sense to release a criminal because the Cop screwed up the arrest. It does make sense to do something to the Cop if hes in the wrong, but the evidence should still be used against the crook.

I disagree. A lot.

Letting the state use evidence gathered unlawfully has way too much potential for abuse of individual's rights, IMO. It would be like letting criminal keep money they obtained illegally. Steal $10 million, spend a few years in jail but you get to keep the money.

The cops don't follow the rules, but you convict the guy anyway? And then let the same system punish the cop? Doesn't pass the smell test for me.

(I'm speaking generally, not to this case specifically)

[Tango]

How many Cops do you know that would want to do prison time? I don't know of any.

[Shamus]

I guess it boils down to should you be subject to search because of a traffic violation, many here think that stop and frisk is fine, although I would bet that most who feel that way have never been stopped and frisked.

This is the age old individual rights vs law enforcement debate.

Most people go through life smugly feeling that they are above it all and that only low life's have to worry about being arrested.

I find it rather comical though to hear the righteous indignation from a conservative republican, professional client that has been arrested. They become liberals very quickly, the Bill of Rights takes on new meaning, they want every action of the arresting agency nit picked for flaws and illegalities.

I think we had better get used to SC decisions that chip away at the Bill of Rights.

shamus       

[DREDIOCK]

I disagree. A lot.

Letting the state use evidence gathered unlawfully has way too much potential for abuse of individual's rights, IMO. It would be like letting criminal keep money they obtained illegally. Steal $10 million, spend a few years in jail but you get to keep the money.

The cops don't follow the rules, but you convict the guy anyway? And then let the same system punish the cop? Doesn't pass the smell test for me.

(I'm speaking generally, not to this case specifically)

I am in complete agreement. Only allowing evidence that was obtained lawfully is the way to keep law enforcement honest.
Not that there arent honest cops.
But I'd rather not see that temptation put out there.

[SIK1]

Bill of Rights (Modified)

#1 DELETED This one was causing way to much trouble for us the mighty and righteous government of you lowly subjects
#2 DELETED This one really scared us of the mighty and righteous government
#3 DELETED We will put our soldiers where ever we please
#4 DELETED This one was for you lowly subjects own good
#5 DELETED This made it really difficult for us to get rid of you lowly subjects that we the mighty and righteous government found dangerous
#6 DELETED  If we the mighty and righteous government want to wait we can wait you now have lots of time on your hands
#7 DELETED Yeah right we can do what ever we want we are the mighty and righteous government
#8 DELETED See above
#9 DELETED This was just too confusing for us the mighty and righteous government
#10 DELETED We are after all the mighty and righteous government

[rpm]

Just sit back and wait. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the amount of damage this court Bush has assembled will do to the Constitution. We will be living in a police state before the membership of the court is finally put back in balance. Checks and balances are what make government work.

[bozon]

An evidence is an evidence, regardless of how it is obtained. If a trial is supposed to assert what is true and what isn't, it cannot ignore evidence.

If the cop breaks the law, than the law should deal with the cop.

[iWalrus]

Bill of Rights (Modified)

#1 DELETED This one was causing way to much trouble for us the mighty and righteous government of you lowly subjects
#2 DELETED This one really scared us of the mighty and righteous government
#3 DELETED We will put our soldiers where ever we please
#4 DELETED This one was for you lowly subjects own good
#5 DELETED This made it really difficult for us to get rid of you lowly subjects that we the mighty and righteous government found dangerous
#6 DELETED  If we the mighty and righteous government want to wait we can wait you now have lots of time on your hands
#7 DELETED Yeah right we can do what ever we want we are the mighty and righteous government
#8 DELETED See above
#9 DELETED This was just too confusing for us the mighty and righteous government
#10 DELETED We are after all the mighty and righteous government

I hope I'm not sounding rude, but punctuation does wonders for readability.

[rpm]

If the cop breaks the law, than the law should deal with the cop.

This ruling makes it OK for a cop to break the law. No limity searchy... comprende?

[Holden McGroin]

This ruling makes it OK for a cop to break the law. No limity searchy... comprende?

No, Scalia wrote, "The arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone, it is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law."

So officers could still be on the hook for violation of state law and could pay whatever penalty the law allows.  It's just that that violation does not make the collected evidence inadmissable.