Evidence collected in illegal arrests now usable

[Toad]

Just sit back and wait. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the amount of damage this court Bush has assembled

You see the fallacy here right?

Today the Supreme Court handed down Virginia v. Moore, ruling unanimously in favor of Virginia. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion; Justice Ginsburg concurred.

UNANIMOUS ruling. Liberal justices Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens and even swing vote Kennedy were onboard with this decision.

Hard to pin this one on EeEeVvEEEEEEEiIILLLLL Boosh, but nice try there.

[Angus]

Delicate matter.

I mean, evidence popping up, such as drugs and so on...well...you have something there right?
So where do you draw the line? You get busted for speeding, and you have your pockets full of coke, and a corpse with legs firmly cemented into a bucket in the back seat...yes you get your ticket... and leave?

Sort of needs a line somewhere I think.

[lazs2]

I think that is why we have juries.   The juries should hear the evidence and rule.. they should also rule on if the evidence was gathered illegally and on how much time the cop will get who broke the law.. from none to decades.

An example would be.. a warrant is filled out wrong or has the wrong address.. when the cops enter the house for say.. stolen goods or pot..  they see that there is a dungeon where people have been tortured and killed.

Should that evidence be used to convict the guy whos warrant was filled out wrong?   Of course.. I think the cops and whoever filled out the warrant, should be tried also.   

There should be real penalties for false gathering of evidence but.. once it is out.. it is real.   To pretend it doesnt exist is idiotic.

lazs

[moot]

Not accounting for evidence found in illegal searches is only there to disfavor illegal searches, not to disfavor resolution of crimes.  Like others said, if the agents that find evidence allowing a case to move forward did so illegaly, the case should use the evidence found to move forward, and the agents should be sanctioned.

(10 minutes and 30 seconds late )

[Gunslinger]

ONCE again.  The only thing the SC ruled on was the constitutionality of it.  They are not telling a state that their laws are wrong.....they are telling this guy that his constitutional rights were not violated.......wich they weren't.  It's up to the state now to decide who when and why.  IMHO this was an appropriate decision.

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.

They are clearly saying that this is a violation of virginia law but NOT the 4th amendment.

[john9001]

"illegal searches ", does that mean the search was against the law? Does that then mean a law was broken when the search was done? If a law was broken then a crime was committed. The criminal or criminals that broke the law should not benefit from the fruits of breaking the law.

[Jackal1]

a corpse with legs firmly cemented into a bucket in the back seat...yes you get your ticket... and leave?

Visible...probable cause.