Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on April 23, 2008, 03:27:55 PM
-
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.
-
You have guns. Don't worry, be happy.
;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
There was no fake charge there in that case.
-
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)
-
How many Cops do you know that would want to do prison time? I don't know of any.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :P)
-
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.
-
"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.
-
a corpse with legs firmly cemented into a bucket in the back seat...yes you get your ticket... and leave?
Visible...probable cause.