Supreme Court Rules 4th Amendment Null & Void

[yongrel]

The theory is sound, but the application will blow.

 

[gls]

I absolutely understand the difference. And for people that are concerned that this will be used for drug busts or whatever - let's fight the criminality of drugs/certain guns/ etc.

As far as concerns about this being within a judges "subjective decision" - almost everything is and if you get a corrupt judge that would "wink wink" it was an accident - if you get that judge you are screwed with or without this. If you are dealing with corrupt cops that will abuse this - how different is that from cops that "find" drugs at people's homes that they actually brought with them (I saw that on TV it really does happen, right?)

I'll stand by what I said before - good ruling. the fact that the ruling will be abused and taken advantage of by criminal law enforcement and criminal judges notwithstanding. As stated it is a good ruling, and if it is followed as stated I agree with it. I think it is a mistake to disagree with a correct ruling just because you "know" it is going to be abused.

Certain elements of the justice department are going to be corrupt anyway so let's make it easier for them? Let's change the bad drug and gun laws? Unfortunately that's easier said than done and it sure was nice to have these protections against unreasonable search and seizure in the mean time. In fact the criminalization of America continues unabated, with this stupid new law against selling anything for children without expensive and unnecessary lead testing.

Anything works in "theory". We need to be dealing with the reality of the encroaching police state.

 

[thomaspaine23]

4th amendment goes bye bye Scotus Ruling Today

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/14/19243/7648/308/684135

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (PDF file) that evidence gathered illegally by police as the result of defective search warrants is admissible in court.

So now they can search you without a warrant based on a "mistake" and if they find anything it can be used against you.

So here is what we have seen lately:




Now the 4th is down, I'm sure the 2nd amendment going soon since Scotus ruled in Heller that "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership were allowed.

Heck it's already started, Bill H.R.45 was put forward in the house Jan 6th 2009.
It would require all owners of handguns and semi-autos to get a federal license, provide photo, thumbprint, address etc, AND inform the Attorney General within 60 days of a change of address.

Guns could only be sold through a dealer and upon sale the firearm would be registered with the fed.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00045:

 

[Roxi]

ok that sucks.... but for those of us who tend to get dramatic or emotional about things easily, its not nice to give us mini strokes with your titles .... kthxbai

 

[ghengis86]

I absolutely understand the difference. And for people that are concerned that this will be used for drug busts or whatever - let's fight the criminality of drugs/certain guns/ etc.

As far as concerns about this being within a judges "subjective decision" - almost everything is and if you get a corrupt judge that would "wink wink" it was an accident - if you get that judge you are screwed with or without this. If you are dealing with corrupt cops that will abuse this - how different is that from cops that "find" drugs at people's homes that they actually brought with them (I saw that on TV it really does happen, right?)

I'll stand by what I said before - good ruling. the fact that the ruling will be abused and taken advantage of by criminal law enforcement and criminal judges notwithstanding. As stated it is a good ruling, and if it is followed as stated I agree with it. I think it is a mistake to disagree with a correct ruling just because you "know" it is going to be abused.

i respectfully argue that you do not understand the difference.

you agree that there are corrupt judges and cops; how is this a good ruling when it makes it infinitely easier for them decide is was an 'accident' or 'accidentally' break down the wrong door? your trading honest mistakes being resolved for increasingly easier corruptability. how many accidental searches and seizures justify this?

doesn't this also remove a natural correction for 'mistakes' and create a moral hazard? "well Officer Noob, you should be careful about following the correct procedures when executing searches, but don't worry too much. if you make a mistake, we can always change it later"

 

[danberkeley]

Yaaaaaaaaay government courts!!! Woooohooo!!!

 

[Scofield]

Fuck this.

This is honestly some of the biggest news I've heard in quite some time. This should be on EVERY news channel!

 

[AJ Antimony]

So... why are we still living in this country?

 

[Ex Post Facto]

Fruit of the Poiseness Tree Doctrine is out of the window?

 

[dannno]

Well, things are admissable if they are discovered in the normal line of police work. For instance if a police officer is executing a search warrant on your house, and you have an illegal toilet camera set up in your super-model neighbors house, and the police view the feed and see her doing a line of coke over the toilet, they could bust her.

I guess this ruling is saying that if they were searching your house by accident, wrong address for instance, they could still bust your neighbor and you.

I predict more police mistakes in the future.

That was an excellent analogy. Peter Schiff would be proud

 

[blocks]

The most comical thing about this ruling is that the court acknowledged that the search was a violation of Mr. Herring's Fourth Amendment rights, yet they uphold his conviction...Laughable

 

[qh4dotcom]

Well, this isn't going to be a popular position, but I agree with the ruling.

The ruling makes it very clear that evidence discovered while disregarding a person's 4th amendment rights WOULD not be allowed. However, if an honest mistake like this is made and evidence is found of criminal wrongdoing, then hell yes it should be admissable.

Now maybe someone disagrees over what he was arrested for should even be illegal and I would probably agree with that. But let's say a similar mistake had caught a guy that had kidnapped and was sexually abusing kids, or a murderer, or something that I think we can all agree on was criminal behavior. I am 100% behind that evidence being admissable. It pisses me off that the scum of the earth walk on technicalities. Good ruling imho.

That's a slippery slope considering how much some cops like to abuse power...all they need to do now to bust into someone's home is lie and claim they made a mistake.

 

[phill4paul]

It started with Drivers License/DUI checkpoints, once the Government found out the masses believed it was alright to castrate the Constitution if it was in the interest of public good.

It has gotten to the point were I now expect to see these rulings on a monthly basis. Each one eroding our rights bit by bit.

 

[jkr]

sorry i shot you, it was a mistake...

 

[angelatc]

this will not last, as soon as Obama replaces one of the fascists it will be overturned.

perhaps the only good thing to come from obama will be half-way (with emphasis on half way) decent SC judges.

No, no, no. This post is wrong on so many levels.

I'll start with the easy part: the justices most likely to end their terms are Democrats, so the court might not swing in Obama's first term.

The second part is that Obama is not going to appoint anybody who gives a rat's ass about individual rights and/or the Constitution.

Obama is the guy who argued that Constitutional rights depend on where you live.

 

[jkr]

sooooo is this a republic?

do we have rule of law or oligarchy?

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

sooooo is this a republic?

do we have rule of law or oligarchy?

John Birch Society...

http://www.jbs.org/

http://www.jbs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4373&catid=7:jbs-news-feed&Itemid=97


This is not Socialism... this is COMMUNISM.

Chromed Communism, well glossed over. All the TRILLIONS and LIVES spent to defend against this very Ideology... HAS BECOME the GOVERNMENT.

Totalitarianism

"Your Papers!"

 

[SWATH]

First think of the power you are giving to people in these positions. Then think of the most despicable, corrupt, dishonest, cheating, lying, scumbag person you can imagine. Then imagine that person in that position, because invariably that is where they seem to gravitate.

This goes for every single power that is granted to the government in any form.

 

[Original_Intent]

i respectfully argue that you do not understand the difference.

you agree that there are corrupt judges and cops; how is this a good ruling when it makes it infinitely easier for them decide is was an 'accident' or 'accidentally' break down the wrong door? your trading honest mistakes being resolved for increasingly easier corruptability. how many accidental searches and seizures justify this?

doesn't this also remove a natural correction for 'mistakes' and create a moral hazard? "well Officer Noob, you should be careful about following the correct procedures when executing searches, but don't worry too much. if you make a mistake, we can always change it later"

Maybe we should find another way of dealing with judicial and law enforcement corruption than making LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE that was gathered incorrectly inadmissable? I agree with the rest of you I don't want illegal searches and seizures happening. I also don't want CRIMINALS walking because an 'i' wasn't dotted on a search warrant, or because the evidence was obtained thru some other error.

I agree, the issue of "wink, wink" errors needs to be addressed.
And in my opinion, the issue of drug and firearms need to be addressed at the root of the problem, possession and use of them shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

People who are a danger to society - rapists, murderers, thieves (including white collar) - these people should not be walking due to some error being made, evidence from the fruit of the poisonous tree. Is there not a better way of dealing with both issues than letting people that are 100% guilty walk because of a mistake?

 

[cska80]

This is the result of liberals and conservatives allowing courts to interperate amendments and ignore original intent...as long as it fits a liberal or conservative agenda. This is why Libertarians have it correct and I do not identify myself as a conservative. Is there really a 'left' and a 'right' when our supposide conservative judges take it upon themselves to muddy the obvious meaning of the 4th amendment in such an irresponsible way?

There is no left or right. There is only government and freedom. Rule of law, or rule of men. Choose a side.