SCOTUS: Cops Didn't Have a Warrant? Tough Shit

[Whiffleball]

Supreme Court rules prosecutors can use evidence obtained illegally (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hPfLqVou2xAJIUronkbTWjMElLkgD95N4HTO0)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants.

The justices split 5-4 along ideological lines to apply new limits to the court's so-called exclusionary rule, which generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizure.

The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges.

Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's deputies found amphetamines in Herring's pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff's computers had not been updated.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with Roberts.

In a dissent for the other four justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "leaves Herring, and others like him, with no remedy for violations of their constitutional rights."

Ginsburg said accurate police record-keeping is of paramount importance, particularly with the widespread use of electronic databases. Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens also dissented.

Herring was arrested after a Coffee sheriff's employee asked her counterpart in Dale County whether Herring, called "no stranger to law enforcement" by Roberts, was wanted in Dale. An arrest warrant had been issued in Dale, but it had been recalled by July 2004.

The sheriff's electronic records, however, showed it was still a valid warrant.

Acting on that information, Coffee County deputies arrested and searched Herring.

The Dale employee meanwhile discovered the warrant was no longer valid and called Coffee County to say so. But it was too late for Herring.

Some courts have ruled that as a deterrent to police misconduct, the fruits of a similar search may be excluded from evidence.

But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in Herring's case would be unlikely to deter sloppy record keeping.

The case is Herring v. U.S., 07-513.

this is a shitty state of affairs, and gives the cops an incentive to not keep correct records. But, this has been the state of affairs for quite some time, thanks to the Good Faith Exception, and doesn't really make our current situation any shittier, it just maintains the status quo of shittiness.

death to america

t:mad:

[mongo]

i pretty much hate all your threads.

[Whiffleball]

i pretty much hate all your threads.

death to TiM

t:mad:

[Da Raider]

who needs civil rights when you've got Antonin Scalia.

[Kerjack]

God, is it not about time to smite some people? pleeeease

[Blue]

Land of the Free.

[Stax]

I wrote a paper on a similar string of case law for Con Law on another case the Court heard this session, Arizona v. Gant. That string of cases (Chimel v. California, New York v. Belton, Thornton v. US) was about simply allowing warantless searches of the area around a suspect in order to preserve officer security (and then, of course, the cases sought to define what the exactly acceptable area was, whether the threat still had to be active, etc).

AFAIK they haven't ruled on that one yet, though given the precedent and recent court rulings it seems VERY likely they will come down on the government's side as they did here.

[gillkonam]

Once you inject the PA and its lovely, lovely colored letters in the collective bloodstream, isn't the whole damn system poisoned anyway? Seriously, I hate the American fear of their children coming to harm. Don't we get that to live free, you have to except a certain level of reasonable risk? I don't usually have problems with the people in blue, but I am fully cogniscent of the fact that they could rape me if they really wanted to... I can kick and scream, fight and holler (seriously), but in the end, the cowards in this country have ensured that my tender, tender ass is ultimately open to the joy of unlubed stick love if they deem it right. Might as well just bring on Judge Dredd.

[kid_vidrio]

Once you inject the PA and its lovely, lovely colored letters in the collective bloodstream, isn't the whole damn system poisoned anyway? Seriously, I hate the American fear of their children coming to harm. Don't we get that to live free, you have to except a certain level of reasonable risk? I don't usually have problems with the people in blue, but I am fully cogniscent of the fact that they could rape me if they really wanted to... I can kick and scream, fight and holler (seriously), but in the end, the cowards in this country have ensured that my tender, tender ass is ultimately open to the joy of unlubed stick love if they deem it right. Might as well just bring on Judge Dredd.
If I read you right, you are saying that infringement of your constitutional rights to due process and or protection from illegal search and seizure are acceptable losses so long as you get to be free?

Fuck it. It's OK to take away your guns and free speech too, so long as the prosecutor can create a justifiable reason for the please to have done so.

Either you have the rule of law as proscribed by the COTUS, or you don't.

[Whiffleball]

it seems the arrestee and the cop had bad blood since Herring had accused the cop of being involved in a murder. Meth boy visits the station, cop checks for warrants and finds none, checks in neighboring database and well well what do you know?!?!

Even in the case used to fuck over the exclusionary rule there was questionable intent in the cop's search. They couldn't get ONE clean case to justify this, and I've seen no news outlet other than NPR report on this pretty serious taint on the case.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Bad facts make bad law.

[taters]

I dont say much more on this here, because Ive typed and voiced my head off today already more than I should.

I will say this fits the conservative justices ideology to the T. Their ideal legal system is one in which once you are arrested, you are guilty till proven innocent, and police have unrestricted, unaccountable power in conduction of arrests. No balance, no equal representation, no accountability. Until the Conservative majority retires of dies out of the court, we will see more and more of this. And if you look at many of their pre SCOTUS ideals and cases, you see its not new.

[Whiffleball]

“Herring was no stranger to law enforcement,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. observed dryly in his opinion for the court.

good attitude to have if you're the top dog in a justice system that purports to be about rehabilitation

[Claydon]

taters posting that he believes he knows what is better as opposed to the justices on the supreme court.


that is fucking funny

not necessarily saying i agree with this decision but these people are brilliant legal scholars and to be honest their judgement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taters

[taters]

that is fucking funny


^ Where did I say I 'know better'? Learn to read retard. I commented on the trend of the court, which most scholars and legal practitioners agree on.

Learn to read, douchebag. I spoke in lay. Im sure even a 5 year old could understand it.

[Pox]

Obviously Claydon only opines on things he is an expert on. Seriously, this isn't the Harvard Law Review.

[taters]

Other that net stalking, I cant possibly imagine what CLaydon could be an expert at.

Then again, for all I know he could be John Voight in disguise.

[Claydon]

Obviously Claydon only opines on things he is an expert on. Seriously, this isn't the Harvard Law Review.

yes, for instance I know for a fact that you are a cock sucking herpes buddy of mongo!

[Pox]

yes, for instance I know for a fact that you are a cock sucking herpes buddy of mongo!

So you're an expert on sucking dicks?

Gay.

[Kerjack]

taters posting that he believes he knows what is better as opposed to the justices on the supreme court.


that is fucking funny

not necessarily saying i agree with this decision but these people are brilliant legal scholars and to be honest their judgement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taters

Haven't you bitched about SCOTUS like, alot?

Also I consider myself a conservative tater and I don't agree with anything you seem to think conservatives are about. I agree this is a horrible ruling by the justices

[taters]

Haven't you bitched about SCOTUS like, alot?

Also I consider myself a conservative tater and I don't agree with anything you seem to think conservatives are about. I agree this is a horrible ruling by the justices

Not all conservatives. They (the courts majority) are idealogue conservatives, who press reaganesque neoconservative social principles. They have fallen far away from the paleoconservative libertarianesque ideals righties were touting during the Clinton years.

Even the most pro SCOTUS observers have been seriously questioning most of there hardline divider decisions (one with the conservative bloc in the majority). And this goes back a good while before Bush v Gore.

Debate as you may my view of conservative culture, even you must admit the court seems to be heavily leaning on a 'certain element' of the right wings social ideological standards.

[satandole666]

One step closer to distopia.

[taters]

Honestly, at this point they will see themselves as the last bastion of neocon control in our government, and will swing WAY to the right as time goes further. In the longer run, the Bush/Reagan appointee court is the modern version of the Lochner court. Outdated, unpopular, and on its way out.

[Morfin]

taters posting that he believes he knows what is better as opposed to the justices on the supreme court.


that is fucking funny

not necessarily saying i agree with this decision but these people are brilliant legal scholars and to be honest their judgement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taters

With all due respect to taters (and I agree with him on this decision), his opinion is the same as 4 of the brilliant legal scholars.

[taters]

^ Was that a compliment????


My black-sense is going off....


:proceeding with caution:

[Morfin]

No, Claydon's comment was stupid -- I was pointing that out. But I do agree with you on this decision.

[freegood]

Find me a comment Claydon made that wasn't stupid.

[Genius]

This is a ridiculous ruling that will have zero effects at the federal level, but could have drastic effects at the local level. Which means that the court should never have taken the case in the first place. Also, what constitutes a "simple police mistake"? Sounds to me like cops will be legally justified to "accidentally" kick in whoever's door they want. If only people were as passionate about courts and legislatures running roughshod over the fourth amendment as they are about the second.

[Stax]

This is a ridiculous ruling that will have zero effects at the federal level, but could have drastic effects at the local level. Which means that the court should never have taken the case in the first place.

That's really, really, REALLY not what guides whether the court takes a case or not.

Also, what constitutes a "simple police mistake"? Sounds to me like cops will be legally justified to "accidentally" kick in whoever's door they want. If only people were as passionate about courts and legislatures running roughshod over the fourth amendment as they are about the second.

Generally if the Court feels there was legitimate reason for the police to make the mistake then they say it's ok. Just randomly kicking in doors would not fall under that.

[Stax]

Find me a comment Claydon made that wasn't stupid.
keelys tits>>>>>>>>lucys tits

[Genius]

That's really, really, REALLY not what guides whether the court takes a case or not.
I know that's not what decides it. I'm bitching that sometimes I think it should be.

Generally if the Court feels there was legitimate reason for the police to make the mistake then they say it's ok. Just randomly kicking in doors would not fall under that.
Sometimes paranoids actually have someone chasing them. And sometimes we actually fall down the slippery slope.

[Stax]

Sometimes paranoids actually have someone chasing them. And sometimes we actually fall down the slippery slope.

Ultimately I agree with Ginsberg's dissent point though, as it leaves the victims/suspects in these situations "with no remedy for violations of their constitutional rights." I think the more proper path would be that when these mistakes are discovered the evidence is washed clean, basically. In other words it cannot be used unless turned over by the owner or a proper warrant is found BUT the old "fruit of the poison tree" argument shouldn't stop the evidence from being used entirely.

[gillkonam]

If I read you right, you are saying that infringement of your constitutional rights to due process and or protection from illegal search and seizure are acceptable losses so long as you get to be free?

Fuck it. It's OK to take away your guns and free speech too, so long as the prosecutor can create a justifiable reason for the please to have done so.

Either you have the rule of law as proscribed by the COTUS, or you don't.

No, quite the opposite. I am saying that would be the exact problem. I am saying that the US citizenry seems very willing to allow the sapping away of the very rights that make us Americans in the name of some misguided sense of guaranteed safety. What I am saying is that a popo state is not free. But let's not kid ourselves, the COTUS has been forever subverted by the PA, for these very cowardly allowances by the populace.

[nobody]

Phew tough issue ... was their decision "constitutional", I'd have to say no. Was it "realistic" - probably. Especially with the criminal recidivism rate at approx. 70%. I always have personal problems with this issue with "profiling" cases. I someone is stopped, say - just because they are black, and they are found to be in commission of a crime (be it possession, theft, etc) SHOULD evidence obtained from this "wrongful" stop, be allowed to be used to prosecute them? As much as I'd LIKE to say yes ... I cannot get past the firm belief , that this type if "illegal search and seizure" is unconstitutional and CANNOT be allowed to continue! When we start making " exceptions for "illegality" ... where does it stop!

[IdiotBrain]

Problem is trying to prove someone was stopped "just because they were black".

In this case, one can prove that the guy was arrested on an erroneous warrant, therefore the evidence obtained illegally should be nulled, even though it wasn't an intentional illegal arrest.

[IdiotBrain]

Or, thats as I understood the constitution, anyway.

[nobody]

Problem is trying to prove someone was stopped "just because they were black".

In this case, one can prove that the guy was arrested on an erroneous warrant, therefore the evidence obtained illegally should be nulled, even though it wasn't an intentional illegal arrest.

I lived in NJ for a while and saw similar cases (illegal profiling, as detemined in a court of law) over and over.
(No I'm not black and yes I am a conservative [but I'm even MORE of a "constitutionalist"], as are most ex-military in my experience).