Evidence Obtained Through Illegal Searches Can Now be Used Against You in Court

Evidence Obtained Through Illegal Searches Can Now be Used Against You in Court

fe11.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – 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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

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.

I'm just hoping that Obama selects some new judges to the Supreme Court that don't do their jobs according to their own ideological beliefs.

fe11.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is something I didn't know.

Ahahaha.....

I mean come on, leaders of nations can meet in Canda for breakfest without congressional hearing and that's illegal.

Wow. I don't know what more to say...I can't believe this. The constitution is officially ripped to pieces. I doubt Obama will do anything about this.

reply to post by projectvxn


He might not do anything about this, but I'm hoping he uses his opportunity to appoint new supreme court judges wisely. We'll have to see if he actually upholds his oath to defend the Constitution, not distort what that oath means like Bush did.

"The history of the planet Earth demonstrates one thing to us. It shows that those in power will test those who are not as powerful. They will use intolerable situations to see how much the less powerful will take before they wake up due to the pain it causes. One of the ways this is done in your Society is through creative lawmaking. It is the process to retain and usurp individual responsibility and place it under the dominion of Society. The more that the numbness has crept in through the enactment of elaborate and confusing distinctions, the more difficult it is to recover one's Freedom..."
("Scales of the Dragon," A.Dragon)

What's new? Chisel away at the bedrock of human rights, and you have slaves and slavemasters. Perfect plan, working like a well-oiled machine.

Ya... I'm at the point where I'm freakin out and asking people if they actually care..... Like, do you know _____________________. They give me a funny stare and then ask me if its going to be below zero tomorrow.

This makes it easier for cops to plant evidence. I don't see how this ruling is ethical.

Neither do I, and I didn't thin kof that aspect. If a cop actually had something against you, or was instructed by someone else to do it, they could very well plant evidence and get away with it.

There's a lot of meaning in this ruling. America already has the highest percentage of its population in prison, how many more do we need in there just so we'll have to pay more taxes?

It's been done before
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 115 S. Ct. 1185, 131 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1995), the error of a court employee mistakenly listed Isaac Evans as the subject of a misdemeanor arrest warrant. A police officer had stopped Evans for a traffic violation, searched Evans pursuant to the faulty warrant information, and found marijuana.

On trial for possession of marijuana, Evans moved to suppress the marijuana evidence. The Maricopa County Superior Court granted the motion. The state of Arizona appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Arizona then heard the case and held that the evidence should be excluded.

On appeal by the state of Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment as a result of clerical error need not be excluded from trial. In so holding, the Court emphasized that the Fourth Amendment exists only to guard against unreasonable police intrusions. According to the Court, "[The] use of the fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure 'works no new Fourth Amendment wrong'" (Evans, quoting Leon, quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S. Ct. 613, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 [1974]).

Pretty good article

Obama can't appoint new judges unless the current ones die or resign.

The ones who've made this ruling should have the former option chosen for them.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Obama can't appoint new judges unless the current ones die or resign.

The ones who've made this ruling should have the former option chosen for them.

Have fun in Gitmo.

But seriously, this is absolutely outrageous.

And I'd like to note, for the record, that it was the five Conservative Justices who voted in favor of this.

Because I, for one, am sick of so-called "Conservatives" blaming Liberals for wanting to turn the U.S. into a communistic slave state, when it's clearly their own ideological flesh and blood who intend to, and with their actions have, turned us all into subjects of a fascistic police state. Warrantless wiretaps, reading our mail, tracking our Email, looking over our bank statements, cordoning us off into special designated areas ("Free Speech Zones") in order to derail legitimate protests, and now verification that one essentially now has no legal standing in regards to the security and privacy of one's own home and affairs.

This isn't our fault, so I don't want to hear it.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Obama can't appoint new judges unless the current ones die or resign.

The ones who've made this ruling should have the former option chosen for them.

Well, most of them are old as dirt and have wanted to retire but I think they (at least the liberal ones) felt obligated to stay on until Mr. Bush was out of the picture. Imagine if Bush was able to appoint a few more justices to the Supreme Court! We'd be living in concentration camps right now.

Reply to The Nighthawk

I completely agree with you. Star for you.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Total Reality]

Bush has appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito and John G. Roberts.

Roberts is the Chief Justice, too.

Link

Pat-Downs of Passengers by Police Approved by U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court decided today that, based on an Arizona case, cops who pull vehicles over in traffic stops can pat down passengers for weapons without any suspicion of wrongdoing.

We suspect this ruling could make it easier for unscrupulous police officers to abuse typical search standards.

Anytime an officer is suspicious someone is carrying drugs or other illegal contraband, the person can be searched for "weapons." The officer has nothing to lose, now that the Supreme Court has spoken: If the search produces no weapons, there's no legal foul ball. But if it produces drugs, the cop is rewarded with a felony bust.

You can read the Supreme Court's reasoning in its opinion here.

So if you are under 32 and driving a new car worth more than 16k prepare to be stopped and searched and harassed illegally. Outstanding.

based on SIMPLE POLICE MISTAKES

duh

don't you get it?

this thread is awfully misleading

reply to post by Total Reality

First, the investigatory stop (temporary detention) must be lawful, a re-quirement met in an on-the-street encounter when a police officer reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a crime. Second, to proceed from a stop to a frisk(patdown for weapons), the officer must reasonably suspect that theperson stopped is armed and dangerous

www.supremecourtus.gov...

The pat down has some requirements before they are allowed to do it.

On the original post you opened thread with. Chief Roberts expressed that it was ok in these types situations only.

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."

fe11.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com...

I don't interpret any of this as giving cops free will to pat anyone down or abuse the 4th amendment.

IMO the pat down protects the police and the other one is just a criminal that got busted. I do believe most cops are honest and do not go out of there way to throw people in jail.

However, I do share your concern were those bad apples cops could abuse the system with this ruling. But even if this ruling didn't come about, bad cops would still find a way to pen it on you.

Please, allow me to be the first to say it...
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

There, it's out there. Now please continue.

Just like the rest of Washington.....the Supreme Court needs an enema as well.This BS has gone on long enough! It's time to start taking back our country and I will start by writing my congressman about this and how it is unjust and unconstitutional. Supreme Court indeed