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

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I've often wondered why a criminal should go free if evidence is obtained "illegally".

Imagine for a minute that instead of making that evidence not usable, that the police department that committed the error was fined and the fine would go to the victim of the illegal search.

You could make the fine pretty large. Police departments are not going to want to pay fines. So in general terms there would be education to make sure that all evidence collected was done in the correct manner.

At the same time, if you find a murder weapon that could lead to the conviction of a known felon, you wouldn't have to not use evidence that was collected in violation of his/her civil rights.

So if the police break down your door for no apparent reason and don't find anything, the department will be fined and you will get paid. If the police do an illegal search of your property and find that you are a serial killer, the department will be fined but you (the serial killer) will be convicted.

so with what you said above, you won't mind if police come into your house at anytime and do a complete search of your house. if they found a gun in your house that you had bought at a gun show years ago, and it now shows up on their database as a gun that was used in a murder, you can be arrested for that murder or at least be arrested as an accomplice.
or......
20 to 30 police just start seaching every house in a neighborhood known for gang activity by going door to door, because they have suspicion of illegality in that neighborhood, but no actual crime committed that they know of, in those individual houses.... this is the slippery slope

Nots not what it says at all.. even close. And I have bad news for ya. They can do that now if they want to. Notice how they dont, though?

Its meant for simple clerical errors. Something stupid like, the cop got cut off when saying the miranda rights. He doesnt finish the sentence, but proceeds to find you in possesion of kiddie porn and crack. Should the guy walk because the cop didnt finish the sentence? What if the pictures were of your kid?

Stop falling for the paranoia.

Man, what are the SCOTUS judges smoking? Last i remember, cops need a search warrant , now it seems or sounds like they can just bust in yuor house, and god fobid, plant fake evidence jsut to make a conviction to keep the cout system moving and make their paperwork much easier, meanwhile the guilty perpitraitor is still lurking about, commiting acts of crime..
I chatted with a kinda online frrined like 2 years ago, she worked in Brooklyn NY judicial system, i forget her position...but we chatted, and she did say, yuode be suprised, sad to say, how many innocent people are sentenced in that court system every year...she ahd questioned her judge, and the state DA, and both told her behind doors basically How much do you love yuor job? you gotta be a teamplayer..
god help us all

Originally posted by spliff4020
Well, lets see. I do own guns. Both pistols are registered. The rifles are not, as they dont need to be. I also have a few issues of car and driver laying around.

Nope, doesnt bother me in the least.

Amazing. Conservatives blast liberals for trusting that Obama will be a better President than Bush, and at the same time display unwavering faith in a justice system any blind fool can see is corrupted almost beyond salvation.

My point, my obstinate friend, is that should the 5-0 kick your door in at 3am on a no-knock warrant because they got the wrong address, it won't matter if your guns are legal and registered or not.

In order to cover their donut-fattened rear ends your guns will, most likely, magically move from whatever storage location you usually keep them in for safekeeping to your hands, because their reports will unanimously note that you brandished said weapons against them in the act of resisting arrest.

Your word against theirs. Who do you think the judge will believe?

What it boils down to is this:

The Founding Fathers wanted to make a clear distinction between law enforcement's ability to act upon what they witness in public, and what they witness in the privacy of a citizen's property. The Constitution clearly states they must have a warrant not only clearly stating the property to be searched, but also exactly what they are looking for. The Justices who voted in favor of this ruling directly contradicted the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as it has been understood since it was put on paper.

This ruling allows incompetent and/or crooked police to violate citizens' rights to privacy and protect themselves from recrimination by falsifying evidence, or using anything "questionable" they can find as evidence of a crime.

Gun rights advocates argue that forced registration, restrictions on weapon types, etc. are a "slippery slope" that will eventually lead to nationwide confiscation and disarmament of the populace.

In reality, the "slippery slope" begins with the erosion of your right to privacy and security within the bounds of your property.

Should there be a move towards totalitarianism, the confiscation of weapons in America on a wide scale would be next to impossible. Too many would catch on early and begin to resist in large enough groups to overpower the authorities.

No, in reality it makes much more sense to make it easier for the authorities to obtain convictions, especially under conditions where before they would not have been able to.

Oh, at first there will be some grumbling; eventually though most of the bleating TV-addicted masses will forget any of this even can happen--if they ever cared to know it at all. Then there will be some case where the cops (or Feds or Blackwater mercenaries under contract or whatever) make a "mistake" and end up catching some horrible monster-a child predator, or a serial killer, or a "terrorist" of some kind.

That will lead to more searches and arrests. Maybe one of them leads them to some "network" of lawbreakers and that "happy accident" was "just the break they needed".

But it will all be a lie. Smoke and mirrors, either an innocent person who happens to be someone's political opponent or a journalist too close to an uncomfortable truth, or worse, someone they've known about and could have convicted a dozen times over but wanted to wait for whatever reason--and such a bust is perfect propaganda to sell the public on more and more restrictions on their privacy.

Communists, Islamic terrorists, drug runners, the next Timothy McVeigh or Harris & Klebold or Steve Kazmierczak--it won't matter, they'll all be living next door to YOU, all hiding under your beds or attending your kids' schools or planning their next insidious plot.

Who knows? Some of it may even be true.

But mostly it will be a lie.

Lies to remove rivals and troublemakers. Lies to instill fear in the public.

Hell, Bush was handed a briefing from Condi herself stating terrorists were planning an imminent attack in the U.S.

Anyone who'd been listening to Coast to Coast AM after EgyptAir 990 went down off Nantucket would know that many within the Justice Department and the intelligence community considered that a "dry run" for the possible training and indoctrination of terrorist extremists in order to use passenger aircraft as guided missiles (Cheney's post-9/11 assertion that "no one could have predicted this" notwithstanding).

The sheer amount of confusion and "coincidence" (if you believe in coincidence; personally I don't) involved on 9/11--the military exercises mucking up the response, the timing (a relatively small loss of life considering the 40K+ capacity of the World Trade Center towers; had the planes hit a just few hours later things could have been a Hell of a lot worse)--so much doesn't add up, unless one notes that it was the perfect event to whip up the public's fear of a foreign enemy and induce "war fever".

9/11, despite all claims to the contrary, happened to have been a perfect propaganda tool to sway the public in favor of war and unwarranted surveillance. Funny how it just happened to have nicely "gelled" with the objectives of the PNAC.

But it's wearing off.

Now, here comes something much scarier than the Jihadist plotting from a cave 10,000 miles away:

The psychopathic, predatory criminal monster living right next door--courtesy of corrupted officials strategically removing "obstacles" to their totalitarian objectives.

And Soccer Mom and Nascar Dad will eat it up like junk food.

By the time they realize how screwed we all are it'll be way too late.

Why else would the same Justices who clarified that the 2nd Amendment does, indeed, cover the individual's right to bear arms also assert their opinion that the 4th Amendment essentially means nothing?

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by spliff4020
Well, lets see. I do own guns. Both pistols are registered. The rifles are not, as they dont need to be. I also have a few issues of car and driver laying around.

Nope, doesnt bother me in the least.

Amazing. Conservatives blast liberals for trusting that Obama will be a better President than Bush, and at the same time display unwavering faith in a justice system any blind fool can see is corrupted almost beyond salvation.

My point, my obstinate friend, is that should the 5-0 kick your door in at 3am on a no-knock warrant because they got the wrong address, it won't matter if your guns are legal and registered or not.

In order to cover their donut-fattened rear ends your guns will, most likely, magically move from whatever storage location you usually keep them in for safekeeping to your hands, because their reports will unanimously note that you brandished said weapons against them in the act of resisting arrest.

Your word against theirs. Who do you think the judge will believe?

What it boils down to is this:

The Founding Fathers wanted to make a clear distinction between law enforcement's ability to act upon what they witness in public, and what they witness in the privacy of a citizen's property. The Constitution clearly states they must have a warrant not only clearly stating the property to be searched, but also exactly what they are looking for. The Justices who voted in favor of this ruling directly contradicted the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as it has been understood since it was put on paper.

This ruling allows incompetent and/or crooked police to violate citizens' rights to privacy and protect themselves from recrimination by falsifying evidence, or using anything "questionable" they can find as evidence of a crime.

Gun rights advocates argue that forced registration, restrictions on weapon types, etc. are a "slippery slope" that will eventually lead to nationwide confiscation and disarmament of the populace.

In reality, the "slippery slope" begins with the erosion of your right to privacy and security within the bounds of your property.

Should there be a move towards totalitarianism, the confiscation of weapons in America on a wide scale would be next to impossible. Too many would catch on early and begin to resist in large enough groups to overpower the authorities.

No, in reality it makes much more sense to make it easier for the authorities to obtain convictions, especially under conditions where before they would not have been able to.

Oh, at first there will be some grumbling; eventually though most of the bleating TV-addicted masses will forget any of this even can happen--if they ever cared to know it at all. Then there will be some case where the cops (or Feds or Blackwater mercenaries under contract or whatever) make a "mistake" and end up catching some horrible monster-a child predator, or a serial killer, or a "terrorist" of some kind.

That will lead to more searches and arrests. Maybe one of them leads them to some "network" of lawbreakers and that "happy accident" was "just the break they needed".

But it will all be a lie. Smoke and mirrors, either an innocent person who happens to be someone's political opponent or a journalist too close to an uncomfortable truth, or worse, someone they've known about and could have convicted a dozen times over but wanted to wait for whatever reason--and such a bust is perfect propaganda to sell the public on more and more restrictions on their privacy.

Communists, Islamic terrorists, drug runners, the next Timothy McVeigh or Harris & Klebold or Steve Kazmierczak--it won't matter, they'll all be living next door to YOU, all hiding under your beds or attending your kids' schools or planning their next insidious plot.

Who knows? Some of it may even be true.

But mostly it will be a lie.

Lies to remove rivals and troublemakers. Lies to instill fear in the public.

Hell, Bush was handed a briefing from Condi herself stating terrorists were planning an imminent attack in the U.S.

Anyone who'd been listening to Coast to Coast AM after EgyptAir 990 went down off Nantucket would know that many within the Justice Department and the intelligence community considered that a "dry run" for the possible training and indoctrination of terrorist extremists in order to use passenger aircraft as guided missiles (Cheney's post-9/11 assertion that "no one could have predicted this" notwithstanding).

The sheer amount of confusion and "coincidence" (if you believe in coincidence; personally I don't) involved on 9/11--the military exercises mucking up the response, the timing (a relatively small loss of life considering the 40K+ capacity of the World Trade Center towers; had the planes hit a just few hours later things could have been a Hell of a lot worse)--so much doesn't add up, unless one notes that it was the perfect event to whip up the public's fear of a foreign enemy and induce "war fever".

9/11, despite all claims to the contrary, happened to have been a perfect propaganda tool to sway the public in favor of war and unwarranted surveillance. Funny how it just happened to have nicely "gelled" with the objectives of the PNAC.

But it's wearing off.

Now, here comes something much scarier than the Jihadist plotting from a cave 10,000 miles away:

The psychopathic, predatory criminal monster living right next door--courtesy of corrupted officials strategically removing "obstacles" to their totalitarian objectives.

And Soccer Mom and Nascar Dad will eat it up like junk food.

By the time they realize how screwed we all are it'll be way too late.

Why else would the same Justices who clarified that the 2nd Amendment does, indeed, cover the individual's right to bear arms also assert their opinion that the 4th Amendment essentially means nothing?

First of all, dont make assumptions. I voted for Obama, I own guns and believe in gun control.

Should the cops come accidently kick my door in, they wont have a problem. I dont have the guns out or exposed. They are put away, all paper work is in order. Im the type of guy the cops actually like.

And rant all you want, all this is is a ruling on simple errors. Mistakes happen all the time. Why should a crack dealer walk if the cops accidently kick in his door and find him cooking up a batch?

What if they walk in and find him taking naked pictures of kids? Should they just walk out because it was the wrong address?

Save all that "9/11" crap. Its been 8 years, Bush is gone, there is still no gestapo. Now I want an answer. If the cops had the wrong address, they kick in the door and there is a guy taking naked pics of a kid, should that guy go to jail or should he walk?

[edit on 31-1-2009 by spliff4020]

Originally posted by spliff4020
First of all, dont make assumptions. I voted for Obama, I own guns and believe in gun control.

Should the cops come accidently kick my door in, they wont have a problem. I dont have the guns out or exposed. They are put away, all paper work is in order. Im the type of guy the cops actually like.

And my point is, it will not matter. Cops protect their own. Those guns that are "put away", like I stated, will somehow find their way out into the open and you will end up having "brandished a gun" at officers making an "honest mistake".

"Better plant a gun on him just to be sure". You know how many times I've heard that kind of crap from real cops?

And rant all you want, all this is is a ruling on simple errors. Mistakes happen all the time. Why should a crack dealer walk if the cops accidently kick in his door and find him cooking up a batch?

What if they walk in and find him taking naked pictures of kids? Should they just walk out because it was the wrong address?

Now I want an answer. If the cops had the wrong address, they kick in the door and there is a guy taking naked pics of a kid, should that guy go to jail or should he walk?

IF that were ever to happen (and the fact you deliberately chose such an extreme example, nice straw man) the the simple answer would be:

Yes, he should walk.

Reason: Because the same rules that protect him, evil as he is, also protect the innocent.

Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer unjust punishment--and mark my words, all this ruling does in the end is make it easier to punish the innocent.

Save all that "9/11" crap. Its been 8 years, Bush is gone, there is still no gestapo.

But Bush's cronies are free to do their dirty work. The Justice Department is still chock full of his political appointees, and Blackwater still has U.S. government contracts. The mechanisms are still in place. Just because Bush ended up not using them doesn't mean they can't be used.

I'm an Obama supporter. But Obama won't be President forever, and if you think for one second the authoritarian radicals of the extreme Right Wing are resting on their laurels and licking their wounds, you're a damn fool. There's plots afoot; the dangers of corporate fascism are as real today as they ever have been. This is just one more weapon in their arsenal.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by spliff4020
First of all, dont make assumptions. I voted for Obama, I own guns and believe in gun control.

Should the cops come accidently kick my door in, they wont have a problem. I dont have the guns out or exposed. They are put away, all paper work is in order. Im the type of guy the cops actually like.

And my point is, it will not matter. Cops protect their own. Those guns that are "put away", like I stated, will somehow find their way out into the open and you will end up having "brandished a gun" at officers making an "honest mistake".

"Better plant a gun on him just to be sure". You know how many times I've heard that kind of crap from real cops?

And rant all you want, all this is is a ruling on simple errors. Mistakes happen all the time. Why should a crack dealer walk if the cops accidently kick in his door and find him cooking up a batch?

What if they walk in and find him taking naked pictures of kids? Should they just walk out because it was the wrong address?

Now I want an answer. If the cops had the wrong address, they kick in the door and there is a guy taking naked pics of a kid, should that guy go to jail or should he walk?

IF that were ever to happen (and the fact you deliberately chose such an extreme example, nice straw man) the the simple answer would be:

Yes, he should walk.

Reason: Because the same rules that protect him, evil as he is, also protect the innocent.

Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer unjust punishment--and mark my words, all this ruling does in the end is make it easier to punish the innocent.

Save all that "9/11" crap. Its been 8 years, Bush is gone, there is still no gestapo.

But Bush's cronies are free to do their dirty work. The Justice Department is still chock full of his political appointees, and Blackwater still has U.S. government contracts. The mechanisms are still in place. Just because Bush ended up not using them doesn't mean they can't be used.

I'm an Obama supporter. But Obama won't be President forever, and if you think for one second the authoritarian radicals of the extreme Right Wing are resting on their laurels and licking their wounds, you're a damn fool. There's plots afoot; the dangers of corporate fascism are as real today as they ever have been. This is just one more weapon in their arsenal.

So the guy should walk, huh? Even if it was YOUR kid? What if your kid was kidnapped and the cops "had the wrong house?" and found him. Should they apologize, shut the door and walk away?

And why would the cops need a court ruling to screw with you? Has police corruption or planting evidence just started since this "ruling"? Hardly. Crooked cops will always exist. And just like gun laws, the criminals dont obey the law. The last I checked guns were legal. Its not like it sits with me in the living room waiting for someone to kick the door in. Odds are if they did come in, they wouldnt even know there were any.

Oh, Iraq just denied Blackwater an operating license in the country, the last I checked their "employees" were being brought up on murder charges. Say what you want about republicans, at least they have the stones to throw their own under the bus when things hit the fan.

How many pardons did Bush hand out before leaving? How many did Clinton? Barney Frank, anyone?

But I am straying off topic. This post is a whole lot about nothing.

Originally posted by spliff4020So the guy should walk, huh?

Yes. If we truly believe in the Constitution and truly value what it means to be "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" then absolutely, he should walk.

Even if it was YOUR kid? What if your kid was kidnapped and the cops "had the wrong house?" and found him. Should they apologize, shut the door and walk away?

I don't have kids, and if I did maybe I'd feel differently. I'm sure my views on the subject offer little comfort to those victimized by such people, but freedom demands sacrifice as much as it demands vigilance. Is it really any different than a parent who just found out their kid was killed in battle? Or killed in a complete accident, or died drunk driving? Is it different than finding out your child committed suicide? There is no "justice" to be found in any of these situations! I know and understand that the human psyche needs justice, or at least some sense of it, but justice without rules is anarchistic vigilantism, and society cannot tolerate a vigilante--legally allowing deputized agents of the Law to become vigilantes themselves is a sure step to that society's downfall.

What if it was my kid? What if YOU were the one being butt-raped in prison because when the cops screwed up, hit the wrong house, maced and Tazed and handcuffed you and kicked the Holy Bejeezus out of you in the middle of the night, they set it up to look like you answered them at the door with a loaded, cocked shotgun so they could cover their tails by turning you into an instant criminal?

And why would the cops need a court ruling to screw with you? Has police corruption or planting evidence just started since this "ruling"? Hardly. Crooked cops will always exist.

I can't and won't deny that. My point is, with this ruling, it's a Hell of a lot easier for them to get away with it.

And just like gun laws, the criminals dont obey the law.

And now there effectively is no law.

The last I checked guns were legal.

Depending on where you live. Not here, at least.

Its not like it sits with me in the living room waiting for someone to kick the door in. Odds are if they did come in, they wouldnt even know there were any.

*sigh*

My point is, and I don't see why you're determined to avoid it, that they won't just kick in the door, realize they got the wrong house, apologize and leave while fitting your door back on its hinges. Like they're so fond of doing these days, they'll storm in en masse, throw you out of bed face-down on the floor and subdue you violently before you even realize who they are (assuming you're not awake, which could make it even worse). They'll be in your home for hours ransacking the place, destroying your furniture, tearing up your carpet, punching holes in your walls, and flinging the entire contents of your kitchen around in search of whatever they thought you had in the first place, all while leaning hard on you to tell them where "it" is, usually before they've Mirandized you. By the time they've realized how badly they've f'd up their only recourse in order to avoid all kinds of inquiries, internal investigations and potential firings and fines is to set you up to be the patsy by using anything questionable in your home against you. Your guns? Heh, you may have had them locked away in a cabinet safely out of reach, unloaded and trigger-locked--but what Forensics will find is a loaded weapon with your prints all over it, right beside where they took you down. It may not even belong to you, but it'll still be used against you. And that's exactly what the judge and jury are going to hear--that by an amazing coincidence, a freak mistake led the cops to a violent separatist with a personal stockpile and he met their entry with a gun in his hand.

Don't drop the soap.

And yes, I know this happens already--but now, it's going to be a hell of a lot easier.

Oh, Iraq just denied Blackwater an operating license in the country, the last I checked their "employees" were being brought up on murder charges. Say what you want about republicans, at least they have the stones to throw their own under the bus when things hit the fan.

They still have substantial contracts with the U.S. military to provide training and other services. And, frankly, they shouldn't be allowed to exist in this country. Private mercenary armies are illegal here, last I checked.

And the only ones the Republicans "throw under the bus" are the lowest on the food chain. Dick Cheney outed an undercover CIA agent during wartime. That's f'n TREASON. Don't tell me how much Republicans believe in "justice" until he, and Karl Rove, and Robert Novak, and anyone else involved are standing in front of a firing squad.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by spliff4020So the guy should walk, huh?

Yes. If we truly believe in the Constitution and truly value what it means to be "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" then absolutely, he should walk.

Even if it was YOUR kid? What if your kid was kidnapped and the cops "had the wrong house?" and found him. Should they apologize, shut the door and walk away?

I don't have kids, and if I did maybe I'd feel differently. I'm sure my views on the subject offer little comfort to those victimized by such people, but freedom demands sacrifice as much as it demands vigilance. Is it really any different than a parent who just found out their kid was killed in battle? Or killed in a complete accident, or died drunk driving? Is it different than finding out your child committed suicide? There is no "justice" to be found in any of these situations! I know and understand that the human psyche needs justice, or at least some sense of it, but justice without rules is anarchistic vigilantism, and society cannot tolerate a vigilante--legally allowing deputized agents of the Law to become vigilantes themselves is a sure step to that society's downfall.

What if it was my kid? What if YOU were the one being butt-raped in prison because when the cops screwed up, hit the wrong house, maced and Tazed and handcuffed you and kicked the Holy Bejeezus out of you in the middle of the night, they set it up to look like you answered them at the door with a loaded, cocked shotgun so they could cover their tails by turning you into an instant criminal?

And why would the cops need a court ruling to screw with you? Has police corruption or planting evidence just started since this "ruling"? Hardly. Crooked cops will always exist.

I can't and won't deny that. My point is, with this ruling, it's a Hell of a lot easier for them to get away with it.

And just like gun laws, the criminals dont obey the law.

And now there effectively is no law.

The last I checked guns were legal.

Depending on where you live. Not here, at least.

Its not like it sits with me in the living room waiting for someone to kick the door in. Odds are if they did come in, they wouldnt even know there were any.

*sigh*

My point is, and I don't see why you're determined to avoid it, that they won't just kick in the door, realize they got the wrong house, apologize and leave while fitting your door back on its hinges. Like they're so fond of doing these days, they'll storm in en masse, throw you out of bed face-down on the floor and subdue you violently before you even realize who they are (assuming you're not awake, which could make it even worse). They'll be in your home for hours ransacking the place, destroying your furniture, tearing up your carpet, punching holes in your walls, and flinging the entire contents of your kitchen around in search of whatever they thought you had in the first place, all while leaning hard on you to tell them where "it" is, usually before they've Mirandized you. By the time they've realized how badly they've f'd up their only recourse in order to avoid all kinds of inquiries, internal investigations and potential firings and fines is to set you up to be the patsy by using anything questionable in your home against you. Your guns? Heh, you may have had them locked away in a cabinet safely out of reach, unloaded and trigger-locked--but what Forensics will find is a loaded weapon with your prints all over it, right beside where they took you down. It may not even belong to you, but it'll still be used against you. And that's exactly what the judge and jury are going to hear--that by an amazing coincidence, a freak mistake led the cops to a violent separatist with a personal stockpile and he met their entry with a gun in his hand.

Don't drop the soap.

And yes, I know this happens already--but now, it's going to be a hell of a lot easier.

Oh, Iraq just denied Blackwater an operating license in the country, the last I checked their "employees" were being brought up on murder charges. Say what you want about republicans, at least they have the stones to throw their own under the bus when things hit the fan.

They still have substantial contracts with the U.S. military to provide training and other services. And, frankly, they shouldn't be allowed to exist in this country. Private mercenary armies are illegal here, last I checked.

And the only ones the Republicans "throw under the bus" are the lowest on the food chain. Dick Cheney outed an undercover CIA agent during wartime. That's f'n TREASON. Don't tell me how much Republicans believe in "justice" until he, and Karl Rove, and Robert Novak, and anyone else involved are standing in front of a firing squad.

Ok, so you are honestly saying that you would have no problem letting the guy that was found molesting your kid walk because the cops werent supposed to be there. What if the cops accidently kicked in Jeffrey Dahlmers door before they caught him? What if was stirring up good old human stew and adding the head just as the cops burst in? He should walk free too? C'mon man, admit defeat and move on.

As to them kicking in my door, tearing up my place and locking me up? I'm waiting. Im sure they have enough real criminals to deal with. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But again, I listen to what the cops say.

I was pulled over in Gary not to long ago. (If you never heard of it, just Google "Gary, Indiana") Its one of the worst and most dangerous cities in the country. It frequently tops the nations list for most homicides (per capita). Anyrate, the cops dont play over there.

I was coming home late from work and was pulled over for nothing. And I mean NOTHING. Without a notice I was told to exit the vehicle and lay on the hood. The cop asked if I had anything I was hiding and wanted to know why a white guy was in downtown Gary, after midnight. I told him I was coming home from work. He asked to search the car (with the other 4 cops that had now shown up). I told him "sure, go ahead". With out hesistation, he called county and a k9.

They were neither nice or friendly. I told them this was stupid and he told me shut up. So, I did. They have guns, billy clubs and mace. I have a big mouth. I know when I'm done. So, I shut it.

Long story short, they found nothing and I went home. No ticket, no reason for the stop (he did say I swerved in my lane a little......)

The cops have a job to do. And some douche bag shouldnt walk because of a technicality. If those cops wanted they could have planted some # one me. And who wouldnt have believed it? White guy, in the ghetto after midnight... It would be open and close case.

Again, there are dirty cops and all that, but they arent the majority or even close.

Now, as for poor old Valerie Plame? Thats the same woman who did all the press interviews, right? Thats the same woman who splashed herself all over the tv and wrote a book, right? Ya, she was worried. That whole case was alot to do about nothing.

No. Look farther than that. There was Abramoff, Scooter Libby (who did walk, but for other reasons),Mark Foley, Tom Delay, and many many more. The republicans never said they dont have corruption. They find it and weed it out. The democrats reward it. Just go google "Barney Frank Scandal" and ask "why does he have a job and why does he decide where bail out money goes?"

Originally posted by spliff4020
Ok, so you are honestly saying that you would have no problem letting the guy that was found molesting your kid walk because the cops werent supposed to be there. What if the cops accidently kicked in Jeffrey Dahlmers door before they caught him? What if was stirring up good old human stew and adding the head just as the cops burst in? He should walk free too? C'mon man, admit defeat and move on.

Why admit defeat? Philosophically I am 100% correct. Our justice system is (supposedly) based on the concept of the defendant having a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The "proven guilty" part requires rules that form a solid basis for criminal investigations; this body of rules is called Procedural Law.

See, criminal investigations are supposed to be difficult; the burden of proof is always, always on the authorities. This is meant to protect the innocent from unreasonable invasions of their privacy.

As to your constant extreme straw-man examples, they're getting old and the kinds of scenarios you're offering as hypotheticals never happen. What often does happen is, cops mistakenly (or, based on false info from their "informants" or some other such crap) bust in someone's door without warning, and that person, thinking they're about to be murdered by some insane robber (because the police haven't identified themselves; even if they scream "POLICE!" it's hard to tell just who it is because anyone could say that as they're breaking down the door) tries to defend themselves--many times they end up dead, because cops screwed up.

I don't know about you, but I find that unacceptable. And this ruling makes it a lot easier for cops to make such "mistakes" and cover up their actions.

As to them kicking in my door, tearing up my place and locking me up? I'm waiting.

Just because they haven't done it to you yet doesn't mean you should make it easy for them. Police hold a special place in our society and wield great power; with that power comes responsibility. Too many cops have abdicated that responsibility for the sake of expediency or because the power goes to their heads.

Im sure they have enough real criminals to deal with. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But again, I listen to what the cops say.

I was pulled over in Gary not to long ago. (If you never heard of it, just Google "Gary, Indiana") Its one of the worst and most dangerous cities in the country. It frequently tops the nations list for most homicides (per capita). Anyrate, the cops dont play over there.

I'm somewhat familiar with Gary. I live right across the state line from it.

I was coming home late from work and was pulled over for nothing. And I mean NOTHING. Without a notice I was told to exit the vehicle and lay on the hood. The cop asked if I had anything I was hiding and wanted to know why a white guy was in downtown Gary, after midnight. I told him I was coming home from work. He asked to search the car (with the other 4 cops that had now shown up). I told him "sure, go ahead". With out hesistation, he called county and a k9.

They were neither nice or friendly. I told them this was stupid and he told me shut up. So, I did. They have guns, billy clubs and mace. I have a big mouth. I know when I'm done. So, I shut it.

Long story short, they found nothing and I went home. No ticket, no reason for the stop (he did say I swerved in my lane a little......)

You got lucky. If you'd been black you'd have seen the inside of a jail cell.

The cops have a job to do. And some douche bag shouldnt walk because of a technicality.

Then police should do their damn jobs right, and not make mistakes. Considering the power they have, their armament, their paramilitary strength, we as a society should hold them to the highest standard of accountability.

If those cops wanted they could have planted some # one me. And who wouldnt have believed it? White guy, in the ghetto after midnight... It would be open and close case.

Again, you're lucky.

Again, there are dirty cops and all that, but they arent the majority or even close.

I don't believe that. I have a cop in the family; I know how corrupt most police organizations are.

Now, as for poor old Valerie Plame? Thats the same woman who did all the press interviews, right? Thats the same woman who splashed herself all over the tv and wrote a book, right? Ya, she was worried. That whole case was alot to do about nothing.

AFTER she was outed. Are you lacking in basic perception of facts? Plame was outed to get back at her husband for his criticism of Bush admin policy. Once she was outed, her career was over. Not only that, the entire "company" she was instrumental in setting up as a CIA front was effectively destroyed--and any and all who worked with her were put in immediate jeopardy. She lucked out and wasn't directly in harm's way herself, but that doesn't change the fact that what was done to her was, in point of fact, high treason. Had this happened during WW2 all those involved would be on Death Row. That's a FACT. Look it up for yourself.

No. Look farther than that. There was Abramoff, Scooter Libby (who did walk, but for other reasons),Mark Foley, Tom Delay, and many many more. The republicans never said they dont have corruption. They find it and weed it out.

No, they don't. They offer up "sacrificial lambs" who admit to some small level of wrongdoing, then escape jailtime for crimes most of us would rot for, and then go on to cushy lobbying jobs making more than they ever did as "public servants". And good little idiots buy it and think they're all "oh so accountable".

The democrats reward it. Just go google "Barney Frank Scandal" and ask "why does he have a job and why does he decide where bail out money goes?"

Here's one for you to figure out: Why is Karl Rove pulling down six figures as an "analyst" on Fox News when he should be in jail for refusing a Congressional subpoena?

And in the future--PLEASE don't just "quote" the whole previous post. It wastes a vast amount of space.

And the hits just keep on coming. Still think you’re free? Still think the gov only does bad things to bad people? If the gov isn’t doing bad things to you (like planting or inventing evidence), then they see you as no threat to their complete and total dominance.

edit to complete thought

[edit on 1-2-2009 by resistor]

reply to post by truth_seeker3


I hear that. I try telling relatives about it and they get upset since the Super Bowl's on.

Maybe we need a Gestapo, show all these idiots why this country was fought for. # it, let the NWO win.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Darky6K]

Now you can expect the feds to ransack your house even if your innocent. This is rediculous.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
"Better plant a gun on him just to be sure". You know how many times I've heard that kind of crap from real cops?

I'm working on a degree for criminal justice, and even I hear that now. I'm not even in the field yet. Goes to show you the road we're taking.

But hey, Obama was voted in and the Super Bowl is on, who cares? Wait until you're mistaken as a criminal and arrested. May be a mistake, but they can still plant stuff and now get away with it. So much for the big American populace who always said they'd fight back against a corrupt government.

Yeah, if they're brown. Roll over and go back to sleep and keep saying you need to give up your rights for whatever #ed up form of safety you believe in.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Darky6K]

Originally posted by The Nighthawk


Why admit defeat? Philosophically I am 100% correct. Our justice system is (supposedly) based on the concept of the defendant having a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The "proven guilty" part requires rules that form a solid basis for criminal investigations; this body of rules is called Procedural Law. Well, I'm glad I'm not your kid....



As to your constant extreme straw-man examples, they're getting old and the kinds of scenarios you're offering as hypotheticals never happen. What often does happen is, cops mistakenly (or, based on false info from their "informants" or some other such crap) bust in someone's door without warning, and that person, thinking they're about to be murdered by some insane robber (because the police haven't identified themselves; even if they scream "POLICE!" it's hard to tell just who it is because anyone could say that as they're breaking down the door) tries to defend themselves--many times they end up dead, because cops screwed up.Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with the ruling, which allows evidence collected to be used. And again, it isnt passed into law, its only one ruling.

I don't know about you, but I find that unacceptable. And this ruling makes it a lot easier for cops to make such "mistakes" and cover up their actions.

As to them kicking in my door, tearing up my place and locking me up? I'm waiting.

Just because they haven't done it to you yet doesn't mean you should make it easy for them. Police hold a special place in our society and wield great power; with that power comes responsibility. Too many cops have abdicated that responsibility for the sake of expediency or because the power goes to their heads.



You got lucky. If you'd been black you'd have seen the inside of a jail cell. No, if I was STUPID, I'd be in jail. I dont have to respect the man, but I do have to respect the badge. And understand that he has a job a to do, and just by the simple fact that I was where I was at the time I was there does make me look suspect.



Then police should do their damn jobs right, and not make mistakes. Considering the power they have, their armament, their paramilitary strength, we as a society should hold them to the highest standard of accountability. And we do. People cant wait to fry a cop for something he's done wrong. Nevermind how much they have helped someone. But no matter what you call them, you still call them humans, which means they can and will make mistakes. And you should learn the difference between aggregious and simple clerical errors.

If those cops wanted they could have planted some # one me. And who wouldnt have believed it? White guy, in the ghetto after midnight... It would be open and close case.

Again, you're lucky. No, not lucky. Smart. I let them do what they have to and move on. I work with some hard core ghetto dudes from there. They get stopped all the time. Ones name is Kunta, and he was stopped. He had a gun (licensed) but they still messed with him. He wound up with a ticket for to many air fresheners... OH NOES!!!! I can here the jackbooted thugs marching in now!!

Again, there are dirty cops and all that, but they arent the majority or even close.

I don't believe that. I have a cop in the family; I know how corrupt most police organizations are.Wow, so the one cop you know speaks for the MAJORITY of the police now? Amazing.

Now, as for poor old Valerie Plame? Thats the same woman who did all the press interviews, right? Thats the same woman who splashed herself all over the tv and wrote a book, right? Ya, she was worried. That whole case was alot to do about nothing.

AFTER she was outed. Are you lacking in basic perception of facts? Plame was outed to get back at her husband for his criticism of Bush admin policy. Once she was outed, her career was over. Not only that, the entire "company" she was instrumental in setting up as a CIA front was effectively destroyed--and any and all who worked with her were put in immediate jeopardy. She lucked out and wasn't directly in harm's way herself, but that doesn't change the fact that what was done to her was, in point of fact, high treason. Had this happened during WW2 all those involved would be on Death Row. That's a FACT. Look it up for yourself.
Yes, and so scared and in danger was she, we could all see her at the presidential dinner with Colbert, laughing it up... OMG!! Im a spy and Ive been outed. I think I'll hit the talk show circuit, hock my hubbies new book and write one myself. What else is a girl to do?

No. Look farther than that. There was Abramoff, Scooter Libby (who did walk, but for other reasons),Mark Foley, Tom Delay, and many many more. The republicans never said they dont have corruption. They find it and weed it out.

No, they don't. They offer up "sacrificial lambs" who admit to some small level of wrongdoing, then escape jailtime for crimes most of us would rot for, and then go on to cushy lobbying jobs making more than they ever did as "public servants". And good little idiots buy it and think they're all "oh so accountable". Well, Delay hasnt gone to trial yet. Foley didnt break any laws, he was just a scum bag. And like they should, they out them and kick them out. Even old Ted Stevens, or Larry Craig. The democrats actually put these men in charge AFTER the fact. Get back to me when you can defend Barney Frank.

The democrats reward it. Just go google "Barney Frank Scandal" and ask "why does he have a job and why does he decide where bail out money goes?"

Here's one for you to figure out: Why is Karl Rove pulling down six figures as an "analyst" on Fox News when he should be in jail for refusing a Congressional subpoena? Ok, heres an answer. He was the top aide to the president and has knowledge on many classified things. He wasnt charged with a crime. So why shouldnt he earn a living how ever he sees fit? Notice how much the democrats care, now that they have won? They painted Bush as Hitler, all you drank up the koolaid and put in all democrats. Now the election is over, and everyone will forget.

And in the future--PLEASE don't just "quote" the whole previous post. It wastes a vast amount of space.

I originally quoted this just to annoy you, but decided against it. There are just to many things wrong with what you say. I really could go line by line if I wanted.

I am one victim of this already cops entered my house without warrant and the judge upheld all evidence although did state the police violated my 4th amendment as well as my constitutional rights all evidence was upheld in court and was convicted ... took the plea since cant risk going to prison for yrs...pot charges...no priors at all not even a speeding ticket...police didnt plant evidence the stole it ..so it turn the broke into my house and stole my weed for themselves but left enough to get me busted and then called for a warrant

Remember this people:

All rulings limiting cops were placed there BECAUSE OF HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE ABUSES BY POLICE OFFICERS. That is FACT. That is CASE LAW. There is no way to redirect, or say it is "mistaken" or anything else.

Know why we have the miranda warnings? Read the case history, and it will tell you why.

Know why illegally seized evidence WAS thrown out? Read up on the case law, and find out. (Here's a hint, it wasn't cops making an "honest mistake")

You see, our founding fathers believed in 100 guilty going free, rather than 1 innocent person being jailed. They believed that because they believed in an afterlife (in whatever form) where you would be judged for your actions on this earth. Not only that, but they saw what the british did to THEM.

And remember this also. Washington grew hemp. If they (meaning the founding fathers) wanted to make it illegal, they would have done so.

I am going to cackle madly when the people who think cops are always "good" (or even mostly good, or even PARTIALLY GOOD) show up at their door one day. They will think that because they are "law abiding citizens", they have nothing to fear.

I leave with a little story. (true story, details left out to maintain anonymity).

A guy had certain powers of investigation over certain criminal acts. This guy investigated this particular "crime". All things pointed to the suspect being overtly guilty. I mean EVERYTHING. The guy had the means, he had the motive, and he had the opportunity. The prosecutor was drawing up the paperwork to have him arrested. Then, something happened. A 7 year old confessed to the "crime". (Only it wasn't intentional). This particular guy was shook to the core, because he realized he HAD ALMOST PUT AN INNOCENT MAN IN JAIL. Had this 7 year old not confessed, he would have.
The saddest part of all? How the assistent prosecuting attorney SLAVERED over the thought of putting the guy in jail. (And no, I was not involved in this story in any way, except to hear it told to me by the investigator".)

They all tried and convicted this guy before all the evidence was even in. And you think it couldn't happen to YOU? (Remember, this guy was absolutely, totally, 100% NOT GUILTY of any wrong doing).

reply to post by spliff4020


Plame did those things afterwards because it was a crime what happened. Let's say that for anyone who writes on criminal matters.

BTW, about Mark Foley, he got nothing done to him. Same as all these guys who ordered torture and illegal kidnappings. Libby was probably pardoned for the same reason. And Eric Prince will have nothing done to him, despite the crap he spews and what his men do. Don't forget their actions in New Orleans

So the police could break down your door, ransack your house, search & destroy everything, and if they happen to find you doing something against the law, it all works out. They don't even need that silly annoyance called a "search warrant" anymore.

Great. Let's see how this goes...

Originally posted by Pauligirl
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

That is one of the rulings I meant to describe in a reply to this thread. Good find

Also, be sure to check out: "Hudson vs. Michigan" (2006), which correlates to this indirectly:

I am also highly disappointed in the current and blatant misconstruing of Justice Clarence Thomas' Ruling Opinion many years ago, which declared that Police may enter a Residence unannounced, so long as they believe a Life is in Immediate Danger, a Suspect has Fled through the Residence, OR if there is a belief so held upon which Evidence might be destroyed (In specific regards to "No Knock" Drug Raids). Due to the PG County (Maryland) Police and Sheriff twisting this Opinion around, they ended up breaking into a Local Mayor's home, and shooting & killing his two Labrador Retrievers, one of which was running away (They chased and shot him in the rear, then chest, as a result of which he bled to death). This was all due to a drug package which was addressed to his house, yet which the Police knew was a common tactic amongst criminals (Addressing drugs to random addresses, so as to avoid tracking, and they attempt to intercept them before the homeowner does, in order to retrieve their product). They did this all while circumnavigating the Local Police Chief, of whom's precinct they were in conducting the raid. Even one of the Town's own Police Officers stopped by when he noticed the commotion while on Routine Patrol, and he decided to stay with the Mayor in case the Raiding Department (Known for their Corruption) attempted to frame or harm him. To this very day, they still refuse to admit their mistake, and have yet to take any blame for their faults. This occurrence took place during June of 2008.



BTW, not to hijack this thread, but in regard to the aforementioned account of a horrific Abuse of Authority, the Mayor (and Victim Cheye Calvo, of Berwyn Heights, MD) will be

"Fielding Questions and Comments....Monday at Noon, at Washingtonpost.com/Magazine".

This means Monday, February 2nd, 2009, at 12:00 Noon Eastern Standard Time (Zulu/Greenwich(GMT) -5 Hours). I hope that in relation to this Thread, and Topic, that some ATS Members can find the time to Discuss such a Subject with a Victim of such abuse. I just learned about this upcoming discussion opportunity, and I felt obliged to mention it in a Thread dealing with the Same Topic. Thanks, and Hopefully we can all start Righting Wrongs, and Bringing forth Justice, by letting those Victims involved know of our Solidarity with them.