FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/20/2016 12:21:30 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-weakens-protections-against-unconstitutional-p?utm_term=.bsYgvzddN#.tlERGMqqX
Supreme Court Weakens Protections Against Unconstitutional Police Stops The 5-3 decision prompts a sharp rebuke from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who writes that those targeted by police “warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere.” Originally posted on Jun. 20, 2016, at 12:16 p.m. Updated on Jun. 20, 2016, at 1:07 p.m.
BuzzFeed News Reporter Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for police to get evidence admitted in a prosecution even if that evidence was obtained after an unconstitutional stop.
In a 5-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court that the drugs and paraphernalia found by a Utah police officer on Edward Strieff after an unconstitutional stop are admissible because police found that there was an arrest warrant outstanding for Strieff and that warrant "attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized."
The decision was a reversal of the Utah Supreme Court's decision tossing out the evidence under the Fourth Amendment's so-called "exclusionary rule," which holds that evidence obtained illegally cannot be admitted at trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
You're missing the point. It's not "what would a perfect world be like?" but, instead, "Is it better that the guilty should die, or that the innocent should live?"
In the theological sense, certainly none of us are innocent; but the government's job never was to render that sort of judgment based on the heart, but rather to protect it's people and their land and to promote righteousness by punishing evil actions... and in the sense of fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution, both erode and run counter to government's second purpose.
It's not reasonable.
Thomas's whole reasoning is like saying: well the prison guard, disoriented and confused, stabbed an unknown inmate at midnight... but it's ok because that particular was supposed to be executed in a week.
IOW, just because there happened to be some actual reason to arrest the guy (the outstanding warrant), the police didn't know it at the time and it's essentially just random chance that someone got caught. (But then again, with the TSA we know what the government's stance on the 4th amendment is, right?)
Clarence Thomas didn’t make up new law out of whole cloth. Rather, he applied existing precedents, which is what we expect reasoned, reasonable constitutional conservative judges to do, right?
The case turned on the fact that the defendant, Streiff, had a valid arrest warrant hanging over his head. So, even though the police officer may not have had sufficient probable cause to stop and question Streiff, once the officer learned that there was a valid arrest warrant for Streiff, he then had the right to arrest and search him. This principle is established in prior judicial precedents.
The precedent which Thomas applied in the majority decision was Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586 (2006).
So, this case is limited by its facts to criminal suspects who have valid arrest warrants outstanding. If you have a warrant outstanding for, say, not appearing in court for a speeding ticket, and a cop who suspects you of drug dealing stops you and phones your ID into police dispatch for a computer run, you are screwed. I think that this is a just result. A liberal wackist such as Sonia Sotomayor, the not-so-wise latina, would disagree.
Well, IOW, the search as a result of the unconstitutional stop would have been disallowed.
But once it was discovered there was an outstanding warrant for this guy’s arrest, the search that followed the legal arrest was a “search incident to arrest”, perfectly OK.
No, that is way, way too close to something like the police executed a no-knock raid, without warrant, and then found child porn on a computer… so that makes everything ok!
— Allowing for such ends-justify-the-means tactics only invites the destruction of our protections.
And then we'd have SWAT teams with child-porn drop guns iPads. (Much like the reports of drop-guns or planting drugs as evidence that we have right now thanks to the War on Drugs and all the damage it's wrought on the Bill of Rights.)
” but, instead, “Is it better that the guilty should die, or that the innocent should live?””
How does letting 10 murderers going to save innocent lives? I would rather than those 10 murderers put to sleep, because they would not be able to murder anyone further. If you are innocent, you have rights and FREE legal representation. Take responsibility of your own legal issues and you will be fine.
Wow. You really, really fail at understanding our English law heritage, don't you?
Blakstone's ratio was wholly in the realm (and context) of the judicial process answering exactly the question: which is it better do, to err on the side of convicting the falsely accused, or to err on the side of mercy to the guilty?
And, given that the criminal often commits more crimes, it's reasonable to chose the latter: for there will be more chances to catch the criminal. Yet, if the innocent are killed through a wrongful execution, how may that be corrected? They are already dead, and you cannot give life back, can you?
You are simply derailing the topic as we are going off tangent to the original topic. But that is beside the point.
You say “And, given that the criminal often commits more crimes, it’s reasonable to chose the latter: for there will be more chances to catch the criminal.”
Not if that that criminal is a murderer and is going to murder again. Plus, there are 10 of them. More murderers on the lose is NOT going to good. The Constitution guarantees due process. Follow the process and execute!
It's exactly the process that Blackstone's ratio is talking about!
To put it in dead simplest terms: do you assume that the accused is guilty, or innocent?
“do you assume that the accused is guilty, or innocent?”
I do not assume anything. If due process is followed (and they are followed in this country) and you are found guilty, you are guilty. After 20 years of exhaustive appeal process and you are still executed, then the due process was more than exhausted.
I do not assume anything.
Of course you must assume one or the other in a justice-system. Is it the defendant that must prove that he is innocent, or the prosecutor that must prove that he is guilty. It must be one or the other.
If due process is followed (and they are followed in this country) and you are found guilty, you are guilty.
We are talking about due process itself; you can't say I'd follow due process
when we're talking about the nature of what due process is.
After 20 years of exhaustive appeal process and you are still executed, then the due process was more than exhausted.
I never said anything about appeal, I was talking about the actual assumptions that our system of jurisprudence is built upon.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I would rather 10 murderers behind bar/sentenced to death AND innocents not be in jail in the first place
Uh,you should move to North Korea where those in charge agree with your mindset that the state should have more power.
Damn correct there...l
I concour in general. Depends on the validity of the initial call.
Good post. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.