Texas court rules that police may introduce illegally gathered evidence at trial

Coach is Right ^ | 3/15/14 | Doug Book

[Oldpuppymax]

Texas prosecutors are applauding a decision by the State Court of Criminal Appeals which provides police officers a second chance to present evidence which has been gathered contrary to Texas law and the 4th Amendment. The ruling literally offers law enforcement a “do-over;” an opportunity to secure a search warrant AFTER a home has been illegally searched and AFTER evidence has been improperly obtained.

In 2010, police in Parker County, Texas received a call from a confidential informant (CI) who claimed that Fred Wehrenberg and a number of associates “were fixin’” to cook meth. Hours after the call–at 12:30 A.M the following day–police entered the Wehrenberg home without a warrant and against the wishes of Wehrenberg. Police handcuffed all of the occupants, held them in the front yard and proceeded to perform what the officers described as a “protective sweep” of the residence. An hour and a half later, after finding no meth being made on the premises, police prepared a...

[laotzu]

I agree that this is terrible—and Texas is my beloved state!

I blame the redundancy of "God Bless Texas".

This is wrong.

[laotzu]

all for standing naked out in front of your house

An odd place for a mind to go. But hey, I don't know how you were raised.

It is always good to run across you schoolboy.

Nobody wonders how Colorado/California/North Korea stacks up against Texas, do they?

Your disappointment in Texas is devastating to us all. No, really...devasating.

[sagar]

If that happens, I will get the Hell out of that State. After all, nobody is forcing me to stay in any State.

[Pajamajan]

"Never thought I'd live to see the day when the freezers would be calling for help and cheering on the leftist Democrat appointed Federal judges"

"Freezers should be Freepers"

No-You got it right the first time. The Freezers are a group run by some guy named Jim Thompson- FYI.

[Defiant]

OMG, an idiot is spewing insults. Great way to argue.

20th century jurisprudence was a long march through the rights of states to govern themselves, by applying the bill of rights to the states through the 14th Amendment, something that was never intended. States could, for example, establish a religion under the Constitution. The Congress could not. (States had abandoned official religions by the time of the 14th Amendment, but that cam about because of people acting through democratic processes.) States did not have a second amendment, but most protected the right to bear arms. States did not have a 4th amendment, but the citizens of the individual states demanded that their constables not enter their houses without valid warrants. It was our nature. Freedom. Not because the feds demanded it, but because people were accustomed to certain rights that preexisted even the Constitution.

During the last century, that all changed, through a crackpot theory that the 14th amendment requirement of due process (intended to apply to freed slaves) meant that the protections of the bill of rights applied to the states. This in turn resulted in a new power shift from the states to the feds. The states now had to do a wide variety of things the way the feds dictated, and it gave the feds the power to review almost anything done in any state legal situation, from the speed of trials, the right to be silent, and the right to be free from warrantless searches and arrests.

Now, I take a back seat to no one in demanding that the rights enshrined in the bill of rights be extended to all of us. But they were already. No state did not have its own bill of rights that basically mirrored the feds. They all did. They still do. However, not they aren't worth the digital hard drives they are saved on. Whatever they say doesn't matter, because the fed's version is what governs, federal courts are the arbiters, and the central government gains control over state legislatures. In that way, states become mere departments of the federal government, not sovereign units of a federated nation.

You may like that development, but I do not. The patriots at this site do not. I do not agree with the proposition that the only way to prevent law enforcement from violating civil rights is through the exclusionary rule; it is just the remedy that one court came up with and then decreed as the law of the land. There are many other ways that such conduct could be deterred, and it is entirely possible that a state could decide that it doesn't care as much about violations as it does about crime. That is a balancing of interests that is a decidedly legislative determination, not a judicial one. Creating a remedy is not the role of a judge. When a judge does that, they are as much a jackboot thug ignoring the rights of the citizenry as the cop they are purporting to punish.

Can there be problems in a state? Sure. You might have racists denying people their rights, as in the Jim Crow south. Or you might have a corrupt city machine running things, as in Chicago, Boston or NYC. Laws are meaningless if they are not followed. However, the solution to local problems is not federal control of all localities. Centralized power is the worst of all. What do we do when that becomes corrupt, or its laws are not enforced. (Hint: You're finding out right now). When states dishonor their own laws, or fail to respect the privileges and immunities of all their citizens, there can be a role for the feds. But that role does not involve legislating for the states. It might involve, for example, ensuring that all a state's citizens are allowed to vote. And that, self-government, is generally the solution.

Whether you are sober on this Saturday afternoon, or have been knocking a few back watching March Madness and pontificating about things you only know superficially, I don't know, and so don't make any presumptions. I only know that it appears you have bought the lie that judges assuming powers they don't have to dictate to citizens and states has been a good thing, and the only way to protect our rights. And on that, we will have to strenuously disagree.

[FredZarguna]

The Fourteenth Amendment says what it says because it was necessary to demolish the reckless opinion of one idiot Southerner that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States.

Attempts to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to emancipated slaves are preposterous given its language and history.

Like I said: sober up, or learn some history and then come back.

Cops don't have a right to violate the Bill of Rights. Period. Your supposed "remedy" puts the foxes in charge of the hen house, but current and past police behavior establishes clearly that they don't have the integrity for the job.

[OneWingedShark]

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I don't admit that the evidence was less than conclusive. I say -- unequivocally -- that anyone who defers to that jury is a fool.
That includes you. It does not include me.

Again, I said that I don't really remember much of anything about that trial; therefore not to defer to their judgment would be to impugn their integrity and honor.
To do otherwise would be arrogant; I did not ever become familiar with the trial in any way — they did. You may have, I don't know; to take your word for it would be truly foolish though.

I note you don't touch on the acquittal of Klansman as a matter of nullification abuse at all, except to say they will answer to God. That is already true [or false] the question of nullification notwithstanding, with which it has nothing to do.

I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater — I believe the founders were right when they said that it is better that a dozen criminals should be free [i.e. acquitted] than a single innocent punished.

As for the rest, there is nothing in your quotes that indicates that the Framers believed in wholesale nullification. Their position is the same as mine, and it isn't yours.

Really? I don't think you really understand what they were saying.
Remember they were very, very weary of tyranny — just ramming a 'law' into place (a la Obamacare) doesn't make that law good, or constitutional.
Just because some government organization [e.g. USSC] says that it's Constitutional doesn't mean that it is so.

[OneWingedShark]

If that happens, I will get the Hell out of that State. After all, nobody is forcing me to stay in any State.

Yet.

[Wuli]

“The effect of the exclusionary rule is to deter crime”

where is the evidence for that

“Your approach would encourage law enforcement to make a calculation about whether the evidentiary crime they’re about to commit is insignificant compared to the evidence they may [or may not] obtain, and even whether their criminal wrong-doing would even be detected or punished.

Nonsense. If there was no warrant, then they had no legal access to the evidence, and any defense attorney can show that, and with that there would be a criminal investigation on how the evidence was obtained. But the evidence, and any TRUTH IN THAT EVIDENCE would not be held hostage to how it was obtained.

[FredZarguna]

Most responsible law enforcement officials attempt to obtain warrants before obtaining evidence based upon probable cause. If you don't think that deters police from entering peoples homes illegally, I have nothing more to say to you. If you don't think it causes prosecutors to carefully instruct policemen on what's permissible and what isn't, again, study up and come back.

with that there would be a criminal investigation on how the evidence was obtained.

The courts rejected this remedy for good reason. Any criminal investigation would be performed by the accused criminals themselves, which is ridiculous. It was tried under the Common Law. It didn't work.

[Defiant]

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? I think you are the one into the sauce. No worries, it is a Saturday, and your life is so bleak.

So, mistake no. 1 that you make: No one said that cops have a right to violate the bill of rights, least of all me. Let me repeat that for the slow of learning: No one said that cops have a right to violate the bill of rights. What was stated was that the federal courts did not have the authority to decree that the remedy for a cop's violation of the 4th amendment is to exclude evidence of guilt from a criminal trial in state or federal court. If you can't understand that last sentence, I may have to repeat it again for you.

No one said that a state can't legislate exclusion as a remedy, if it is the best way to keep the cops honest. No one said the Congress can't legislate that as a remedy in federal criminal cases. What was said was that federal courts can't decree that as a remedy from the bench, and then decree that their remedy applies to state as well as federal courts.

Your inability to craft a cogent argument continues. You state:

Attempts to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to emancipated slaves are preposterous given its language and history.

Again, a problem with reading comprehension. No one has claimed that the 14th amendment applies only to emancipated slaves. (Sorry fellow Freepers, but so Freddy can understand I have to repeat that last statement again: No one has claimed that the 14th amendment applies only to emancipated slaves. That is different than saying that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that former slaves be treated equally under the laws of their states. The 14th amendment was meant to protect former slaves, but it by its terms applies to all citizens of the United States, and extends to all citizens "due process of law". What "due process" meant is to be interpreted in light of the intent of those who passed the amendment, but has been twisted to new, and unintended purposes by leftist judges in the last 100 years.

This is the problem when people with limited abilities read something and think they know what it says or signifies, but they don't really. I have no doubt you have read some history and perhaps even the text of the 14th amendment. You just haven't understood it, and I know you don't how legislative intent is to be derived under legal principles. Oh well. We have low information voters; now we have low comprehension legal analysis. It's the nature of modern America. I am glad we encounter such an extreme example so rarely on FR.

You criticize "my supposed remedy" when in fact I don't have one. I only require that the people be responsible for developing the remedy, through their elected representatives. You are clearly a strong proponent of the exclusionary rule, and then you make legislative arguments in its favor. If so, have them passed. Don't rely on DC judges telling the people of far away states what to do with evidence that has freed killers who raped and killed children. That is what you want. Not me. It's the same kind of thinking that got us abortion.

Here, have a champagne coolie, your brain is obviously getting tired:

[basil]

I get what you’re saying……..

[CodeToad]

You suck at sarcasm. Colorado stacks against Texas just fine. At least we have open carry, carry in bars, no license to carry in cars, etc.

Your ignorance is a testament to the dumbing down of America.

[CodeToad]

I don’t think you get it: States do not need to wait for the federal government to tell them a federal law is unconstitutional. States are to force the federal government to prove a law is constitutional if the State refuses to follow it.

[CodeToad]

"After all, nobody is forcing me to stay in any State."

You will run out of States to run to. Make the liberals run instead. Fight back.

[CodeToad]

Excellent point. The federal government and the liberals are trying to say moving out of cities in “unfair”. You can bet they would limit movement to other States as well.

[FredZarguna]

What was said was that federal courts can't decree that as a remedy from the bench, and then decree that their remedy applies to state as well as federal courts.

They can, and they did, under the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that you use bold print and have about five people in the country who agree with your position makes you a whackjob, but not an expert in the law.

[Defiant]

Boy are you dumb. They can, and they did, under the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment.

And that was what we claimed they didn't have authority to do. Do you understand what "begging the question" means? Do you believe that when a federal judge says something, it is automatically correct? How do you get through a day without being able to tie your own shoes? And finally, is this you, Senator McCain?

[Wuli]

“Any criminal investigation would be performed by the accused criminals themselves, which is ridiculous.”

Nonsense. The district attorney is NOT the police.

[FredZarguna]

The district attorney is NOT the police.

Given this assertion, your position is not surprising. And still wrong.