Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 06/22/2006 11:48:11 AM PDT by JTN
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in its 5-4 decision in the case of Hudson v. Michigan that when police conduct an illegal, no-knock raid, any evidence they seize in the raid can still be used against the suspect at trial, even though the raid was conducted illegally.
I’ve spent the last year researching these types of volatile, highly-confrontational, paramilitary raids for a forthcoming report for the Cato Institute. The decision in Hudson is almost certain to lead to more illegal no-knock raids, more mistaken raids on innocent people, and more unnecessary deaths, both of civilians and of police officers.
Experts on both sides of the ruling have debated the issue for a week now. I’d like to make another point. The Supreme Court split on this case, right down the middle. The four most liberal justices voted in favor of the defendant, while the five most conservative justices voted in favor of the police.
The Court’s "swing voter," Justice Kennedy, filed a middling concurrence that sided with the conservatives, but warned them not to take their line of argument any further, or they’d lose his vote. But the majority opinion in this case, written by Anthony Scalia, was not actually all that conservative. Here’s why:
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Come on, just say it "Yes, I am law enforcement." See, it's not that hard. You is what you is.
Precisely my thought as well...what if that happens?
It looks to me that the Justices will have to revisit this one and clarify it v/s the right to protect your self against unidentified intruders of any kind in your own home.
Boy they opened a big can of legal worms!
And the letter should be in English, Spanish and Braille. Written on hemp paper.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
State common-law adhered to the non-exclusionary rule.
"Scalia is an activist social conservative. While generally aligned with a true conservative, they are not the same thing. "
Exactly right, which is why so many here love him. He's an occasionally useful ally in the fight for a Constitutional republic. Just as those who are social conservative authoritarians are allies. But his cause is not our own.
Unlike Balko, however, I think there is a positive to this case. This is a great opportunity to end the exclusionary rule, which intrudes upon the people's interests, and expand the trial lawyers' interest in suing police and police departments. THAT is what this does, in saying that the exclusionary rule is not the best solution to privacy violations by cops. Those whose searches and arrests are in fact improper now have SCOTUS sanction to sue the police officers' pants off.
True. He tried to insert a few rights, but it was shot down.
"fully expected the states to operate under guiding principles which would ensure individual freedom and personal liberty."
Exactly. The states were where the citizens had the greatest influence. And if their state didn't offer the freedom and liberty they were looking for, they could move to another state.
My professional experience with law enforcement and this is not on the wrong side of the law but within the criminal justice system is that we now have a group of people that do not care what the law is. Knock, no knock it doesn't matter. They will do what they want. They believe themselves above the law. They constantly talk about Civilians, well they are civilians themselves not military. The only thing that separates cops from everyone else is they are obligated to make arrests when they see a crime commited. No I am not trying to hijack this thread. Get a life.
Uh, if a screen door is the main entrance into the house, it is quite easy to see inside without entering.
My reading tells me that the exclusionary rule dates from the 20th century, 1914. My point was to the dangers of the No Knock policy, though.
Although I think there was not anticipated that there would be a problem with any of the states not offering sufficient freedom. These days, I'm starting to wonder, though.
But since the question comes up so often on this forum of fed vs state constitutions, powers and the rights of men, I've a mind to do a little reading or research on some of the state constitutions and their histories, VA in particular I think, since that's where Madison and many others lived, but also my home state of FL. Maybe MA too. And perhaps the new states, Hawaii and Alaska.
"The founding fathers fully expected the states to operate under guiding principles which would ensure individual freedom and personal liberty."
paulsen:
Exactly. The states were where the citizens had the greatest influence. And if their state didn't offer the freedom and liberty they were looking for, they could move to another state.
And if ~all~ the States agreed with the feds to ignore our RKBA's and didn't offer the freedom and liberty people were looking for, they could move to another country. -- Yea sure.. Dream on.
And it is a weird dream. Why does anyone ~want~ States to have the power to restrict the amount of the freedom and liberty they "offer"?
Sam:
"-- since the question comes up so often on this forum of fed vs state constitutions, powers and the rights of men, I've a mind to do a little reading or research on some of the state constitutions and their histories, --"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's an excellent view of Constitutional history:
Restoring the Lost Constitution : The Presumption of Liberty
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691115850?v=glance
The U.S. Constitution found in school textbooks and under glass in Washington is not the one enforced today by the Supreme Court. In Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy Barnett argues that since the nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government.
From the Commerce Clause, to the Necessary and Proper Clause, to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has rendered each of these provisions toothless. In the process, the written Constitution has been lost.
Barnett establishes the original meaning of these lost clauses and offers a practical way to restore them to their central role in constraining government: adopting a "presumption of liberty" to give the benefit of the doubt to citizens when laws restrict their rightful exercises of liberty. He also provides a new, realistic and philosophically rigorous theory of constitutional legitimacy that justifies both interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning and, where that meaning is vague or open-ended, construing it so as to better protect the rights retained by the people.
You post as if only Libertarians are the ones willing to stand for freedom and the Constitution. If anyone doesn't belong amongst law abiding conservatives, it is you. I'd take a Libertarian any day over your predilection for homegrown terrorism.
2. My reading tells me that the exclusionary rule dates from the 20th century
Thank you.
You DU types love equating our government with the jihadists.
SU commie
There seem to be plenty of parallels between Left and Right, I guess. But the idea that government should play a central role in shaping and ordering society, while fundamentally leftist in my view, clearly also finds a home with many on the Right. Our president is a good example of a man who thinks this IMO, much as I like and admire him otherwise.
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.