Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 07/18/2008 12:03:59 PM PDT by reaganaut1
...
The United States is the only country to take the position that some police misconduct must automatically result in the suppression of physical evidence. The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence.
“Foreign countries have flatly rejected our approach,” said Craig M. Bradley, an expert in comparative criminal law at Indiana University. “In every other country, it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence.”
But there are signs that some justices on the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reconsider the American version of the exclusionary rule. Writing for the majority two years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia said that at least some unconstitutional conduct ought not require “resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt.”
The court will soon have an opportunity to clarify matters. The justices will hear arguments on Oct. 7 about whether methamphetamines and a gun belonging to Bennie Dean Herring, of Brundidge, Ala., should be suppressed because the officers who conducted the search mistakenly believed he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant as a result of the careless record-keeping of another police department.
Elsewhere in the world, courts have rejected what the Ontario appeals court in Mr. Harrison’s case called “the automatic exclusionary rule familiar to American Bill of Rights jurisprudence.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Did you read my entire reply? I explicitly stated that the officer guilty of obtaining the evidence without a warrant would be sanctioned. How is that doing away with the Bill of Rights?
Did you read my entire reply? I explicitly stated that the officer guilty of obtaining the evidence without a warrant would be sanctioned. How is that doing away with the Bill of Rights?
Isn’t it for something like this that Bill Ayers never went to prison for his terrorist activities, and instead is an honored professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago?
It is unfortunate when justice is subordinated to laws.
See my earlier message. I have zero faith in the government's willingness to aggressively curtail the misconduct of its agents.
Because you still want to use evidence obtained with out a warrant. Read your Bill of Rights or do you want LEO going through YOUR stuff looking to see if maybe you commited a crime, gees is that so hard to understand.
The LEO would be rummaging through my records at his peril of a lawsuit and/or a criminal proceeding. A LEO cannot hide under cover of his position to commit illegal acts.
well, in our case, the police are immune to prosecution.
Unfortunately, this "right" was invented by the courts in the first place.
LEO would be rummaging through my records at his peril of a lawsuit and/or a criminal proceeding................But in the mean time you are advocating that anything he finds can be used against you in a court of law. Now tell me, when you are arrested and in jail and paying a lawyer to defend yourself over anything he found, he will be out and about under his own recog. Think about what you are advocating when you say you are for warrantless searches being allowed in a court of law.
As bad as I hate the BATF, LH wasn't one of them as well as I remember. I believe he was FBI.
Same thing... only different.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
I think it depends on the offense.
For a non-violent misdemeanor that clearly violates the person’s rights, they should go free. The officer(s) directly involved should be reprimanded.
For a violent misdemeanor and/or felony, they should not go free. The officer(s) directly involved need to be reprimanded, and receive additional training to ensure they get probable cause properly.
Generally I believe that if you are a criminal and you’re doing something wrong, and you get caught, even if it isn’t by the book, you don’t get a free pass - if anything you discipline the officers.
If you are a citizen just living life and the cops violate your rights, you should be able to get the cops significantly disciplined and receive appropriate compensation for having your rights violated.
Punishing the wrongdoer does nothing to restore the rights that were violated. Rights belong to the individual and, if they are violated, it is the individual whose position must be restored.
Imagine a burglar breaking into your house and stealing some of your things. He is later caught with the things he stole. What you are advocating is exactly like saying that as long as the burglar is punished for stealing, it's okay if he keeps what he stole.
I support punishing authorities who violate individuals' rights intentionally, maliciously, or in bad faith. There are already federal statutes, both civil and criminal, to punish those who violate rights under color of law. But the first priority has to be restoring the rights that were violated.
Consider the following scenario: you live in Washington DC one month ago, in a violent neighborhood where break-ins are prevalent. You have acquired a pistol to be used for self defense, and keep it in your bedside drawer (it never leaves the house). Aside from that you are a law abiding citizen.
The police mistakenly enter your home through intentional misconduct (warrantless search) or inadvertant error (executed warrant at wrong home). Are you suggesting that when they find the gun you should be liable to prosecution?
Out of curiousity, how would you respond to the situation I posed in #55?
And it had better stay that way. It's one of the few checks and balances that the people have to defend against the government.
And the gravity of the crime isn't relevent, for the largest crime of all would be to let the US sink into a police state.
Same here. The government owns the police force and the judiciary. And they get to write the laws. All we have is what's left of the constitution, with its torn and tattered pages. It's best to protect it with all our ability, lest it lose its remaining effectiveness.
A lawsuit? So you get a few bucks from the jurisdiction, if their court is feeling benevolent. The LEO walks, as they usually do.
Yes, you should face prosecution. And the police officers should face prosecution if their misconduct was found to be intentional, and serious discipline if it was found to be unintentional (read: incompetent).
We should not support the exclusionary rule because it helps us get away with breaking laws that we know are unconstitutional. The pressure to seriously fight unconstitutional laws comes from significant numbers of good citizens being prosecuted under them. Fight and win. Don’t try to scurry around under cover while supporting the exclusionary rule, which helps murderers and rapists and child molesters to go free even when there’s clear evidence of their crimes. You’re/my right to keep and bear arms is not fundamentally more important than everyone’s right not to be murdered, raped, etc by people who are known to have committed serious crimes and are nonetheless running around loose (sometimes with no criminal record at all) because of the exclusionary rule.
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.