Posted on 01/14/2009 5:41:56 PM PST by STARWISE
The Supreme Court limited the use of the so-called exclusionary rule Wednesday and said that evidence seized by the police need not be thrown out if officers later learn their search warrant was faulty because of a computer mistake.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the exclusionary rule was intended to deter the police from conducting illegal searches of homes and cars..... not intended to give criminals a free pass if officers search the wrong house or car because of a computer error at police headquarters, he said.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court upheld the drug and gun charges against an Alabama man who was stopped on a highway by an officer who had been told there was an outstanding arrest warrant for his arrest. It turns out that was a mistake.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
~~~
David Savage, learn how to REPORT the news.
Now this may simply be a case of senility, or it could be very avant garde ~ because at some time in the future the computers are definitely going to be in charge and making all the rules.
So, whadda' ya think, that ol'coffee sniffer Ruthy? Is she senile or is she ultra modern?
I think this is OK, in this case.
The “computer” said this guy had a warrant. A search was conducted and drugs were found. The guy was charged for that. Later, the “computer” was found to be in error about the warrant.
The cop didn’t knowingly violate the law, and the perp did.
AFAIAC, justice is served. Case closed.
Absolutely! The title fails to convey the ‘rest of the story.’
Thank you George Bush for maintaining a conservative court.
IMO, the exclusionary rule is an abomination; if evidence is illegally obtained it doesn't change its substantive fact. If the police commit a crime in obtaining it, we should punish them appropriate to the crime, which would be a real deterant.
I’d agree that punishing both the citizen perp AND the cops (not just the searching cop, but up the chain of command) is a fair outcome.
Indeed and may nothing bad happen to Chief Justice Roberts or Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Kennedy. If any of them is replaced by Obama, the Constitution will cease to be in effect.
I can’t say I’m found of this decision. ATF will have a field day with this.
What you want to avoid, though, is crooked cops setting someone up by having the computer be filled with “errors”, for which they are not responsible.
Mr. and Mrs. Ayers are murderers?
Why can't we be just as careful about letting murderers off because of technicalities? Some insist that they are very likely responsible for the murders of policemen.
Who besides academe employees and MSM employees are protecting these two?
Once Obama starts nominating leftists to the Supreme Court, it will be all over for honest effort law enforcement, and the police will be sued or jailed, just like the two Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean.
Enjoy the last days of constitutional protection from criminals. We will live to see that day of Obama’s “Criminals Supporting Supreme Court” (CSSC).
And the bodies will continue to pile up.
Isn’t this the country where people are governed by the Rule of Law? The evidence is out. Doesn’t matter what the mistake was.
On the other hand, now that we’ve abandoned the statute of limitations rule (Ledbetter v Goodyear), can we put Ayers in jail? (that’s a joke)
The compromise I would support would be to leave the conviction, but to commute the sentence. That way if the person is ever caught again he has a record and can have his sentence increased as a prior offender. Prior to this ruling, at one end of the pendulum swing the person was let off scott free. Now we are at the other end where the conviction and sentence will stand. My proposal would put us in the center.
- Illegal search, contraband found = person walks, no record, contraband forfeited
- Legal but accidental search, contraband found = person convicted but walks with a record, sentence commuted
- Legal but accidentally improper search, nothing found = person walks, smallish civil fine on police paid to person injured if harm found after civil trial if person desires it (no shield in hiding behind sovereign immunity)
- Legal search, contraband found = conviction, serves full sentence
- Illegal search, no contraband found = person walks, large civil fine on police paid to person injured paid out of police retirement fund (no shield in hiding behind sovereign immunity), policeman fired
I don't know fully though. I'm still thinking it over. Any thoughts?
Just one.
Blatantly illegal search, trunkful of still warm human body parts in the trunk = perps walk.
Isn't mindless absolutism wonderful?
Boy, I’d LOVE to see that happen (with Bernadine in the next cell).
See #17~~~ wishing .....
At least he would have a record. /s
How do they KNOW it was a “computer error”? SOMEONE keyed something wrong. Maybe someone at HQ, or even in the patrol car, fudged the data so these guys would have an excuse to stop him.
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.