4th Amendment Dead, SCOTUS dancing on grave

US Supreme Court, Kentucky vs King ^ | May 16, 2011 | SCOTUS

[microgood]

If this is all true, 1) Why didn't the Founders put an exclusionary rule in the Constitution? 2) Why were the Founders OK with the common law rule which permitted the use of illegally obtained evidence?

How do you know they were fine with the common law rule?

I do not think they put statutes or laws enforcing the Constitution anywhere. They left that up to the Congress making laws and the Judiciary supporting them. Just look at Obama's requirement to be 35 and a natural born citizen. They made the rule but did not say what to do if the rule was violated. I guess they assumed Congress would make a law forcing anyone that run for President to prove their age and origin (OOPS).

[DNME]

What other “evidence” might be at risk of imminent destruction?

Perhaps computer files? Could the cops kick in your door if they hear you hit the delete key? Or if they hear you listening to a radio station that isn’t approved once the Fairness Doctrine is restored?

The Constitution was written specifically to establish a government that citizens would never need to fear.

Now we do fear our government. In so many ways.

[OneWingedShark]

>2) Why were the Founders OK with the common law rule which permitted the use of illegally obtained evidence?

Have you READ the 4th amendment; they were NOT “OK” with illegally obtained evidence.
The 4th provides that ALL warrants MUST particularly describe the person [or things] to be seized; therefore there could be no “fishing expeditions.”

[freedomwarrior998]

Wrong. Prior to Weeks, the universal rule was that:

“Evidence obtained by means of a search warrant is not inadmissible, either upon the ground that it is in the nature of admissions made under duress or that it is evidence which the defendant has been compelled to trade and commerce; that the evidence has been unfairly or illegally obtained, even if it appears that the search warrant was illegally issued.”

This was the rule in both FEDERAL and STATE courts.

(See for example: State v. Edwards, 51 W. Va. 220, 59 L. R. A. 465, 41 S. E. 429; Shields v. State, 104 Ala. 35, 16 So. 85; Bacon v. United States, 38 C. C. A. 31, 97 Fed. 35; State v. Atkinson, 40 S. C. 363, 18 S. E. 1021; Williams v. State, 100 Ga. 511, 39 L. R. A. 269, 28 S. E. 624; State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo. 489, 32 S. W. 1002; Gindrat v. People, 138 Ill. 103, 27 N. E. 1085; Trask v. People, 151 Ill. 523, 38 N. E. 248; Starchman v. State, 62 Ark. 538, 36 S. W. 940.)

In fact, the common went so far as to allow evidence to retroactively justify what would otherwise be an unlawful search or unlawful seizure. In essence, if you could show the defendant was guilty, then you had a complete defense against charges that the search violated the defendant’s rights.

So your history is wrong. (As usual.)

[Rick_Michael]

Did anyone read the opinon? Jeez. The guy made a cocaine drug deal with an undercover cop then went into his apt. The cops knocked on the door and smelled weed. That’s more than enough to go in...without a warrant.

Please people, read before you start sensationalizing things.

[OneWingedShark]

I read the first paragraph, which was more than enough considering the State Supreme Court decision this one overturns; in that other decision the State Supreme Court ruled against the Police because they CREATED the very exigent circumstance that they claimed.

Further, the police in the case claimed that they heard sounds consistent with the destruction of evidence (the claimed exigence) which is rather overbroad in itself:
Flushing the toilet => Oh no! He’s flushing drugs!
Running water => Oh No! He’s rinsing the drugs down the drain!
Silence => Oh no! He’s deleting files on his computer via touchpad/mouse!

Hell, to allow as just the police to CAUSE the very exigent circumstances is to invite things such as the police setting fire to people’s homes...
but, then again, how many federal agents stood trial in the Branch Davidian incident?

[Rick_Michael]

Read the whole opinion.

[microgood]

Did anyone read the opinon? Jeez. The guy made a cocaine drug deal with an undercover cop then went into his apt. The cops knocked on the door and smelled weed. That’s more than enough to go in...without a warrant.

Actually it was a different person and apartment than the guy they were after fled to. They were at the wrong apartment, but when they smelled pot, they thought it was the person they were looking for, and went in. Not sure if they ever caught the guy they were actually chasing and had sold drugs to the informant.

[Rick_Michael]

It was the guy and others. I’m just saying the whole idea is..if your on a pursuit and you have some valid reason to think your criminal is around...you can’t just up and leave and get a warrant. A crime has already been committed,...the constitution protects against UNREASONABLE ss. I think this was reasonable....so yeah. If they just randomly knock in doors without any valid reason to...then I’ll start complaining.

I just think if anyone reads the opinion they’ll not sensationalize the matter at hand.

[microgood]

It was the guy and others. I’m just saying the whole idea is..if your on a pursuit and you have some valid reason to think your criminal is around...you can’t just up and leave and get a warrant. A crime has already been committed,...the constitution protects against UNREASONABLE ss. I think this was reasonable....so yeah. If they just randomly knock in doors without any valid reason to...then I’ll start complaining.

The problem with rulings like this one is that they open the door to interpretation by those in law enforcement that care little for our Constitutional rights. In addition, the Supreme Court is really bad about determining what the facts of a case really mean.

For example, they granted an exception to the 4th Amendment for sobriety checkpoints based on the fact that they are "effective" and "minimally intrusive", both of which are complete bunk. In this case, they smelled pot in the hallway, so how did they know which apartment it was coming from? In addition, the "sounds of evidence destruction" is really open to interpretation: if they knock on a door, and hear the toilet flushing, is that someone in the bathroom or even in another apartment doing it? They never seem to question the logic of the police and the conclusions they come to.

I heard someone on the radio today that covers the Supreme Court rulings, and she basically said when it comes to the drug war, all logic and reason go out the window in the Supreme Court building. I would have to agree after the one about dogs sniffing a car is not a search because the dog only detects contraband ("utter bunk") and since you have no constitutional right to contraband, the dog search is not a search. I could see through twisted logic like that in 5th grade. I think it was Stevens that wrote that one (Illinois v Caballes).

[rosepetal2010]

Bingo!

[OneWingedShark]

>If they just randomly knock in doors without any valid reason to...then I’ll start complaining.

Ask and receive: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2720824/posts

[rosepetal2010]

Here’s a scenario in an attempt to explain why this ruling is not good news. Let’s say the ‘majority’ decides the book 1984 is treasonous and dangerous. It becomes law that no one have or read the book. Don’t laugh, the constitution says nothing about ‘weed’ either. Who’d of thunk the majority forced seatbelts and would ban smoking and transfats? Police are out patrolling, hear pages ruffling in your abode, reasonable suspicion you’re holding the ‘forbidden’ and break down your door.

We the people have given the government permission to rule with an iron fist over us and welcomed them to take our freedoms away. Conservatives with their big gov’t pet peeves and libs with theirs.

We need to get back to the Constitution if there’s even any hope of doing that left. Neither party will get us there tho. At this point, don’t know what will.

[DownInFlames]

The problem is when the chief or sheriff acts outside the reasonable law and does what he pleases.

[Fitzy_888]

Judge Napolitano on the 4th Amendment Extremely Educational
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8wEUhlXLG8