Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RinaseaofDs

Look what resulted at the USSC though. It can be interpreted as saying that the police can ignore the law so long as they feel something is “reasonable” in their discretion.


81 posted on 12/16/2014 11:55:36 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: Olog-hai

That appears to be what they are saying. Now all an officer has to be is ‘ignorant’, and they can do what they want.

I can’t believe Scalia came down where he did on this.


82 posted on 12/16/2014 12:11:50 PM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai
You've done a yeoman's job of wrastling with the thick people on this thread.

The take at Firedoglake:

Why did the Supreme Court grant certiorari in this case? They had an agenda. They have been looking for a case with a suitably appropriate set of facts upon which they could base their decision carving out an exception to the reasonable-suspicion rule and the exclusionary rule, which is a judicial remedy that excludes evidence seized in violation of that rule (and others). They wanted the Heien case from NC because it only applies in NC. The federal courts and all other state courts are not bound by it. They accepted review because they wanted to establish that rule for all courts. I believe this new rule that exempts operation of the exclusionary rule for reasonable mistakes by police regarding what is unlawful is absolutely awful. Only time will tell what constitutes reasonable ignorance or stupidity. Nothing good will come of this bizarre decision.

96 posted on 12/18/2014 8:27:00 PM PST by kiryandil (making the jests that some FReepers aren't allowed to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson