Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used, US High Court Says
Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used, U.S. High Court Says
By Greg Stohr
Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- A divided U.S. Supreme Court gave prosecutors more ability to use evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, ruling against a man who was arrested and searched only because of a police clerical error.
The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, cleared the way for Bennie Dean Herring to be prosecuted for illegal possession of the methamphetamine and pistol he was carrying when he was arrested in 2004 in Coffee County, Alabama.
“In such a case, the criminal should not go free because the constable has blundered,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, using a line from a 1926 Supreme Court decision.
Herring was arrested when he came to the Coffee County sheriff’s department to retrieve something from an impounded truck. At the time, a neighboring county’s computer system showed an active arrest warrant for Herring’s failure to appear in court on a felony charge. That warrant in reality had been recalled, so Coffee County police lacked any legal basis to arrest Herring.
Continue:
http://www.bloomberg.com/...
What a horror show
.
More crucial rights down the drain with this one.
What an incredible stupid uneducated kind of people there, ruling at the supreme court. Sickening!!
Great, now what's stopping all of you from getting dirt on Obama
Fear?
What I want
Here is what I want:
1. The ability to pursue a civil action for damages against a government official who violates my Fourth Amendment rights.
2. A deterrent to police violating people's rights in the first place.
3. Criminals who burglarize, rob, steal cars, rape, and murder, locked up.
4. A broadly construed Fourth Amendment.
The exclusionary rule does NONE of these things. In fact, it interferes directly with # 3, and indirectly with numbers 1, 2 and 4.
Get RID of the exclusionary rule and replace it with a beefed-up §1983 action against government officials and agents that violate Constitutional rights. That is how you accomplish the four goals above.
So, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are dead.
It must be so if the justices no longer protect and defend the rule of law. What protections have the justices, then, if they rule against the rule of law. If they illegally amend the Constitution and strike down the Bill of Rights, then they, too, are in peril. Probably, in far more peril than any one of us.
He has standing to sue for
He has standing to sue for false arrest. And remember, this ruling can work both ways. So now under this rational, stolen evidence can be used to prosecute employers who cheat or government officials who do not follow legal guidelines.
i think you're wrong
laws only apply to civilians, not govt officials. The only time govt officials come under fire, is when someone above them is throwing them under the wheels of the bus for ruffling some feathers. Kind of like how most police get away with assault and murder, and all they have to do is say, oops, sorry, it was an innocent mistake in the heat of the moment... after all... "police are human too". Yes, human too, with a badge and a gun, and power.
This ruling sickens me. I can't believe how the supreme court won't touch real issues facing our country, but they keep ruling against the constitution.
In my opinion, a Taco Supreme at taco bell, is more supreme and meaning than the supreme court!
I think your right
It looks like they are talking about a police mistake leading to an accidental arrest of someone who happened to be breaking law the law at the time. So this means they can now make a mistake with anyone and arrest you if your not 100% legal when they mistakenly grab you. Very dangerous decision virtually eliminating probable cause and shows that the laws are on the side of the police not the citizen.
"It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
— Thomas Paine
Wow
This is going to bite them in the butt. It is almost like they are trying to get people to openly revolt. Now a dirty cop can kick in your door and search your house and take "evidence". What are they trying to do?
Wow, there goes the whole idea
of a minimal level of competence by those in law enforcement.
Silly Paulists.
EVERYBODY knows that the fourth amendment only applies to the innocent!
</troll>
~jaq
Still more proof the Supreme Court serves no purpose.
I'm not sure what value, if any, in constitutional law the Supreme Court serves. It is routinely appointed with the flotsam of judges deemed worthy by the sawdust-brained, stony-hearted swine of our two-party system. Worse still, the president makes the decisions in their choices before official appointment. As if the charlatan emperor-wannabes in that bloated, overpowered office needed another constitutional hand grenade to play with.
.SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Words cannot express my disgust
The judicial branch has been the more stable leg propping up the stool, but now it seems its buckling under the weight of tyranny as well.
How can anyone who has an education in law possibly think that evidence obtained without an active warrant is valid? This goes against the grain of everything the founders warned against.
When law enforcement experiences no penalties for an illegal search (they dont), they have everything to gain by conducting them if even 1 out of 100 people who decline a search are searched illegally and the search yields evidence of a crime. Think about it.
This pretty much GUTS the fourth amendment. Completely.
Words cannot express the disgust I feel after having read that. These people are not Americans. They are not abiding by their oaths of office. They have no respect whatsoever for liberty.
As far as im concerned that ruling is criminal. I cant wait until these people get whats coming to them.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
What happens when the
What happens when the Supreme Court rules something that is unconstitutional?
----------
"We will never give up. We will never give in." - Dr. Ron Paul
nothing
see also: the war on drugs
---------------
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a terrible idea. If you set out to construct a rule designed to destroy the Fourth Amendment, you could not come up with anything more ingenious than the exclusionary rule.
Why? Because it insures that the people who will be defending the Fourth Amendment will generally be the dregs of society. The exclusionary rule makes it so that every time the Fourth Amendment is upheld, it will be unpopular with the public because it will let loose a criminal. It means that every appeal on Fourth Amendment grounds will be presented to the appellate or Supreme court on behalf of somebody the judges will want to see go to jail.
Instead of having the Fourth Amendment raised on behalf of innocent people who are abused by government thugs, it is nearly ALWAYS raised in behalf of scumbags who SHOULD go to jail. As a consequence, the public has learned to hate it, judges have tried to punch holes in it, and its proper function of protecting the innocent has been left in the dust. Thanks to the exclusionary rule, the Fourth Amendment is all about defending criminals and not about restraining the cops.
When a cop gathers evidence in violation of the Constitution, the COP should be punished. But with the exclusionary rule, the cop isn't punished, the PEOPLE are punished by allowing the criminal to go free.
It is totally backwards and screwed up. And it is BECAUSE of the exclusionary rule that the Fourth Amendment has been systematically weakened at every opportunity for the last thirty years.
Media
thats because the media will only cover 4th amendment cases with this clause when its used to free a "known" criminal. The media sees it as a conflict of the law vs the wishes of society. The 4th amendment hasn't been weakened because of the exclusionary clause, it has been weakened because it is a check on government power. I'm not sure if your pointing something out or if you are arguing for the abolition of the exclusionary rule. I would hope you're just trying to make a point.
Abolition
Look at the history of Fourth Amendment case law. Nearly EVERY SINGLE case in which the Fourth Amendment was weakened involved a criminal that was obviously guilty and whom most people believed should go to jail. Please cite me a single case where the Supreme Court ruled on Fourth Amendment grounds where it was NOT a criminal defense action but rather an action being brought by an innocent civilian against the cops.
The point is that the exclusionary rule puts the Fourth Amendment in a terribly weak position procedurally and over time it has lost ground as a result.
If the only cases that went to court on Fourth Amendment grounds were cases of innocent people being screwed by government thugs, it would be MUCH harder for judges to weaken the Fourth Amendment. Public opinion would be in favor of the Fourth Amendment being maintained at full strength.
Instead, a system has been set up that does nothing to punish the people who violate the Fourth Amendment (the cops) but instead punishes the PEOPLE at large by subjecting them to criminal predation and then blames the Constitution! It is a perfect scheme for undermining public support for the Constitution and diverting attention from the proper action that should be pursued directly against the cops.
The exclusionary rule should be abolished and cops who violate people's Constitutional rights should be subject to direct civil and criminal action. In that way you would punish the people who actually violate the Constitution and you would not be releasing criminals onto the streets.
I know this is contrary to what you have been led to think - that the exclusionary rule PROTECTS the Fourth Amendment. But if you just think for a minute about what it REALLY does, you might see it my way.
Two things to consider...
I don't know the man's story and in truth he does not sound like the kind of guy that I'd like to hang out with. But, as far as I can tell the bugger wasn't bothering anyone, he was simply armed with a weapon and had an 'illegal' substance. I don't think the Constitution gives Uncle Sam a RIGHT to ban substances, nor do I believe that simply 'possessing' a fire arm constitutes a crime. So I'd have to say: Given my limited information, I believe the man committed no real crimes.
And that is my response to:
It is interesting to note
It is interesting to note that the so called 'conservative' judges agreed with the ruling and the 'liberal' side of the court dissented.
What's going on?
Of course this opens the door for illegal searches with impunity. So when the men in black (or green and camo) kick down your door and happen to find something illegal, they can simply refer to the Herring case... warrants are no longer technically needed or even legally required. One more nail in the Constitutional coffin.
We lost the constitution
In 1933, with the War Powers Act. It's gone, and they damn well know it.
Do they not think about the
Do they not think about the PRECEDENT their idiotic rulings set? These people are complete imbeciles.
http://federalfallacy.com
Then someone should go steal Obama's birth certificate.
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
This
Police state +1
Revolution + a few more thousand?
They are putting themselves in a bad position. The only thing that holds our country together is the Constitution. That is exactly why it is falling apart.
Exactly
"There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man."
—Tolstoy
lol
While they're visiting the SCOTUS present it to Obam himself.