Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SCOTUS rules unreasonable search and siezure is quite reasonable.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by -v-, Jan 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. -v-

    -v- Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,217
    http://fe11.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/us/story/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_evidence

    I wonder what constitutes simple police mistake in their eyes...
     
  2. Frog48

    Frog48 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Somewhere down in Texas
    So much for the concept of "fruits of the poisonous tree". :uhoh:
     
  3. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    This is where the erring law enforcement personnel must be charged with the crime of violating the rights of the wronged individual. That is what the consequences should be rather than trashing the evidence or freeing the criminal.

    In reality, if the criminal hadn't committed a crime, he wouldn't be facing prison and would have a suit against the personnel who wrongly arrested/searched him.

    Woody
     
  4. Eightball

    Eightball Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,257
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    So, the FBI puts out a warrent for everyone in the US, and "forgets" to update their computer network, and can now break in anywhere they damn well please, and snoop, and if they find ANYTHING, it's justified. It seems that that's the precedent that was set here.

    Same goes for any local police force.
     
  5. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    That is why there needs to be consequences to their negligence and malapropism.

    Woody
     
  6. kentucky bucky

    kentucky bucky Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    607
    Location:
    Eastern Kentucky
    I see the point that if the defendant was a fine upstanding citizen, he wouldn't be in trouble. The thing that troubles me is what if an out-of-control Federal "witch hunt" say for gun owners, is started by a power drunk Liberal hostile administration ? (Nah we would never have one of them) What if this is purposely faked to arrest honest gun owners after they are deemed criminals with the stroke of a pen?
     
  7. conw

    conw Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,364
    That's first-rate thinking, although the penalties would have to be fairly harsh when the mistake finally got pinned on someone - in order to deter a "sacrificial lamb" mentality.
     
  8. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    So, the FBI puts out a warrent for everyone in the US, and "forgets" to update their computer network, and can now break in anywhere they damn well please, and snoop, and if they find ANYTHING, it's justified. It seems that that's the precedent that was set here.


    stretch much?
     
  9. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    That's first-rate thinking, although the penalties would have to be fairly harsh when the mistake finally got pinned on someone - in order to deter a "sacrificial lamb" mentality.


    first rate?!?
    what penalty do you fantasize about for a clerk who doesn't push paper correctly?
     
  10. Tamlin

    Tamlin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    280
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Do you guys not see the irony here? The CONSERVATIVE justices voted to screw the 4th Amendment . . . the LIBERAL justices fought to protect it. Why can't ALL of the justices fight to protect ALL of our constitutional rights????:banghead:
     
  11. ants

    ants Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,494
    This is the 'systemic error' written in the Majority opinion that would not be permissible.

    The negligence mentioned in the Majority opinion is the result of stupid unintentional mistakes that do not purport to result in unwarranted arrest or seizure.




    This is a strange decision. I would hope that the Bill of Rights is held more inviable than this.
    It is well recognized in this thread and on this Forum: The greatest measure of liberty is insured when we uphold every constitutional right, no exceptions.
     
  12. conw

    conw Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,364
    A less harsh penalty than for a cop who knowingly violates someone's rights of nonconsent, less still than for someone who knowingly pursues a bogus warrant.

    Deterrence is the name of the game. You can't always deter a mistake, but you can put progressively harsher penalties in place for increased amounts of negligence and/or knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of the law enforcement official.
     
  13. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    Off-topic.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page