Goodbye 4th Ammendment

yeah I don't really mind. People probably got fed up with making a stupid mistake and the attorney being like "oh he messed up all that drug evidence the jury just saw it void! hahaha".

Quote:

Original post by Mithrandir Now all it takes to jail someone for life is to bust into their place with no warrant "on accident", find whatever drugs happen to be there, and BAM. Instant jail sentence.

A system which is corrupt enough for the police to be able to plant drugs during a search, is already corrupt enough to pretend that the search was legal when it wasn't, anyway. Thus I don't see this adding real risk of innocents being prosecuted. Of course, it's still an obscene violation of privacy.

Quote:

Original post by Zahlman Thus I don't see this adding real risk of innocents being prosecuted.

Innocence is in the eye of the person with the most power, unfortuately thats very few of us...

"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it
attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and
makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A
prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon
which our government was founded."
-- Abraham Lincoln, December, 1840

If it is a misquote please say, I would be interested to know.

Why stop at the 4th Amendment? Lets go right on to the 1st...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*

* Monday 9am to 5pm, Except on Sunday and Holidays

Well, at least you can still refuse to quarter soldiers in your house. That's something?

What use is that if I can't refuse to quarter emo ra in my house?

I had the impression that the US police in general was able to do pretty much what they wanted (as long as there were no FBI in the jurisdiction).

It looks like the US continue it's policy of getting ready for something.

I'm afraid teh war is comming...

Quote:

Original post by MaulingMonkey What use is that if I can't refuse to quarter emo ra in my house?

Well, you could always raid his house by 'accident' and then jail him instead.

In related news, this seems to be another ruling in accordance with previous court cases. It looks like it just upholds the requirement for the illegal search to be a result of a good-faith mistake, which isn't significantly different from current law.

See:
Maryland v. Garrison
U.S. v. Leon
Arizona v. Evans

AMENDMENT IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

1791-2009 R.I.P

The Constitution allows for impeaching Supreme Court Justices. It was tried in 1804 [1] and partially in 1970 [2]. Radical conservatives floated the idea back in 2003 [3] and again in 2008 [4]. Angry leftists floated the idea in 2004 [5].

Given this clear assault on the Bill of Rights, I think it's time to take the prospect seriously. Let's not forget that Scalia claimed that torture wasn't cruel and unusual punishment.

It's baffling to me how the case described in the article can be viewed as consistent with the Fourth Amendment. It seems to me that this ruling would allow the police to search any house they wanted and excuse their mistake as a clerical error.

If you don't like it remember; this is why you guys have all the guns in the world!

Quote:

Original post by LessBread AMENDMENT IV "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 1791-2009 R.I.P The Constitution allows for impeaching Supreme Court Justices. It was tried in 1804 [1] and partially in 1970 [2]. Radical conservatives floated the idea back in 2003 [3] and again in 2008 [4]. Angry leftists floated the idea in 2004 [5]. Given this clear assault on the Bill of Rights, I think it's time to take the prospect seriously. Let's not forget that Scalia claimed that torture wasn't cruel and unusual punishment. It's baffling to me how the case described in the article can be viewed as consistent with the Fourth Amendment. It seems to me that this ruling would allow the police to search any house they wanted and excuse their mistake as a clerical error.

Yes this is completely absurd and very frightening.

We haven't had a congress with any backbone or respect for the fundamental duty of the federal government, which is to preserve and protect rights. Pressure on congress would have to be very strong to pull off an impeachment movement, and I don't see that happening.

This opens a whole new market.

I'm going to start working on a suite of police software that 'accidentally' introduces errors into the data!

Quote:

Original post by phantom If you don't like it remember; this is why you guys have all the guns in the world!

No, the government does...

Most Americans don't. ;)

_____________________________________________

@OT
I have no real issue with that ruling...as defined it is limited to mistakes made in good faith. Police are human, after all.

That said, I think what you are actually afraid of has been true for some time now. Hell, I get towed with valid registration tags on my car.

I think the bigger issue is that enough cops don't care if they screw innocent people over that a decent amount of logical people think that a normally reasonable ruling will result in an opening of the floodgates for 4th amendment violations.

Quote:

Original post by Kenneth Godwin Quote: Original post by phantom If you don't like it remember; this is why you guys have all the guns in the world! No, the government does... Most Americans don't. ;)

You are right 'most' don't. Only about 20% iirc. There are just about enough firearms owned by private individuals to arm everyone in the country though. Alot of people that own firearms own more than just a couple.

Government officials ceased caring about intrinsic values years ago. This is old news.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Given this clear assault on the Bill of Rights

Hold on just a second here, that's not what's happening at all. The ruling states that

Quote:

evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."

Searching just any house and excusing the "mistake" as a clerical error would be reckless disregard of constitutional requirements. The ruling here applies for mistakes made in good faith, as certainly was the case in this particular circumstance. Unless you believe that five months ago the Sheriff's office intentionally failed to delete the arrest warrant in their records in order to catch him months later when he would have meth on his person and an unregistered firearm.

In any case, having some cranked out redneck with a gun running around can't be good for anyone.

I'm curious - would your opinion differ if instead of finding him with meth he had a child in the trunk of his car that he had raped or was going to rape?

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Let's not forget that Scalia claimed that torture wasn't cruel and unusual punishment

Well, yes, Scalia's a moron. He should be replaced.

Quote:

Original post by CrimsonSun Hold on just a second here, that's not what's happening at all. The ruling states that Quote: evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements." Searching just any house and excusing the "mistake" as a clerical error would be reckless disregard of constitutional requirements. The ruling here applies for mistakes made in good faith, as certainly was the case in this particular circumstance. Unless you believe that five months ago the Sheriff's office intentionally failed to delete the arrest warrant in their records in order to catch him months later when he would have meth on his person and an unregistered firearm.

This seems very easy to abuse though. What exactly is the official definition of the difference between the two, even if the police are being honest their would probably be a few blurry lines.

EDIT:

Quote:

Original post by CrimsonSun In any case, having some cranked out redneck with a gun running around can't be good for anyone. I'm curious - would your opinion differ if instead of finding him with meth he had a child in the trunk of his car that he had raped or was going to rape?

If I could make up a scenario where it could prevent another 9/11 would you be willing to throw out the rest of the constitution?

Quote:

Original post by CrimsonSun Quote: Original post by LessBread Given this clear assault on the Bill of Rights Hold on just a second here, that's not what's happening at all. The ruling states that Quote: evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements." Searching just any house and excusing the "mistake" as a clerical error would be reckless disregard of constitutional requirements. The ruling here applies for mistakes made in good faith, as certainly was the case in this particular circumstance. Unless you believe that five months ago the Sheriff's office intentionally failed to delete the arrest warrant in their records in order to catch him months later when he would have meth on his person and an unregistered firearm. In any case, having some cranked out redneck with a gun running around can't be good for anyone.

And who determines what constitutes good faith? Already you've written off the universal application of this ruling with the justification that a single meth-head was taken off the streets. That's not how Supreme Court rulings operate. They set precedent across the board. Today it's a meth-head, tomorrow it's a Methodist protesting the death penalty. I understand how it might be a good thing for arrest warrants to not expire, but I think search warrants should come with expiration dates, at least as far as their probable cause expires. In this case, the probable cause that justified the warrant expired along with the warrant, so there was no justification for the police to search the suspect.

Quote:

Original post by CrimsonSun I'm curious - would your opinion differ if instead of finding him with meth he had a child in the trunk of his car that he had raped or was going to rape?

What if it had been a ticking time bomb? Oh teh noes! We'd better torture him now!!! Joking aside, my opinion would not change. Either the Bill of Rights are respected or they're not. If some bad guys get away because of them, so be it.

I'm curious, what if the guy had nothing on him but the police panicked and shot him dead like that guy in Oakland? (Oakland shooting protest ends in violence) That's a far more likely scenario than the kid in the trunk.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread And who determines what constitutes good faith?

I think this should be determined on a case-by-case basis. This ruling sets precedent that clarifies such a determination: simple, isolated, negligent record-keeping mistakes made further up the line should not hinder the beat-cop's ability to enforce the law. Consistent negligence or reckless disregard for the bill of rights (planting evidence, conspiring against the public, etc. are all reckless disregard for the bill of rights, just to be clear) on part of the agency should nullify the argument for good faith.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Already you've written off the universal application of this ruling with the justification that a single meth-head was taken off the streets.

Well, no, that's not what I've done. I made an observation that the outcome of this ruling is in this particular case is probably a good thing.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread In this case, the probable cause that justified the warrant expired along with the warrant, so there was no justification for the police to search the suspect.

So you don't think that law enforcement officer in this particular case had justification to search the suspect? Should he not trust his instruments which in this case told him that there was an arrest warrant on Bennie? How about if a police officer's radar gun suddenly stops functioning and it tells him that a certain car is going 5-10MPH faster than it actually is, and it leads him to see something illegal in the back seat through the window. Should any evidence be thrown out because, according to you, there was no justifiable cause to stop the speeding car because it was not actually speeding? Are these two scenarios not the same?

Quote:

Original post by LessBread What if it had been a ticking time bomb? Oh teh noes! We'd better torture him now!!! Joking aside, my opinion would not change. Either the Bill of Rights are respected or they're not. If some bad guys get away because of them, so be it. I'm curious, what if the guy had nothing on him but the police panicked and shot him dead like that guy in Oakland? (Oakland shooting protest ends in violence) That's a far more likely scenario than the kid in the trunk.

I think you missed my point of my question. I really hoped that this wouldn't have been your response so that I could attack you on inconsistency. However, I can't say that I'm surprised that you of all people stuck to your principles.