TheAgitator.com
It’s Already Dead. Quit Kicking It.
Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008The U.S. Supreme Court deals another blow to the Fourth Amendment, ruling that evidence seized during arrests that are illegal under state law (but legal under the Constitution) can still be used against a suspect at trial.
During arguments, Ginsburg spoke for several colleagues when she pointed out that if a summons had been issued in Moore’s case, any incriminating evidence would have been excluded. “Would you explain the logic to saying that when the police violate state law, then the evidence can come in, but when they comply with state law, it can’t,” she asked.
But that didn’t stop her from voting with a unanimous majority.
Some interesting commentary from Orin Kerr on the case here.
Tell me if I’m understanding their reasoning correctly. According to the decision … quote ” Of course such a claim would not have been available against state officers, since the Fourth Amendment was a restriction only upon federal power, see Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833). But early Congresses tied the arrest authority of federal officers to state laws of arrest. See United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 589 (1948); United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, 420 (1976).” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-1082
The 4th only applies to the federal government and not the states. If that’s the case, then why wouldn’t it apply to the 1st and 2nd amendments? By their reasoning it seems we only have the right to freedom of speech while on federal property.
I have to be missing something obvious here since it was a 9-0 decision.
It’s all bogus when you consider that the Bill of Rights is an affirmation of your NATURAL rights. It doesn’t grant them to you and state that government should respect these rights. If it were to grant them to you, then that means you have no rights, only privileges, granted to you by The Government ™ and these can be suspended and/or revoked at any time for any reason.
With that in mind, this ruling tells police that they can illegally arrest anyone at any time, search them in the hopes of finding something illegal, and then bringing charges against you for what they find. If they don’t find anything, they will either plant something on you or will let you go. This is called a POLICE STATE, and the people that will be perpetrating these acts (you’ll hear about it more and more now that they have our mullahs deciding in their favor) are evil and should be dealt with.
You’re walking down the street? Let’s arrest you, search you, find nothing, then let you go. If we find something, then good for The State ™. Probably cause is just a mush mouth excuse, as there is no way to prove their “probably cause” unless you have video footage, and even that might not be enough to stop them because cops have the backing of a corrupt system (prosecutors/judges/superiors that investigate their own).
Enjoy your police state. What will you do to stop it? Where is the line for you that you will fight and die for?
Since CJ Berger joined the Supreme Court in the 1980’s, the Fourth Amendment has pretty much been demolished by a series of pro-police state decisions. In fact, all of your protections from the government have been undermined (remember Kelo which removed all limitations on the power of eminent domain).
Both the “Conservative” and the “Liberal” judges have surrendered to the nanny state.
Chief Justice B-U-rger took over in 1969, after Warren.
Lee: Why would I want to die to save the 4th Amendment? Be reasonable, brother.
Freedom is nice, wasnt it?
I am a constant reader and contributor but I think you should reconsider your support of the exclusionary rule. It, and rules like it (such as the blatantly unconstitutional practice known as “summary judgment”), are more of a threat to constitutionalism and popular sovereignty than police abuse. Consider what it means for the jury system that we allow the state to enforce jurors’ ignorance of material facts. It is not far from there to requiring that they believe other facts, or to move to summary judgments (and convictions, and why not executions?) in criminal cases.
You coming out against the exclusionary rule on principle would be like the ACLU coming out in support of the 2nd Amendment.
So the guy who can’t get his tenses straight gets +1, but I get voted down for not wanting to DIE for the 4th Amendment? Check that, for the principle of suppressing evidence that comes from an arrest with probable cause?
Come on…
“Consider what it means for the jury system that we allow the state to enforce jurors’ ignorance of material facts.”
That’s a floating-abstraction error, right there. That analysis starts in mid-air.
Look: the issue is what the state is allowed to do in order to gain those material facts. Because of the nature of its power, the exclusionary rule is necessary to subordinating its investigations to some kind of a peaceable civil order. You could often deliver “material facts” to a jury by bull-dozing every house on a block and sifting through the wreckage, but there are all kinds of good reasons for not tolerating that.
Lee wrote: “this ruling tells police that they can illegally arrest anyone at any time, search them in the hopes of finding something illegal, and then bringing charges against you for what they find. If they don’t find anything, they will either plant something on you or will let you go.”
This is just nonsense, and it’s evident you didn’t read the ruling, or you didn’t understand it. The ruling requires that the arrest be lawful under the Constitution, i.e., an arrest based on probable cause. That’s a far cry from arresting “anyone at any time…” And there’s certainly nothing in the ruling that protects police if they “plant something on you.”
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to worry about 4th Amendment protections (e.g., the Hudson decision). Let’s not go inventing reasons just so we can be all hardcore.
“So the guy who can’t get his tenses straight”
I know my “tenses”. I was making a point.
I read the ruling, and I find it very disturbing there is a LACK of stating what is lawful and what is not IN VERY CLEAR TERMS. I don’t care what normal case parlance is, the way things are done doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
There was no probable cause for the arrest, the guy was pulled over for a traffic infraction, and it was not an arrestable offense. I find it irrelevant to debate federal vs state arrest laws because that is agreeing with the issue of your natural rights (which can’t be suspended/revoked/violated by anyone, anywhere, at any time, regardless of what their tin badge says about their jurisdiction — federal vs state). Our current false reality may dictate that to be the setup, but true reality dictates that it’s BS.
My point about asking “what are you willing to die for” is to get people thinking about where is that line. It’s shouldn’t be a Looney Tunes cartoon where you keep erasing the line and then repeat “now don’t cross this line”. Next thing you know, you’re back into a corner and then you’re SCREWED. At some point you have to say NO, and take action because no one has the right to violate you on some phony authority.
Probable cause is questionable, because it leaves it up to the cop to be 100% honest in his statements, which as we know from this web site is not the case at times, and this is just what we know about. It would be very easy (and does happen) for a cop to search you for no good reason (as in this case), find nothing, but then plant evidence and say LOOKY WHAT I FOUND to justify on paperwork, and any potential witnesses) that the search was lawful. Bad of weed planted? “Well I smelled marijuana, that was my probable cause, and LOOKY LOOKY I found some, this proves that my Probable Cause skill should be upgraded to Level 15!”
Consider this quote:
“When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.
What constitutes a crime? Just about everything these days, and it is getting worse every day. Jaywalking is a crime, this gives cops a reason to search you?????????
Consider these quotes as well:
Applying that methodology, this Court has held that when an officer has probable cause to believe a person committed even a minor crime, the arrest is constitutionally reasonable.
The Court adheres to this approach because an arrest based on probable cause serves interests that justify seizure. Arrest ensures that a suspect appears to answer charges and does not continue a crime, and it safeguards evidence and enables officers to conduct an in-custody investigation. A State’s choice of a more restrictive search-and-seizure policy does not render less restrictive ones unreasonable, and hence unconstitutional.
EVEN MINOR CRIMES … they rule you can be arrested, and therefore a search is NOT in violation of your natural 4th Amendment right. This is a police state, let’s not beat around the bush. Screw the US Supreme Court, they’re absolutely WRONG in their statements. You can be sure that police departments across the country are aware of this, and will use this new “power” to further suppress you. Mark my words …
Cuckoo, cuckoo…
Lee has some very good points. Also remember that most cops do not know, understand the law and some do not even care about the law only their own power. Do we want them to judge probable cause?
My understanding of the case is that it basically follows the reasoning of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. That is, if the police believed that the arrest or search was lawful at the time, the exclusion doesn’t apply.
Now, I’m not saying that I agree with the exception; however, it has been established case law for what, 40 years? Reaffirmed over and over again. However, I think the good faith exception is what made the drug war possible in the first place, and the drug war could be ended by overturning the exception. But it is established case law, regardless.
Not an excuse, but Ginsburg, for all the bad rap she gets(unfairly, IMO–I think she’s one of the most consistent and rigorous legal minds on the court, and one of the few justices who has consistently voted to roll back the excesses of the drug war), is the last person who’d be upholding searches such as this, unless she felt she was bound by precedent. My understanding of her concurrence is that she felt she was, given all the case law on the good faith exception.
I haven’t had time to read this decision yet, but does anyone know what’s different than De Ri? I haven’t read De Ri in a long while, but I remember the essential question being about the feds involvement, and once that was answered, there was little analysis on excluding evidence incident to an unlawful arrest. I have to be missing something here.
There’s some rights I’m willing to die for, but driving on a suspended liscense with 4.5 balls of crack isn’t one of them.
alex, you seem to view it as just a crack dealer getting what he deserves but the precedence this ruling sets is very disturbing. It allows the state to argue, and cite precedence, that any illegal and unreasonable arrest that happens to turn up something illegal is somehow justified. So basically a cop can arrest you for nothing, and search your person without any probable cause.
Greg N,
Lee is right. Until you’ve seen the police plant evidence to get probable cause yourself, (or had it done to you.) you won’t understand how infuriating this decision is. You don’t believe the police would do the wrong thing, do you?
Ignorance is bliss. Perhaps I will meet with Balco and show you specifically how police will plant evidence to destroy the innocent.
What if you discover you’re wrong Greg? Will you fight then? It will be too late, you’ll just be another fellon screaming “I’m innocent” No one will listen to you. And fools like you will tell you the police don’t set people up.
It’s so odd that you can’t see what’s coming.
Thank you #18, the point is the precedent that this sets, the message it sends to “law enforcement”. This is the US Supreme Court that ruled on this, the highest court in the country. For those that get down on bended knee before these Almightys, this is The Right Answer.
[quote]#16: My understanding of the case is that it basically follows the reasoning of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. That is, if the police believed that the arrest or search was lawful at the time, the exclusion doesn’t apply.[/quote]
Every officer will always say they believed their arrest and/or search was lawful. They will always says they believed they were in danger, so that had to kill the person. They will say whatever to cover their ass, no matter how ludicrous their statements. Does this make it accurate or morally right? The answer is obvious. There’s too many stories and investigation on this web site alone to paint a picture of “cops are right and just, trust what they say”. You would like to be believed at face value, but you and I, as members of the Citizen Nothing class, are liars/thieves/deceivers and must be scrutinized on every syllable (every word isn’t good enough).
Billy Beck-
Double check your Ayn Rand glossary but I don’t know what could be less abstract or “floating” (whatever that means) than the idea that if a cop finds a murder weapon in an illegal search, it is more important to punish him than it is to let the murderer go free. You raise a fascinating and deep epistemological question as to whether the person who was murdered and buried is actually dead and underground until the point when the “fact” of the culprit is illegally discerned by the state — I believe the technical term for your point is “if a tree falls and no one hears it, did it actually fall?”
All I am saying is that the state should not be in the business of telling people what they may and may not know, especially when they are exercising their power to jail or kill their peers. It is inconsistent to believe in both jury nullification and the exclusionary rule for that reason. Also, a state that has the power to suppress evidence of murder is a state that has the power to commit murder. I don’t mind drug dealers getting a break at trial, but I don’t think it is worth sacrificing the principle of an informed an independent jury.
ceanf, it’s a bad ruling, but it doesn’t let police search you for nothing. There has to a be a crime. Moore committed a misdemeanor by driving with a suspended license.
That doesn’t excuse violating VA protocol by arresting and searching him, but it does mean there are relatively few situations in which this ruling will expand police power beyond it’s already epic proportions. Misdemeanor arrestees have been getting their cars searched since NY v. Belton in 1981.
I’m not defending this, but the fears of it prompting a flurry of arrests and subsequent searches that wouldn’t otherwise have happened is way overblown.
I defended this decision on the corresponding Reason post, so I will briefly do that here as well.
The decision basically says that if the arrest is constitutionally permissible under the 4th amendment, even if the arrest would be unlawful under state law, then a search incident to that arrest is consistent with the 4th amendment as well.
This does not mean that every arrest is constitutional, or that every search incident to any arrest is constitutional. A constitutional arrest must still be supported by probable cause, and searches incident to arrest must be supported by a constitutional arrest.
The defendant here committed a misdemeanor offense in the presence of law enforcement. That means that the arrest is constitutionally supported, as far as the US Constitution goes. Even if under state law the police did not have authority for the arrest.
The decision in this case would apply only to a very small subset of all arrests, namely, those that are unlawful under state law but constitutionally permissible under the federal constitution. Most arrests are either both constitutional/lawful or unconstitutional/unlawful, and very few fall into a mixed bag.
The US Supreme Court is not in the business of determining state law, nor is it to interpret constitutional law based on the decisions of state legislatures. That is what the Court would have been doing if it ruled other than it did. The Court actually restrained itself here and, in applying the principles of federalism, did not overreach its authority.
On aside, the planting of ‘false’ evidence subsequent to any arrest (whether constitution or not, or lawful or not) is a serious violation of rights and should result in a felony prosecution for any officer who does such. But this decision in no way supports such illegal conduct.
That being said, the arresting officer should be criminally charged with kidnapping or some other appropriate charge, should be fired, and should be found civilly liable to the defendant for unlawful arrest.
Please note, I am a criminal defense attorney, and I oppose the drug war at all levels. I would have preferred that the man, and any person charged with drug possession, to go free. But lets save our rage for actual injustices, and not for every perceived injustice based on improper reading of court decisions.
Imagine that the Supreme Court had ruled the other way. Hell, imagine the ruling had been, “no search, seizure, or arrest may ever be made unless the police see in plain view evidence of illegal drug activity.”
I’m sure such a decision would make us all happy. But even that wouldn’t protect citizens against cops planting evidence. If that’s your fear, no Supreme Court decision, whether expansive of 4th Amendment Rights or restrictive of remedies for violations of them, is going to mean much.
David,
Of course the police set people up, and of course some of them plant evidence, and of course there’s the problem of “testilying,” and the “blue wall of silence,” and all the other systemic problems that have been pointed out for decades in law reviews and, eventually, here and many other blogs. One doesn’t have to be a victim of police abuse to be against it. I’ve never been, and I am.
But none of that is at all relevant to this decision. I’m not sure which way I’d have voted (it seems like it turns on how one interprets Di Re, and based only on the opinions and a cursory reading of the briefs, Ginsburg seems closest on that (but, as Balco (sic) points out, even she voted with the majority).
This decision doesn’t change the standard for lawful arrest under the Constitution, which has been and will continue to be probable cause. It doesn’t change the standards for determining what kinds of evidence in what circumstances create probable cause for arrest. And it doesn’t shield cops who fabricate evidence to create probable cause. All it says is, where probable cause for arrest exists (and, as you may or may not be aware, some arrests are actually legitimate), then even if the arrest violates state law, the exclusionary rule is not an appropriate remedy.
So cool your jets, Dave. You won’t be sent to the gulag anytime soon…
Thanks Ogre
Greg:
Yes, this case still says that probable cause for an arrest is the only constitutional barrier to it. However, at this point “probable cause” is remarkably toothless; for example, here a non-arrestable offense is probable cause for an arrest. It’s almost completely left up to the judgment of the officer, even if that judgment is in direct violation of state law.
Furthermore, there’s the issue of punishment for illegal arrests and searches. Bluntly, cops are not punished, and while it’s nice to “But that’s an issue for police reform and individual lawsuits!” it’s not going to happen; the systemic problems are deep and intertwined. The exclusionary rule and similar fruit-of-the-poisonous tree standards are necessary because none of the other checks on behavior are remotely effective, leaving the public without the rights they’re supposed to protect as there are no remedies.
Hey, Stretch.
I tend to agree that “probable cause” is increasingly toothless, and that relying on the snap-judgment of an officer is probably not the best way to avoid the abuse of arbitrary power. But that’s outside the scope of this decision. This decision merely says that probable cause–using whatever standard one uses to establish that level of suspicion, is enough to justify an arrest under the Constitution, and that therefore the search is legitimate incident to a lawful arrest. The exclusionary rule–used to punish 4th Amendment violations (which did not occur in this case)–therefore, doesn’t apply.
One can think the exclusionary rule is indispensable, and should be used in every instance of a 4th Amendment violation, and still come down the other way on this case (because there was no 4th Amendment violation).
“I don’t know what could be less abstract or ‘floating’ (whatever that means) than the idea that if a cop finds a murder weapon in an illegal search, it is more important to punish him than it is to let the murderer go free.”
To begin with: if you don’t know what it means, then you can bloody stop trying to coach me about it. I know what I’m talking about and I see you.
Why don’t you just come straight out for bull-dozing the whole block and have done with it?
I hate cops just as much as all of you guys, but I think almost everyone is missing the point here.
Greg hits it on the head. This is not the case to be complaining about officers fabricating evidence and lying, or complainging about the fact that it is the sole discretion of the officer at the time as to what constitutes probably cause. That has been reality for a long time and it is the only workable model, other than the times where warrants are practicable (like removing someone from their home or searching a residence). You can’t have an officer witness what they believe is a crime and then have to get a warrant while the suspect drives off.
Cops are the biggest liars in the world. They lie as a force of habit, they are trained and rewarded for lying, and they rationalize thier own lies in their own minds. It’s terrible and scary. But, you will never be able to liar-proof the system. The solution to that problem is people like Mr. Balko here, exposes the systemic problems and seeking political remedis, and good defense attorneys who can expose cops as liars when they go to testify.
This case has nothing to do with that. The SC an’t just order that everyone stop lying or throw out every shred of polcie testimony because we all know they are huge lying liars.
The Simple fact is the Supreme Court has not lowered the protections provided by the 4th Amendment. States can provide more protections for individual liberty and the fed Constitution provides a baseline. The state obviously tried to provide enhanced protection by making this crime not arresatable, but then failed to enforce those protections when it came to exlcuding evidence for what was an unlawful arrest. It’s the state courts that screwed up here. The Supreme Court can only make the states enforce the federal laws.
And Tokin42, the Bill of rights applies to the states via the 14th Amendment which gives everyone “Equal Protection” under the laws. This concept is known as incorporation, and it applies to all of the pieces fo the Bill of Rights except for some very specific things, and generally the 2nd Amendment. But all it means is that states have to provide at least that level of freedom and rights, which the state did here.
Timon,
“It is inconsistent to believe in both jury nullification and the exclusionary rule for that reason.”
Welcome to libertarian thought: the rules (should) apply very differently for private citizens than they do to the government, it’s not the least bit inconsistent. Why don’t you argue that the standard in a criminal trial should be “a preponderance of evidence” (51%) rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” since you apparently think both sides should have a completely level playing field. Since that is apparently what you think, let me throw out my obligatory: “Please go start your own country!”
“Also, a state that has the power to suppress evidence of murder is a state that has the power to commit murder.”
Consider my mind blown!
Nick T: “The state obviously tried to provide enhanced protection by making this crime not arresatable, but then failed to enforce those protections when it came to exlcuding evidence for what was an unlawful arrest. It’s the state courts that screwed up here. The Supreme Court can only make the states enforce the federal laws.”
It’s my understanding that this decision overturned the Virginia Supreme Court who decided based on the 4th Amendment instead of their state constitution. If I’m wrong, let me know.
Billy Beck: “Because of the nature of its power, the exclusionary rule is necessary to subordinating its investigations to some kind of a peaceable civil order.”
Are the grammatical errors and made-up phrases there to distract from the circular logic?
On the exclusionary rule, do you all support it (or not) as a last-line defense against overbearing police, etc. or as a first principle that would be just as valid in a perfect world?
Alex,
If you are right then I am mistaken. However, the point is that the Virginia courts should have effectuated the enhanced protections offered under *state law* by finding the search unreasonable under that authority. Though I don’t know for sure, I feel safe assuming that Virginia has its own bill of rights which includes some language about unreasonable searches. So that court still screwed up. Had they found the search illegal under state law, the SC would be completely powerless to overrule that decision.
As for your final question, it seems rather naive. Are you saying that if we lived in a world where reached a national consensus that cops were tremendously honest people, we could simply do away with our rules meant to prevent police abuses? Obviously the exclusionary rule exists because, like many laws in America, of the possibility (however strong or weak) that government figures will (or will be tempted to) abuse their power. Besides, what would be the harm in having the exclusionary rule in a “perfect world” since without polcie abuses it would never be implicated in the first place?
Billy,
I am not trying to coach you about your floating and sinking metaphors, I was making a point about the sophistry and inanity of using obscure pseudo-philosophical terms when more precise and meaningful language is available. Also, you didn’t respond to the question, which is whether murderers should get impunity and amnesty if they are mistreated by police.
Nick T,
I agree with so much of what you say, I think maybe the most important bit is that we can presume cops will fit their searches after the fact to what they know to be allowable under evidence rules. So the exclusionary rule is not very useful in practice at stopping illegal searches. It is a little depressing that because it occasionally yields a good result (acquittal for drug non-crimes), we don’t mind that it undermines centuries of common law and common sense. (And BTW, tortured 60’s and 70’s Supreme Court rulings are not the same thing as “The Constitution”.) RE your blown mind, consider this argument about summary judgment. I think it is dangerous to erode the traditional check on state power (ie, having all serious criminal and civil disputes resolved by the people themselves) by allowing the state to tell the people what they may and may not know. We have already gotten rid of juries in a lot of civil matters, there is nothing to say that if we are left with a rump of a jury system in criminal matters it won’t go away there too. My point is we may be better off sticking to a principle that has some short term consequences we don’t like than sacrificing something important in order to force cops to lie even more on their police reports (”The tires were bald, your honor.”)
Alex: “Are the grammatical errors and made-up phrases there to distract from the circular logic?”
Look, you: I’ll cop to the grammatically-induced confusion. The word “its” in my second sentence of that paragraph refers to the state, which premise is laid down in the first sentence. I can see your complaint, but you’d do better to ask about it. As for the “made-up phrases” bit: it’s plain bloody English. Everybody who writes in it “makes up phrases”, and if you don’t know that, then this discussion is over because you’re fucking stupid. I don’t believe that, though. I think you have a different problem.
“On the exclusionary rule, do you all support it (or not) as a last-line defense against overbearing police, etc. or as a first principle that would be just as valid in a perfect world?”
Neither. That’s your dichotomy, and you can have it.
Timon: “I am not trying to coach you about your floating and sinking metaphors, I was making a point about the sophistry and inanity of using obscure pseudo-philosophical terms when more precise and meaningful language is available.”
There is no more precise way of addressing what I did. If you can’t hang, then go sit your ass on the porch.
“Also, you didn’t respond to the question, which is whether murderers should get impunity and amnesty if they are mistreated by police.”
I most certainly did. I offered you a suggestion formed as an interrogative.
I’d rather cops be encouraged to lie than to be able to search any home for any reason with complete impugnity. When you go to sleep tonight in (what I will assume is) complete peace of mind over whether the police are about to kick in your door, you should stop and thank the exclusionary rule. Of course it still happens, but without that rule the 4th Amendment has abolsutely no teeth whatsoever.
Your argument that it sometimes yields an unjust result, while based on an obvious truth, would also apply equally as well to any of the following concepts: the prosecution having the burden of proof, standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimous vote required of juries, the rules of evidence, the confrontation clause, the right to an effective attorney.
Yes, all of these rules mean sometimes people who are guilty will go free. We’ve made a choice as a country to err on the side of keeping people out of jail in the interest of individual liberty and a non-oppressive government. Deal with it.
This is ridiculously childish (”Deal with it”, “Go sit your ass on the porch”, “You’re fucking stupid.”) There is enough aggravation and stupidity in the world as it is, I will try not to encourage further effusions from either of you.
The US Supreme Court’s decision emboldens the police to be even more reckless, dishonest, and destructive towards the populace to achieve their own ends. There is already so much lying and deceit by police. Why does Radley have an infinite supply of material (he’s only touching the tip of the iceberg)? Because there’s already a lot of chest huffing, ass covering, and evil from cops->prosecutors->judges. Their behavior is based on current decisions and a corrupt system, this will make it worse.
Give an inch, take a foot or three …
Timon, you’re the one who is not dealing with the essential principles of your position, which is nothing more or less than “the end justifies the means”.
You wanna complain about un-answered questions? Tell all the nice ‘netters whether you would knock down every house on a suspect block, and why.
“Childish”? Just get off it.
Timon,
Your accusations of childishness are a rather transparent deflection of the substance of what we’ve said. Why is the exlusionary rule any more problematic under your reasoning than other rules that protect the accused?
How does the exlusionary rule keep information from the jury more than the confrontation clause? Are you opposed to the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases? Do you think those acused of a crime have no right to confront their accuser in open court and to cross-examine them?
To answer your quesiton about a murderer getting off because he was mistreated by the police, my answer is yes. And I will aks you, should a murderer get off simply becuase the prosecution can’t meet its burden of proof?
Nick,
Sorry to have lumped you in with Billy Beck. If I haven’t addressed the substance of your argument it is because I don’t find there to be any substance. If the burden of proof is not met, it should be because there is no evidence, not because of a state conspiracy to ignore or suppress evidence. Or if the state gets to decide what is and isn’t evidence, why shouldn’t they go all the way and decide innocence and guilt? As for the strong, good argument for the exclusionary rule, that it discourages police abuse, I don’t find that it works nearly well enough, or could ever be a substitute for actually punishing the perpetrators of that abuse, which you seem to agree with @30.
Billy Beck,
I loved your points about “Go sit your ass on the porch”, and “You’re fucking stupid.” I am tempted to quote you to yourself, but that would be… childish.
“I loved your points about ‘Go sit your ass on the porch’, and ‘You’re fucking stupid’.”
Oh, yeah? Well, they went right over your head. You missed the conditioners, but you’re validating why I wrote them.
I’m sorry, you also used a brilliant conditioner, that clearly went over my head: “If you can’t hang, then go sit your ass on the porch.”
Same barrel, more fish, again quoting Mr Beck: “If you don’t know that, then this discussion is over because you’re fucking stupid.”
The condition being, if it is not too far over my head, that if your interlocutor doesn’t know something, then the condition is met, and the discussion is over, on the grounds that he is [very] stupid.
That’s right.
You go to the head of the class.
Timon, what you’ve done is you’ve changed the obvious substance of my points to fit in with your inability to respond to them.
“If the burden of proof is not met, it should be because there is no evidence.” That staement is ridiculous on its face. Either you are in favor of a standard of proof in criminal cases of “More than no evidence” or you are foolish enough to think that there is no such thing as a case where there IS evidence and yet it likely does not satisfy the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Frankly this is frustrating.
Allow me to make this even more clear: Do you oppose the incredibly high standard of proof now used in criminal cases, which is roughly 90% likelihood of guilt, given that it will allow people who might be proven to be at a, say, 65% probablity of guilt to go free?
Also, the confrotnation clause will clearly keep information from a jury in some cases. You did not respond to this. Simple question: are you in favor of the confrontation clause? If so then, why is that rule different than the exclusionary rule under your arguments?
Oh and the problem with “punishing” police who violate arguably your 3rd most fundamental right is that THAT will never work to an effective level either, and it’s unfair to put police ina position where the only thing stopping them from solving a crime is fear for their own career or money.
I imagine that convicts sitting in jail would have very little success convincing a jury that the heroic police officer who put them behind bars owes him money for violating his rights. And if he could convince them of that, I imagine there would be collections taken up to cover the officer’s legal fees and damages.
The exclusionary rule does work actually. Officers certainly lie, but they do also try to follow the rules a lot fo the time, and evidence is thrown out of criminal cases quite regularly. You’re ill-informed if you think the rule has no effect, just because some people endeavor (with success) to get around or undermine it.
Even with only 65% or less probablilty of guilt, juries seem to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of the 15 year old I’ve been involved in, the jury found him guilty of capital murder, having a depraved heart, even though he performed CPR on the victim, frantically screaming for help, cradling him in his arms and trying in vain to save his life. The victim’s blood was in his mouth and in his hair when he died. Do depraved murderers frantically try to save their victims? The only testimony presented that it was murder was from a 15 year old runaway, abused girl under threat of indictment who admitted on the stand she was lying and just wanted to go home. No evidence was tested. No medical records of the victim’s mental illness was presented, their was no defense presented for the child. No one was called to back up the boys story. Even though the widow wanted to testify. Dr. Hayne was the expert (granted that was before he had been discredited). Civil rights of the child were violated under the Youth Court Act which were brought out at trial. I can’t even think of all the doubt that would make a halfway intelligent person wonder. I think one of the huge things for me would have been the boy trying in vain to save the victim. Do murderers usually stop to do that? The jury was loaded with relatives and family members of law enforcement, including the wife of the top police officer in closest town to the defendant. I’m not sure juries know what reasonable doubt is sometimes, and in this case I’m not even sure they came close. It’s a little frightening.
the jury didn’t need much of anything to take this boy’s life, in a matter of a couple of hours.
the boys actions were much more consistent with self defense (his claim) than murder. If you killed someone who thought was trying to kill you or you felt your life was in danger, and you loved that person, you would try to save their life. That is what really happened but for some reason the jury chose to believe the unbelievable.