Supreme Court Guts 4th amendment

[sbr]

Cops basically have a green light to execute anyone they want, and now we expect someone to punish a cop who makes an illegal search that gives some piece of shit DA another notch in his belt? 

[The Minsky Moment]

This case reflects one of the downsides of SCt adjudication.  Thomas isn't a fan of the exclusionary rule and would be happy to get rid of it entirely.  There isn't 5 votes for that but it's possible to use close cases to salami slice it down by grabbing a justice here or there.  In this case, he somehow managed to pick off Breyer, who although is considered a "liberal" on various issues, tends to be a bit law and ordery, and is no tribune of civil liberties.

The majority's line about civil lawsuits being an effective remedy to abuse of this decision is a bit disingenuous as the Court hasn't been very friendly to those kinds of lawsuits.  It's also very clear from the decision itself that that would only be useful to remedy a coordinated dragnet of illegal stops.  But of course the bigger risk this poses is that individual officers simply won't bother with probable cause determinations in the day-to-day, secure in the knowledge that there will be no consequence either way.

[dps]

Timmay's Retarded Headline of the Day (tm) had me hoping they'd thrown out the exclusionary rule, but nooo.

Why would you hope for that?

Because it's a stupid rule.  The way to prevent illegal searches is to punish the police who conduct them, not to hid facts from a jury.

And who's supposed to punish police?  The same DAs that benefit from police cutting corners?  Given the record of a typical DA against cops who actually kill people, I would not trust them to really do anything to cops who merely cut the bullshit to get the guy everyone knows is bad.

It's not like the exclusionary rule actually stops illegal searches--it just keeps information from juries.  As a practical matter, I agree that DA's aren't going to be too inclined to go after cops who conduct illegal searches--but that's already the case right now, anyway.

[LaCroix]

It's not like the exclusionary rule actually stops illegal searches

why do you think this?

[Berkut]

Beebs objected to a prosecutor being put in jail for intentionally and maliciously putting a man he knew to be innocent in jail on false evidence.

I don't think his claim to want to "punish" police officers who do far less holds much water, and to the extent that it IS made in good faith, shows a rather decided double standard...

[The Minsky Moment]

Deterrence is not the only rationale for exclusion.  There is also the notion that deprivation of liberty based on illegally gathered evidence is contrary to due process of law.

[Admiral Yi]

Do police need probable cause to detain a person while searching for outstanding warrants?  I'm trying to understand this decision.

On another note, I'm getting the impression Sotomayor will not end up being a giant of progressive jurisprudence.

[DGuller]

It's not like the exclusionary rule actually stops illegal searches--it just keeps information from juries.  As a practical matter, I agree that DA's aren't going to be too inclined to go after cops who conduct illegal searches--but that's already the case right now, anyway.

So what it is that you're proposing?  Not excluding evidence obtained illegally, and being resigned to the fact that cops won't be punished for collecting it illegally?  Wouldn't that make constitutional protections an unenforceable piece of paper?

[Berkut]

It's not like the exclusionary rule actually stops illegal searches--it just keeps information from juries.  As a practical matter, I agree that DA's aren't going to be too inclined to go after cops who conduct illegal searches--but that's already the case right now, anyway.

So what it is that you're proposing?  Not excluding evidence obtained illegally, and being resigned to the fact that cops won't be punished for collecting it illegally?  Wouldn't that make constitutional protections an unenforceable piece of paper?

It is an interesting take on the problem.

Cops don't honor these restrictions now, and are not punished now, so we might as well remove the one downside that does exist to them violating peoples rights. Fuck it, amirite?

[Razgovory]

Maybe when they acquire evidence illegally they just get tazed a few times.  That might work as a deterrent.

[CountDeMoney]

Do police need probable cause to detain a person while searching for outstanding warrants?  I'm trying to understand this decision.

Reasonable Suspicion.  Terry v Ohio. We got a call for a robbery in this area within the last hour, and you match the description of the possible suspect, and we're going to use this time to determine that whether or not it is you, but more importantly, we're going to use that as an excuse to see what's up with you. 
Oh look what I found...an amount greater than 10 ounces of vegetative plant matter that leads this officer to reasonably believe, based on my knowledge, training and experience in X number of years in the enforcement of narcotics law, to be possible marijuana, a Schedule 1 controlled substance, blah, blah, copspeak, bad English, blah.   

Yay, score a victory on Teh War on Drugs.  All because you were an "Asian-American male in dark clothing," as described earlier.

Now?  Don't even need that. With this ruling, it's retcon suspicion. Even if it's wrong.

Utah man Edward Joseph Strieff Jr. was stopped by a police officer who was conducting surveillance on a house based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. After Strieff left the house, the officer detained him and ran his identification, finding an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation.
The officer then searched Strieff, finding methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia, and arrested him. Strieff challenged the conviction, saying the evidence came from an unlawful stop.
While the court held that the initial stop was unconstitutional, due to lack of reasonable suspicion, Justice Clarence Thomas  wrote for the majority that overturned the Utah Supreme Court and held that because the arrest warrant was valid, the evidence was admissible
Thomas portrayed the incident as the result of a couple "at most negligent" mistakes on the part of the officer, and downplayed its broader significance.
"There is no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct," he wrote. "To the contrary, all the evidence suggests that the stop was an isolated instance of negligence that occurred in connection with a bona fide investigation of a suspected drug house."

derWeiß's favorite legal mind at work.  "Yeah, it was a bad stop, but it all worked out in the end, right?"

Somebody was bitching about the Exclusionary Rule earlier? It's just a made up term, a politician's term, so young fellas like BB can wear a suit and a tie, and have a job.  This ruling directly impacts the street.  As if it wasn't easy enough to manipulate Reasonable Suspicion, don't even need to bother with that now. 

[CountDeMoney]

But of course the bigger risk this poses is that individual officers simply won't bother with probable cause determinations in the day-to-day, secure in the knowledge that there will be no consequence either way.

Luckily for us, when they ask for ID, we just have to show them this: