Adventure is worthwhile - Aesop

Well, We Should Have Searched His Car

by Hal_10000

I’m a little perturbed by this:

Reporting from Washington—The Supreme Court pulled back on the “exclusionary rule” Wednesday and ruled that evidence from an illegal search can be used if a police officer made an innocent mistake.

The 5-4 opinion signals that the court is ready to rethink this key rule in criminal law and restrict its reach. It will also give prosecutors and judges nationwide more leeway to make use of evidence that may have been seen as questionable before.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the guilty should not “go free” just because a computer error or a misunderstanding between police officers led to a wrongful arrest or search.

He said good evidence, even if obtained in a bad search, can be used against a suspect unless the police deliberately or recklessly violated his rights.

It works like this.  The cops decide to arrest your neighbor, who lives at 14 Obama Street.  They accidentally type in 12 Obama Street and raid your house, during which they find some pot.  SCOTUS has now said that they can prosecute you based on that evidence.

Many conservative are praising this for not letting criminal get off on technicalities.  I respectfully disagree.  Apart from the danger of cops and courts “accidentally” screwing up warrants, this does not meet the definition of reasonable search and seizure.  While you did something illegal, the cops had no justification—other than a clerical error—to search your property.  This essentially turns “wrong door” raids into fishing expeditions.  As long as the police are there, they might as well turn you house upside down to justify their time and expense.  If they can find so much as an old marijuana roach or an illegal copy of a video, you go to jail.

The erosion of the exclusionary rule continues apace.

Comments

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 01/15/09 at 08:47 AM from

Well, when you put it that way, it seems ridiculous. :-)

Posted by on 01/15/09 at 10:01 AM from

Anyone that thinks that police and prosecutors don’t go on fishing expeditions is very, very wrong. 

Many times when a cop pulls someone over for some minor traffic violation all they are really doing is using it as a pretext to search your car and seeing if anything turns up.  This is why they are always shining their lights in your back windows and asking to look inside your trunk.  What they have been hoping to get is a blank check to search any vehicle they want at will.  This just puts them closer to their goal.  Of course, your home will also be subject to such on-demand searches as well.

Posted by on 01/15/09 at 10:29 AM from

I wonder how the court voted on this?  What was the breakdown?

Posted by on 01/15/09 at 11:13 AM from

Posted by mikedomi39 on 01/15/09 at 10:29 AM from
I wonder how the court voted on this?  What was the breakdown?

Really?
You can’t Guess?

The usual 4 to 4 with Kennedy as the 5th.
I agree with Hal, the while it seems reasonable, it’s as reasonable or more to think that this reduces police accountability, and will be used as an excuse in the future. 
However, I was listening on Nina Tottenberg on the radio about this, and she said something interesting: That the Roberts court seems to be less interested in overturning or creating precedent, as in this case, they ruled narrowly on the case in hand, and more interested in issuing “one time only” types of decisions.  So perhaps it won’t be as construed as a free pass to knock down doors with a “sorry wrong number” attitude. 
But I still don’t like it.

Posted by HARLEY on 01/15/09 at 04:25 PM from

buy more ammo.

Posted by on 01/15/09 at 04:54 PM from

buy more ammo

I prefer to load my own, but whatever…

<< Back to main