Well thats kinda the problem now isn't it.srothstein wrote:You, I, and the courts may disagree on what is unreasonable
Search found 3 matches
Return to “SC Rules 5-4 Illegaly obtained evidence OK”
- Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:02 am
- Forum: Federal
- Topic: SC Rules 5-4 Illegaly obtained evidence OK
- Replies: 8
- Views: 2409
Re: SC Rules 5-4 Illegaly obtained evidence OK
- Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:07 pm
- Forum: Federal
- Topic: SC Rules 5-4 Illegaly obtained evidence OK
- Replies: 8
- Views: 2409
Re: SC Rules 5-4 Illegaly obtained evidence OK
No disrespect, but you totally missed the point. If a cop kicks in my door and drops a bag of narcotics in my bedroom because they need more convictions or they think I am a threat or just plain don't like me, while they detain me, then the court ruled that admitting such evidence was perfectly fine. Of course, its my word versus the shield....I lose. Mapp vs. Ohio? Perfectly good example.XtremeDuty.45 wrote:If you dont do anything illegal you have nothing to worry about.
So then I guess Austin PD drawing blood from suspected DWIs is okay? Its called checks and balances, and now there is no balance.
- Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:31 pm
- Forum: Federal
- Topic: SC Rules 5-4 Illegaly obtained evidence OK
- Replies: 8
- Views: 2409
SC Rules 5-4 Illegaly obtained evidence OK
Things went from bad to worse....
(Newser) – The Supreme Court today ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is admissible in court, Bloomberg reports, in a 5-4 vote along ideological lines. The court ruled that prosecutors could try an Alabama man who was found to be carrying methamphetamine and a pistol when he was accidentally arrested in 2004 due to a clerical error.
“In such a case, the criminal should not go free because the constable has blundered,” wrote John Roberts for the majority. In the past, the court upheld up the “exclusionary rule,” barring illegally obtained evidence, but that rule has been curtailed recently. In dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the exclusionary rule was the only effective way to prevent negligent police from threatening individual freedom.