SC Rules 5-4 Illegaly obtained evidence OK

[kalipsocs]

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.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

If you dont do anything illegal you have nothing to worry about.

[bdickens]

On the contrary, my dear friend.

[kalipsocs]

If you dont do anything illegal you have nothing to worry about.

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.

So then I guess Austin PD drawing blood from suspected DWIs is okay? Its called checks and balances, and now there is no balance.

[srothstein]

Actually, this is a long standing policy of the SCOTUS. It is the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Basically if the cop making the arrest had a valid reason to believe he was operating in accordance with the law, and he is operating on this belief in good faith that what he does is legal, then the exclusionary rule does not apply. The logic is that this type of incident would not be deterred by the exclusionary rule.

So, a cop planting evidence would always be forbidden as there would be no good faith belief it was legal. In the case the SCOTUS just ruled on, the cop made the arrest based on the neighboring county saying there was a warrant for the arrest. The county computers were wrong and the warrant had been recalled. The cop made the arrest and on scene search. When he went to book the suspect, he had asked for the paper copy of the warrant and that is when the error was found.

As for the no refusal policy of APD, I disagree with it but it is legal. It has always been legal to get a search warrant for evidence of a crime, even in the body. This has been done before for blood samples, DNA swabs, fingerprint examples, writing samples, speech samples, and many other types of evidence of this nature. So, the no refusal seems to violate the spirit of the implied consent laws, but it is legal.

I expect to see it disappear in a couple years. There is a great defense to DWI coming based on it and I know a couple lawyers who would love to take the appeal. If the courts rule the way I think they should (probably won't because of the society pressure on DWI), look for no refusals to go away. I don't want to get into details on the defense, but it has to do with evidence obtained under duress. It is one of those unintended consequences of things not thought through fully.

[Liko81]

Actually, this is a long standing policy of the SCOTUS. It is the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Basically if the cop making the arrest had a valid reason to believe he was operating in accordance with the law, and he is operating on this belief in good faith that what he does is legal, then the exclusionary rule does not apply. The logic is that this type of incident would not be deterred by the exclusionary rule.

+1000. However, I'd like to ask a related question. When obtaining a search warrant, the officer is required to specify what it is he is looking for. Drugs, guns, kiddie porn, bloodstained clothes, whatever. It cannot be a fishing expedition; what is admissible in court if found is limited to that search warrant; if you look for drugs and find kiddie porn, it's inadmissible. My question is whether that also applies to a post-arrest search, because it does not seem to. If you arrest someone for murder, then while they're cuffed and being led out the officers also find drugs in the apartment, such a discovery seems to be admissible, plain sight or otherwise. Anyone with more knowledge on this matter care to comment?

[Originalist]

+1000. However, I'd like to ask a related question. When obtaining a search warrant, the officer is required to specify what it is he is looking for. Drugs, guns, kiddie porn, bloodstained clothes, whatever. It cannot be a fishing expedition; what is admissible in court if found is limited to that search warrant; if you look for drugs and find kiddie porn, it's inadmissible. My question is whether that also applies to a post-arrest search, because it does not seem to. If you arrest someone for murder, then while they're cuffed and being led out the officers also find drugs in the apartment, such a discovery seems to be admissible, plain sight or otherwise. Anyone with more knowledge on this matter care to comment?

I believe that is not completely correct. If I obtain a search warrant to look in your apartment for a stolen desktop computer, as long as I look in places a computer could be hidden or stored any thing I find in relation to a lawful search is admissible. If I look in a kitchen drawer and find a stolen gun, that is a different story because you can not store a desktop in a kitchen drawer. Almost like "plain sight" sort of rules. Now if they found a stolen gun in the closet while they were looking (because you can store a desktop there), now they have the PC for an additional SW looking for other stolen firearms.

[srothstein]

AFCop has the correct answer. If I am legally in a place I can be, anything I find can be used. This is the basis for the plain sight exception to the warrant, and it also applies to how warrants work. If I am searching according to a warrant, I can search places that the specified item could be in. If I am there legally and find something else, I can use it.

So, if I am searching for drugs, I can open some pretty small containers and anything I find is usable. If I am searching for a stolen 60 inch LCD Television, I cannot legally open a desk drawer. If I do, anything I find there is excluded. I cannot even use it for a later search warrant since I was not legally in the drawer.

On a search incident to an arrest, the courts have said I am searching for three things. First is anything that could hurt me. Second is any evidence of the crime (or other related crimes). Third is anything that is valuable or disruptive to security of the jail. The basic logic of the search is that the person was going to be searched at the jail anyway, so I can do it in the street to increase my safety. One of the other exceptions to the exclusionary rule is called inevitable discovery. If I do something wrong, but we would have found the evidence anyway, I can still use it. So, the evidence would have been found at the jail anyway and I can use anything I find at the scene.

As you can see, the rules on search are really a lot more complicated than the media and police shows would have you believe. The major point to remember is that the Fourth Amendment is not absolute and only protects from "unreasonable" searches. You, I, and the courts may disagree on what is unreasonable, but the court gets the final say.

[kalipsocs]

You, I, and the courts may disagree on what is unreasonable

Well thats kinda the problem now isn't it.