Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USSC ruling creates a very interesting case law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • USSC ruling creates a very interesting case law

    Utah v Strieff has resulted in a ruling that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

    The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding parking warrant for Strieff. Strieff had meth on his person & vehicle, which was discovered in a search incidental to arrest.

    This is a radical development. Here is the entire ruling:


    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-1373_83i7.pdf
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

  • #2
    Are police officers issued any penalties for acquiring evidence in an "illegal or improper" manner or is the only penalty the evidence being inadmissible?

    Because thinking emotionally, evidence is evidence and if a man does something wrong he should be punished. But thinking logically, one does not want to incentivize lawbreaking in the pursuit of law.
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

    Comment


    • #3
      The danger becomes unauthorized "fishing expeditions" looking for anything that can be used to generate some sort of charge.

      According to this, searching without a warrant would still qualify evidence as admissible, and that's one step removed from the secret police approach.

      It also violates the Constitution, so will likely be struck down.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        The danger becomes unauthorized "fishing expeditions" looking for anything that can be used to generate some sort of charge.

        According to this, searching without a warrant would still qualify evidence as admissible, and that's one step removed from the secret police approach.

        It also violates the Constitution, so will likely be struck down.
        Um.... SCOTUS just ruled it's OK. Who do you think will strike it down?
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Well now, finally a major development that has some reason for getting the militias and doomsayers into a frenzy. I expect a rise in "police state" rhetoric in the near future.

          And the funny thing is looking at how the votes broke down, with the liberal Justices opposing the decision while the ones who were conservative - you know, that ideology that pretends to oppose government authority - voted for it.

          Interesting.

          Originally posted by Fox News
          Justice Clarence Thomas said for the court that the officer's actions were not a flagrant violation of the law. "While Officer Fackrell's decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful," Thomas wrote.

          ...

          "The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer's violation of your Fourth Amendment rights," Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

          ...

          Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate dissent in which she said the ruling "creates unfortunate incentives for the police — indeed practically invites them to do what Fackrell did here."

          The fourth member of the court's liberal wing, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined the four conservatives to form a majority on the eight-justice court.
          Fox News

          Comment


          • #6
            This decision is the perfect example of why you shouldn't be a single issue voter. I know SC justices aren't elected but it still applies. Wanting the court to be weighted too heavily one way or the other, you still lose. You may keep your gun rights, but lose others that may, day to day, be even more important.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by johns624 View Post
              This decision is the perfect example of why you shouldn't be a single issue voter. I know SC justices aren't elected but it still applies. Wanting the court to be weighted too heavily one way or the other, you still lose. You may keep your gun rights, but lose others that may, day to day, be even more important.
              Not if that issue is to keep Hillary out of office.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                Not if that issue is to keep Hillary out of office.
                Good possibility that the GOP primary voters have already cocked that one up.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  Good possibility that the GOP primary voters have already cocked that one up.
                  I know. Both candidates are so flawed that we the people are screwed whichever way the election turns out...

                  It's a damn shame to see the demise of what was once a fine nation...
                  Credo quia absurdum.


                  Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    Utah v Strieff has resulted in a ruling that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

                    The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding parking warrant for Strieff. Strieff had meth on his person & vehicle, which was discovered in a search incidental to arrest.

                    This is a radical development. Here is the entire ruling:


                    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-1373_83i7.pdf
                    I'm just two pages into the opinion, but I'm already confused. Why is the officer's stop of the suspect assumed to be illegal if the officer was surveilling a suspected drug location and the suspect was seen exiting said location?
                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      Good possibility that the GOP primary voters have already cocked that one up.
                      And quite possibly we've seen the first step in a big GOP implosion as well. If Trump loses, be prepared for the right to spend the next four years spreading bitterness around as they point fingers and blame each other for losing as campaign against a candidate with as much baggage as Hillary.

                      Still, the funny thing is that is someone opposes this ruling, they'd actually want to see Hillary win - it was the liberal judges who dissented, after all.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                        Um.... SCOTUS just ruled it's OK. Who do you think will strike it down?
                        One of several million attorneys who will file some sort of case on behalf of a convicted client that will end up before the Court and result in a reversal.

                        The Court is not infallible, and they are constantly challenged to review their own decisions.
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                          I'm just two pages into the opinion, but I'm already confused. Why is the officer's stop of the suspect assumed to be illegal if the officer was surveilling a suspected drug location and the suspect was seen exiting said location?
                          The trial court had made the determination that the original stop was illegal. That was never overturned so the SCOTUS did not address that and we don't have the details on it in the opinion.
                          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                          “To talk of many things:
                          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                          Of cabbages—and kings—
                          And why the sea is boiling hot—
                          And whether pigs have wings.”
                          ― Lewis Carroll

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                            The trial court had made the determination that the original stop was illegal. That was never overturned so the SCOTUS did not address that and we don't have the details on it in the opinion.
                            Indeed, the original prosecutor "conceded" the stop-and-search's illegality. I'm just ignorant as to the case law behind that one. Is there a lawyer in the house who can illuminate this silly layman? From where I sit, a brief visit to a suspected drug location under police surveillance constitutes reasonable suspicion, reasonable enough to justify a stop-and-search at any rate. So what am I missing here?
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It seems as if they've just reversed the old "Fruits of a poisonous tree" tree doctrine that dates back to 1920 Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Berlin.1945
                                by casanova
                                The Sowjet T-34 tank against a German Tiger tank in Berlin in the II World War in 1945. ...
                                Yesterday, 23:41
                              • casanova
                                AW 169M
                                by casanova
                                The Austrian minister of defence Klaudia Tanner declared the buy of 18 Italian military helicopters of the type AW 169M for the Austrian army, the Bundesheer....
                                Yesterday, 23:26
                              • JBark
                                What changed?
                                by JBark
                                There was a time not too long ago when this forum was full of discussion, multiple posts, votes and involved discussions on the best of the war, etc.,...
                                Yesterday, 18:54
                              Working...
                              X