|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 | ||||||||||
nums Veteran user I have a life, or I would have more than 366 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-25 01:54, MagicSanta wrote: I am not saying the cop did anything wrong, if he had he should be up on charges as well, however the clerical error was made and the cleark being part of the government, made a mistake that violated the mans rights and the search, IMHO should have never occured. NUMS |
|||||||||
Manny Williams New user a measly 17 Posts |
This would include the writings of the Constitution as well as the writinges.
(Gosh it's hard to convey the humor I intend in some of my post.) Is this duck dead yet? |
|||||||||
Ken Northridge Inner circle Atlantic City, NJ 2392 Posts |
Try one of these:
"Love is the real magic." -Doug Henning
www.KenNorthridge.com |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I agree you should have a lawyer do your talking no matter what.
I'm rested, there is snow in the air, I've a yorkie sleeping on my tummy, I'm mellow. The courts determined the 4th was designed to protect people from illegal and unethical treatment by the police. A cop steps over the line and the punishment is they lose the chance to have evidence used in court. The idea being it will force police to behave and all that. In this case the police did nothing illigal or unethical and followed the letter of the law so they were not violating the individuals rights. An administration error that was innocent in nature did not cross the line and that is why the evidence was used. The culprit was a known criminal and what they got him for was just more of his merry lifestyle. Since a few courts already tossed out the argument about dropping the evidence, no attempt was made to cover up the warrant problem, it says something about the court willing to look at it. I am all for the police being required to get warrants and all that good stuff but this is just not a case where an argument can really be made against the police. It was a great effort by the lawyers though, I just wonder how long the culprit got for this. |
|||||||||
Manny Williams New user a measly 17 Posts |
AMEN.
|
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-25 14:09, MagicSanta wrote: From wikipedia, about the culprit's case: "Pre-trial, Herring attempted to invoke the exclusionary rule to have the drug evidence suppressed, claiming that the arrest was unlawful, a move that was denied by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.[2][3] Following a conviction on one felony count of drug possession, Herring was then indicted, tried and convicted of weapons possession while in possession of illegal drugs. The resulting sentence was 27 months in federal prison.[2]"
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
You know, I never would have thought about that wikipedia. Hell, he is likely out now, someone go ask him to add to this thread.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-25 00:53, Manny Williams wrote: That's a nice citation and summary of the exclusionary rule, and it actually provides the basis for the decision in question. Notice the phrase "Designed to deter police misconduct." The crux of this decision was that there is no deterrent value to invoking the exclusionary rule in a case like this, because the officers performing the search (from whose perspective "reasonableness" is a no-brainer) did nothing wrong. Excluding evidence in a situation such as this will not have an effective deterrent value. It's also worth re-emphasizing that the search requirements are NOT designed with the sole (or even primary) beneficiary being the guy who goes to prison based on evidence found illegally. Again, note that the design of the rule is to prevent police misconduct - i.e. to prevent unreassonable searches of all of us, innocent or guilty. When the exclusionary rule is operative, the guy with contraband derives an even bigger benefit from it than innocent people subject to illegal searches, but that's not the purpose of it. If the exclusionary rule pertained to this particular search, it wouldn't be to protect this guy; it would be to protect FUTURE potential searchees/detainees. To exclude or not to exclude is a question of deterrence of future activity for the police officers in question; since they did nothing wrong, and wouldn't be deterred by a contrary decision, the exclusionary rule wasn't applied. The exclusionary rule certainly might be expanded by a future court as a philosophical question, but that's a separate issue.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » I am prepared to be called paranoid (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |